Eloquent and resolute, Navanethem “Navi” Pillay, recently awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, retains at 85 the passion and determination to continue the work that has defined her life: the defense of human rights.
Born in South Africa, she grew up under the apartheid regime and became a lawyer because she wanted to know “what people’s rights are.” The Norwegian Nobel Committee highlighted her efforts to uphold international law at a time when the International Criminal Court (ICC), as well as the International Court of Justice (ICJ), face attacks from the United States and its main ally, Israel.
Pillay has worked at both institutions, but the strongest backlash from Washington and the Israeli government came after she concluded in 2025 that the administration of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is committing genocide in Gaza.
Another pivotal moment in her career came in 1998, when, as a judge at the then International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, she sat on the bench that ruled that rape and systematic sexual violence constituted an integral component of the crime of genocide.
With her schedule packed with trips and engagements since receiving the prize, she speaks to EL PAÍS by video call and admits that “it’s just sinking in.”
Question. The Norwegian Nobel Committee said that “peace requires justice” when it announced that you had been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on October 9. Hours later, the United States imposed financial and trade sanctions on the ICC. What is the greatest threat to the international rule of law today?
Answer. The resort to force is clearly the greatest threat to the international rule of law. And when powerful states take up that view and then get collaboration from other powerful people and states. These are all risks when, really, the rest of the world — that is, the majority of people — want peace and they want justice as the route to achieving it. They do not want more wars and more deaths. Because civilians are the ones who lose their lives most in modern warfare and remote armed drones. States have a peremptory obligation to protect civilians and to prevent crimes such as genocide. And we have to uphold those basic principles even in civil society. NGOs take great risks in going on the street to assert that.
Q. In 2025, as chair of a U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry, you concluded that there were reasonable grounds to say that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. You came under fierce criticism from both Israel and the United States. Are you confident in the evidence your commission gathered? Why do you believe this amounts to genocide, the gravest of crimes and the one that is often considered the hardest to prove?
A. We analyzed both the Hamas attacks and Israel’s reaction, and we did it just like a court of law would. We did not put in a single piece of evidence in our report that we did not personally verify. Each department did its own investigation, and then we compiled all that together. Thanks to my previous experience in investigating genocide in Rwanda as a judge [in 100 days in 1994, between 500,000 and one million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by the Hutu government and local militias], and based on the evidence of acts against the population in Gaza, together with statements made by leaders, genocidal intent by the government can be inferred. But we named three individuals: President Isaac Herzog, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and former defense minister Yoav Gallant, as individuals who should be investigated and tried for genocide.
Q. Israel and the United States flatly reject your conclusions. Do you think the response from other democratic countries has been strong enough?
A. When we made the report, we exposed ourselves to criticism for concluding that there had been genocide in Gaza. I would change some parts of the text if it could be shown that certain things did not happen. But that is not the criticism we’re getting. We have been met with very serious and violent insults from Israel and the U.S., who call me a liar. That’s not so. The report seeks action by courts, whether national or the ICC, and it is significant that only these two countries have launched personal accusations without addressing the substance of the work. The Nobel Committee highlighted my work in respect of this conflict and this report. That vindicates our work and gives us a clear idea as to where the world is headed. We are not looking for another world war. We’re looking for an end of this conflict and for justice and accountability for these crimes to prevail.
Q. You served first as a judge and later as president of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. In 1998, the tribunal ruled that rape and systematic sexual violence can constitute genocide if intended to destroy a specific group. It was a landmark ruling, but why has it taken so long for these crimes to be treated as more than a recurring horror of war?
A. They were not treated as crimes. I looked through some U.S. military manuals from the Vietnam War, and they encouraged soldiers to take those “yellow women” as a reward for fighting well. Some people think only killings amount to the destruction of a group, so this was the first time that view changed. On the other hand, I was told that many women will not come forward to give evidence, and that is a myth. Of course, if a group of white men goes to Rwanda, as they did, to hold big meetings and asks survivors what happened, they will not publicly say they were raped. Activists and NGOs have always said witnesses must be protected, and because we had reliable testimony, we were able to deliver convictions. I want to salute the courage of survivors of sexual violence who came forward to testify.
Q. You were born in South Africa and suffered under apartheid. Did you always want to be a lawyer or a judge?
A. I did it because those of us who grew up under that regime had no rights, and as a child I felt I wanted to know what people’s rights are. In that extreme situation where laws institutionalized racism, we were not exposed to what the U.N. was doing. There is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states everyone is equal. And apartheid was declared a crime against humanity, but this kind of information did not reach the general public in South Africa until some of us, the lawyers, used the outside mechanisms of international law. We wrote letters and sent them to leaders around the world, from then-prime minister Indira Gandhi of India to the French intellectual Simone de Beauvoir. The lawful struggle of civil society is a hard road, but it is the road that was chosen.
Q. On December 10, you will receive the Nobel Peace Prize in Oslo. Have you thought about what you will say in your acceptance speech?
A. We are witnessing an attack on the rule of law and going through precarious times where poor countries are being demonized by rich countries. I will speak about my life’s work and the way we approach these matters. I want to say that, right now, Spain is one of my favorite countries. I have great admiration for the King [Felipe VI], whom I have described as a human rights champion. And I respect that the prime minister [Pedro Sánchez] has taken a principled position on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I also salute Spain for its consistent efforts to support the abolition of the death penalty.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition