Articles

Introduction

During the Assembly of States Parties (ASP) to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Global Human Rights Defence (GHRD) organised a side event titled “Preventing Genocide and a Humanitarian Catastrophe in Sudan”. The discussion brought together international legal experts and human rights practitioners to examine the scale of the crisis in Sudan and the urgent steps required from ICC States Parties and Western governments to halt atrocities and address impunity.

Opening the event, moderator Charlotte Zehrer stressed that Sudan is currently the largest humanitarian crisis on record. Of a population of around 40 million people, an estimated 30 million require humanitarian assistance, while one third of Sudanese have been displaced multiple times within or outside the country. Sudan itself continues to host more than 900,000 refugees from the region, despite the escalating violence and collapse of basic services.

Almost twenty years have passed since the situation in Darfur was referred by the UN Security Council to the ICC. Yet atrocities have continued, and the current wave of violence extends far beyond the territory covered by that original referral. Acts committed outside Darfur remain outside the ICC’s territorial jurisdiction, leaving a significant accountability gap. Panellists stressed that while an expansion of ICC jurisdiction would be instrumental, it must be accompanied by robust complementary accountability and transitional justice mechanisms.

Accountability must be Sudanese-led, with women at the centre

International human rights lawyer Sara Segneri emphasised that the crimes being committed in Sudan are deeply personal and intimate in nature, often involving individual-on-individual violence, including pervasive SGBV. She highlighted the long-term impact of SGBV and starvation on physical and mental health. She called for sustained mental health and psychosocial support for survivors and for all those engaged in documenting, prosecuting and adjudicating these crimes. 

Segneri underlined the importance of exploring all the available avenues of redress, including establishing a Sudanese-led board or coalition of lawyers, scholars and civil society organisations to coordinate accountability efforts and prevent information from becoming siloed. A hybrid tribunal could play a crucial role in facilitating the transition towards a Sudanese-only justice mechanism. At the same time, traditional courts and customary justice mechanisms in Sudan can also contribute to transitional and restorative justice, provided that they are designed to respect victims’ rights and are integrated into a broader accountability framework.

Segneri stressed that restoring faith in international justice requires more than formal ICC processes: “Accountability mechanisms must be Sudanese-led, grounded in Sudanese civil society, and specifically designed to guarantee the participation of women at every stage of reconstruction and rebuilding.” The rebuilding process must be transparent, tackle corruption decisively, and prioritise education, including destigmatising SGBV and enabling survivors to rebuild their lives.

Documenting atrocities under extreme risk

Emma Dinapoli of eyeWitness to Atrocities described the severe challenges of documenting crimes in Sudan. The eyeWitness app combines technology and legal expertise to preserve the metadata of visual evidence, ensuring that videos and photos can be verified and used in future judicial proceedings. However, the operational environment has deteriorated dramatically since the outbreak of hostilities.

In Darfur, the RSF is systematically targeting journalists, activists, lawyers and humanitarian workers. Phones are routinely searched and seized at checkpoints, turning documentation into a life-threatening activity. Internet shutdowns imposed by the authorities and the collapse of connectivity mean that little information can be transmitted from the ground. Sudanese organisations, already weakened by earlier funding cuts, are struggling to retain staff and maintain even minimal documentation capacity.

Dinapoli noted that the lack of ICC jurisdiction outside Darfur raises difficult questions about the purpose and standard of documentation. With so many violations occurring simultaneously, evidence risks becoming fragmented and insufficient to meet the legal thresholds for specific international crimes. At the same time, the absence of a clear recipient for evidence underscores the importance of capacity-building and coordination: even where the ICC cannot act, national courts or future hybrid mechanisms may be able to rely on this material.

Despite the limitations, some of the most compelling video evidence comes from the RSF itself, whose members have recorded and disseminated footage of attacks, including in Al-Fasher. However, documentation of the aftermath and broader impact on civilian populations remains extremely scarce and deeply worrying.

External complicity and the need to cut financial flows

Mutasim Ali, legal advisor at the Raoul Wallenberg Center for Human Rights, stressed that the conflict in Sudan has grown more complex both in terms of the atrocities being committed and the growing number of actors involved. What began as a confrontation between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the RSF has drawn in multiple Sudanese factions and a range of external actors.

Ali presented findings from research conducted in 2024, which had already concluded that genocide was committed in Darfur and that there was a high risk of genocide in other parts of Sudan. He emphasised the role of external support, particularly from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has been identified as a major backer of the RSF, alongside other states including Chad, Libya, Uganda, South Sudan and Kenya. EU intelligence has reportedly indicated that UAE support increased in the days leading up to the fall of Al-Fasher.

Ending atrocities, Ali argued, requires cutting off the financial and material lifelines of perpetrators. This includes initiating proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against states that may be violating their international obligations, including under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). He also called for targeted action against corporations and intermediaries that recruit mercenaries or facilitate arms and resource flows benefiting parties to the conflict.

Forums for accountability and the question of universal jurisdiction cases

Rodney Dixon KC of Temple Garden Chambers placed the current situation in the context of the ICC’s history. The Darfur referral was the first situation brought to the Court by the UN Security Council, followed by the Libya referral. At the time, there was considerable scepticism regarding the strength of the case against former Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and concerns about politicisation. However, after appellate proceedings, genocide was confirmed.

Despite this precedent, there have been no further Security Council referrals, including on Syria or Ukraine, and the Libya situation has largely been left to domestic courts. Dixon warned against “shortcuts” and selective engagement, which undermine the credibility of the Court and highlight double standards in the international response to atrocity crimes.

Dixon emphasised two neglected but essential dimensions of the Sudan crisis. First, he called for far more scrutiny of foreign involvement, particularly the role of the UAE and its extensive economic ties with EU member states. In a strictly criminal-justice context, he noted that states must investigate how arms supplied to the UAE, including British and other European weapons, are diverted to the RSF, and examine the deployment of foreign mercenaries, such as the Colombian fighters hired by a UAE-registered company and recently condemned by Colombia. Second, he highlighted the commercial networks sustaining the conflict: the RSF’s control of key markets in Darfur and smuggling routes through Chad that ultimately end in the UAE. Without confronting these external and economic enablers, he warned, efforts to halt atrocities and ensure accountability will remain incomplete.

In addressing the role of universal jurisdiction, Dixon outlines both its opportunities and limitations. He noted that states must realistically assess whether alleged perpetrators are likely to travel to their territory, as this significantly increases the chances of arrest and effective police action. While universal jurisdiction cases can be challenging, he stressed that states should use every available avenue to ensure that atrocity crimes do not go unanswered. Universal jurisdiction cases, he argued, should proceed in parallel with efforts at the ICC, not as a substitute.

Urgent calls to ICC States Parties and Western governments

Throughout the event, panellists returned to a central message: the current inaction is untenable. Without decisive measures, the atrocities seen in Al-Fashir will be repeated elsewhere in Sudan. Participants called on ICC States Parties, Western governments and international institutions to:

1. Use the Assembly of States Parties to publicly recommit to the Darfur situation and explore legal and political options to address atrocities occurring outside the current territorial scope of the ICC referral.
2. Strengthen, expand and enforce targeted sanctions and arms embargoes, including against individuals, corporations and financial intermediaries that enable the conflict.
3. Cut financial and logistical support to all parties perpetrating atrocities, including scrutinising commercial, arms and resource flows with involved third states.
4. Fully fund the Sudan humanitarian appeal and insist on uninhibited humanitarian access, protection for aid workers, and an end to attacks on humanitarian operations.
5. Invest in Sudanese-led justice initiatives, including hybrid and national mechanisms, with guaranteed participation of women and affected communities, and sustained mental health and psychosocial support.
6. Support safe documentation and preservation of evidence, including digital evidence initiatives, and build capacity for its use in future ICC, hybrid or national proceedings.
7. Actively make use of universal jurisdiction and consider ICJ proceedings where states have breached their obligations to prevent and punish genocide and related international crimes.

Conclusion

Global Human Rights Defence will continue to work alongside Sudanese civil society, international partners and ICC States Parties to advocate for an immediate cessation of hostilities, unimpeded humanitarian access and credible, victim-centred accountability for atrocity crimes in Sudan. The window to prevent further genocidal violence is rapidly closing; the time for determined action by the international community is now.