On Jan. 12, following two days of debate over a case brought by South Africa’s representatives in the United Nations’ International Court of Justice, a hearing concluded the debate over Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and their military campaign in Gaza.

A country known for longtime criticisms of Israel, South Africa called for the Court of Justice to order Israel to stop the war, claiming their military campaign in Gaza has violated the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide — an agreement reached in the wake of World War II and the Holocaust.

The filing calls for Israel to “immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza,” on grounds that they have breached their obligations under the Genocide Convention. The 84-page filing reads that Israel’s actions “are genocidal in character because they are intended to bring about the destruction of a substantial part” of the Palestinians in the region.

The set of legally binding rules proposed to the ICJ include orders for Israel to stop all hostilities, offer reparations and fund reconstruction for all damages in Gaza. In response, Israel has denounced all claims of genocidal intent. Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has promised to continue the campaign until Hamas is defeated and the more than 100 hostages currently held by the terrorist group are returned to their families.

South Africa’s provisional measures — set by ICJ legal precedent, will, if approved, remain in place as the case advances but are not always followed. For example, when Ukraine filed a genocide case against Russia, calling for Moscow to halt all invasions, the order was largely ignored. This comes as a result of the ICJ lacking a police force to implement its rulings; instead, if a country feels another has not followed an ICJ ruling, it can report this to the UN Security Council.

With tensions rising over refusals for a ceasefire and disagreements over solutions between Israel and Palestine, a ruling over the situation could take years. However, in the coming weeks, a decision is expected of the court’s judges regarding whether to grant South Africa its request for these provisional measures.