Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

That is okay. Ms McMunn mentions that it is an offence for any person to aid and abet genocide. This comes to the core point. In that context, there is a risk if there is a case being taken in relation to the Genocide Convention and if the moneys the Central Bank has provided as investment may be found to have contributed to a breach of the Genocide Convention, thereby aiding and abetting. It seems extraordinary what we have just heard, that the prospectus does not mention the Genocide Convention. The supplementary material to the prospectus does not mention the Genocide Convention. It simply mentions that South Africa has taken a case against Israel at the ICJ and it does not mention the Genocide Convention. The Central Bank chose not to require Israel to mention the Genocide Convention. The bank has the power to request supplementary information but the choice was made not to do so and not to exercise all of the ancillary powers if the relevant supplementary information is not provided to suspend sales, advertising and so forth.

Second, the prospectus and the supplementary material to the prospectus does not mention the ICJ advisory opinion of July 2024. The prospectus was approved in September after the ICJ advisory opinion of July. We knew how significant this was because the Government was changing its policy on the occupied territories Bill on the basis of it. It was being highlighted by the Irish Government as a very significant advisory opinion. It is so clear that member states are under an obligation to take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in the maintenance of the illegal situation created by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territories. There is an active duty to prevent investment. It is extraordinary that the Central Bank did not think it was relevant for investors and that they would not have to have this information provided as a relevant risk.

I want to highlight why it is a risk and I would like the witnesses' comments on that. It is a risk in two ways. One, for investors there is the financial risk for investors because it creates a context whereby member states cannot be contributing to investment or trade with the occupied Palestinian territories. Perhaps the witnesses can confirm this. I do not believe that the prospectus differentiates between the occupied Palestinian territories in terms of revenue, trade and investment and Israel's accepted international borders. Is that the case?