The winner of the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize, South African judge Navanethem "Navi" Pillay, tells RFI why she stands by the conclusion that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, and why the world has a responsibility to act.

Pillay, who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday, began her career defending anti-apartheid activists in South Africa before going on to head the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, a watershed moment in the fight for accountability for genocide.

Having also held positions at the United Nations, the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, she is a forceful advocate for the power and responsibility of international institutions to deliver justice – at a time when they have come under frequent attack from political leaders.

Pillay chaired the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, which last year concluded that genocide was occurring in Gaza. That finding has made her a controversial figure in Israel, where the government has criticised the decision to award her the Nobel Prize.

Speaking to RFI, Pillay explained why she believes that conclusion is justified – and her disappointment in the international community's response.

RFI: From apartheid in South Africa to genocide in Rwanda and the war in Gaza, you have spent your life fighting impunity. Who was the first person you thought of when you learned you had won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Navi Pillay: I thought of my children, my two daughters. They were just so generous and let their mother travel the world, be away from home so long. And they were so supportive.

I really owe it to them, and some very close friends who motivated me and pushed me on to the international bench. They said to me, "if you don't accept, there won't be a woman on the bench". So that's how it all started on the Rwanda genocide tribunal.

RFI: Your being awarded the prize has drawn criticism in Israel due to your report on Gaza last year. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has accused you of fuelling "demonisation of the Jews". How do you respond to that?

NP: There is not a shred of evidence of me demonising anyone, let alone Jews, who also settled in South Africa having suffered in the Holocaust. The Jews who settled in South Africa joined the black people of South Africa in the struggle for our own liberation. So we cooperate and respect one another in South Africa. This is a myth invented by Prime Minister Netanyahu to discredit our report.

RFI: You're referring to the report published last year by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, which you chaired. The commission concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. Do you still stand by that conclusion today?

NP: I stand by it because it's not just an opinion that I'm putting out there. It's fact-based. This commission worked like a court would. It's court-like, but not a court. We don't have the power of a court, but we use the methodology. And that is, you check and verify every fact before you include it in the report.

We had the facts on the ground of the complaints of witnesses. We had the facts of statements made by those in authority – the president, prime minister and the former minister of defence, for instance. Their own statements, just like in the Rwanda genocide, were inciteful of genocide. So it's that kind of evidence.

I have experience as one of three judges on the Rwanda tribunal that delivered the world's first judgment on genocide. We do not take this crime lightly. We ensure that the special intent required for the crime of genocide is proven. That's what we look for, and that's what we found. 'Recognition brings obligation’: How declaring genocide could reshape war in Gaza RFI: Which factors led you to qualify it as genocide?

NP: I don't have the report in front of me and would really be doing it a disservice by trying to recall what we found. We found clear evidence of killing. We did our own investigation and found that a journalist was, in fact, intentionally killed. No investigation was done by Israel of some of these incidents that I'm describing, including the smashing up and burial in the sand of ambulances.

We found evidence of targeted smashing up of the only fertility clinic in Gaza, where they targeted the clinic and destroyed the oxygen tanks that kept the embryos alive. They said that they were acting in defence. They said that Hamas was hiding weapons in the hospitals. But all the footage shows us they didn't go near the hospital at all. They made no search for weapons and there were no Hamas fighters visible. This was a straight targeting and they shot at the oxygen tank. We drew conclusions from the facts that this was intentional destruction of the group [of Palestinian people] itself to make to make sure they do not procreate. RFI: How do you feel about the international community's failure to stop what's happening in Gaza?

NP: I think we trust our international institutions, mainly the UN Security Council, which has the power to use its tools to sanction. They used the tools of sanctions and boycotts to end apartheid in my country. They acted firmly there. So they are capable of taking action. But they did not, because of the strong political position and bias of the United States in protecting Israel.

I'm disappointed by the failure of the international community, who have the power in the United Nations. They have used that power in other situations. They send peacekeeping forces to protect civilians. A vast number of civilians, especially women and children, have been killed in this reaction by Israel to the Hamas attacks. Those lives could have been saved today if the United Nations had taken some of the measures it has used in other countries. That's what's disappointing.

RFI: Just hours after you were awarded the Nobel Prize, Washington announced new sanctions against the International Criminal Court, which US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has described as a "rogue court". What do you make of these attacks on international justice?

NP: I think it's unlawful, completely unacceptable. These are crimes on the part of a government that unilaterally imposes these terrible sanctions to stop the ICC from carrying out its duties of investigation and prosecution of very serious crimes.

I went to visit the court to express solidarity with those hard-working staff members, who are now completely uncertain about their rights and whether they will be protected. These are anxious times when judges are singled out and punished for the lawful rulings that they've made in a court. It's completely [unprecedented] and should be utterly condemned by all states.

RFI: With the ICC under increasing pressure, how do you see its future?

NP: The ICC has the support of all the states who are parties to the Rome Statute. Their supervising body is the Assembly of States Parties. They've already expressed abhorrence and condemnation of this attack by the United States against the court.

So that ought to tell us where they stand. They will take steps to continue to fund and advance the work of this court.

International justice 'can't be erased' despite US sanctions: ICC prosecutor RFI: Countries do not always implement the ICC's decisions. France, for example, did not execute the arrest warrant against Netanyahu even though he has flown over French airspace on several occasions. And yet France is a party to the Rome Statute.

NP: We strongly call upon states, all states, to comply with their obligations to arrest and hand over indicted suspects to the court.

It happened with the Rwanda tribunal. Countries, especially in the rest of Africa, arrested suspects, but they were also sent to us by the United States. They were also arrested and sent to us by France. That court would never have been able to bring those individuals to justice had those countries concerned not complied with the indictments issued by the Rwanda tribunal.

I would like to see – and I expect – the same level of cooperation with the ICC. Why? Because the principle of international justice, the principle of fighting impunity for serious crimes, should not be selective. We shouldn't have a separate standard for our friends and a separate standard for those we don't get on with. There is one common standard. The values must be applied equally.

RFI: Several African countries have criticised what they call a double standard in this respect.

Do they have a point? NP: They do have a point, because so often those votes were used against African countries.

They are marginalised in the Security Council. I truly agree that there has to be reform of the Security Council, not only because of the vetoes they hold and use to protect themselves and their friends, but also because in this age, with the advancement of accountability measures, we cannot have a system where the five major powers, the victorious powers emerging from the Nazi era, still continue to exercise the power of veto in the United Nations. There is a strong movement to have that changed.

But of course, there's one thing that the five permanent members agree on. They differ on everything else, but they agree on this one thing: they will not give up the veto powers that they have. RFI: What lessons could we learn from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda today?

NP: I think the world should do more for prevention of genocide. That's why we have the convention on the prevention of genocide.

You don't wait for a million people to be killed – in this case, over a hundred-day period, with handheld weapons, within the knowledge of the United Nations and their peacekeepers. This should never have been allowed to happen.

And that's what we say about the Rwanda tribunal. The lesson learned should be, as Nelson Mandela said, "never again".

Nuremberg trials: 'When you see these people in the dock, the world changes' RFI: What fight will you take up next?

NP: I want to first preface my answer by saying, I never applied for any of these jobs that I landed in the international arena. I was asked to join or I was headhunted. And once I got these positions, I realised my responsibility to deliver, because I will never let down the public and their expectations. They think you will take your job seriously, do it properly and ensure that these mechanisms function.

I was hoping to retire. It's such a temptation, especially during winter, to wake up late instead of having to go to work early. But these are small considerations in the light of the suffering of victims. It's even shameful to raise our own little personal irritations when the world needs you. So as long as I'm needed, I will continue to function in the manner that I have been doing. RFI: What will be your priority as a Nobel Peace Prize winner?

NP: I have many priorities, but I am troubled that in this day and age we have not reached the fulfilment of gender equality. We have not ended violence against women.

I support the Global Women Leaders network and their initiative to have a woman appointed as secretary-general of the United Nations. You know, it has been such a long history, almost 100 years, and we've never had a woman secretary-general. And why is that? There is no answer except gender discrimination. That would be one of the areas I would be focusing on.