President of IJC confirms that it did not decide that SA's claim of genocide was plausible.

[AloeVera]

18. I'll try to explain it differently.

The court deemed it plausible - "worthy of belief" - that Palestinians had the right to be protected. The plausibility issue refers to their status as an ethnic group, which the court made a prima facie determination on. Hence the use of "plausible".

Based on that plausible right, it ordered provisional measures meant to safeguard those rights. These measures were necessary as the court found that Palestinians' plausible right to be protected was at risk of irreperable harm. The court determined that risk to exist based on the evidence presented by SA, the UN etc.

The court further found that there was a link between those plausible rights and some of the measures SA requested. The court then ordered those provisional measures.

The court did NOT say that that plausible right applied only to SOME acts of genocide as you seem to be claiming. That would be akin to saying they had the right to be protected from being physically or mentally harmed but not from being killed.

So plausibility refers to the right of protection based on ethnicity, nationality etc not to the scope of the rights enshrined in the Convention which are full and indivisible and not selective.