Overview
Since the eruption of the war in Sudan on 15 April 2023, the country has faced unprecedented levels of violence and instability. The conflict, stemming from power struggles between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has plunged the nation into chaos, affecting millions of civilians. Amidst this turmoil, the Sudanese Army has initiated a series of military trials targeting civilians under accusations of collaboration with the RSF. These trials, often conducted in extraordinary courts lacking transparency and due process, are characterized by tribal and regional biases exacerbating existing divisions within the country.
The repercussions of these practices are far-reaching, disrupting social cohesion and perpetuating a climate of fear and repression. Individuals from marginalized regions such as Darfur, Nuba Mountains, and Kordofan, as well as political activists, students, and ordinary civilians, have been subjected to arbitrary arrests, torture, and unjust sentencing. This report delves into the ongoing arrests, trials, and documented human rights violations, comprehensively analyzing the systemic issues underpinning these practices. Furthermore, it highlights the broader implications for Sudan’s social and political fabric, underscoring the urgent need for accountability and reform.
Arrests and Trials: Targeting Civilians
The Sudanese Army is holding military trials targeting Sudanese citizens, both men and women, under the pretext of collaboration with the Rapid Support Forces. Tribal and regional affiliations characterize these trials and seem to serve as a means of settling scores with war opponents and some civil administration leaders. The arrests have also targeted students traveling from specific regions to sit for exams in areas controlled by the Sudanese army.
According to a statement by the Emergency Lawyers, a legal rights group, the security authorities in Port Sudan arrested Montasir Abdullah, a human rights defender, and brought him before a judge at the judicial authority’s facilities in the Red Sea State. Over 300 prisoners are currently held in Port Sudan prison, facing death sentences based on fabricated charges and unjust judicial proceedings.
In another statement, the Emergency Lawyers said the security cell in Gedaref State in eastern Sudan, supervised by the 2nd Infantry Division of the Sudanese army, targeted civilians on ethnic grounds. The security cell is composed of forces linked to the 2nd Infantry Division’s intelligence, the General Intelligence Service, police forces, and some judges and prosecutors who maintain ties with the security bodies.
In June 2024, 120 civilians were arbitrarily detained in Al-Shuwak locality in Gedaref State under the pretext of collaborating with the Rapid Support Forces because of their western Sudanese tribal background. Nearly 70 people are currently held at the headquarters of the 2nd Infantry Division, with some having been moved to the Gedaref police department, where they are facing charges amounting to life imprisonment or the death penalty. The Emergency Lawyers group condemned these practices, which it said had created heightened tension and posed a threat to social peace, accusing the judicial institutions of complicity in such violations.
The Sudanese Army’s campaign of repression has extended to students and youth, who are among the most vulnerable to arbitrary arrests and detentions. These actions have disrupted education and jeopardized the future of countless young Sudanese, reflecting a broader strategy of political suppression aimed at stifling dissent and maintaining control through fear.
Students traveling to sit for exams have been particularly targeted, and accused of collaborating with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) based solely on their tribal or regional affiliations. Educational pursuits have become perilous, with arrests and harsh sentences undermining the aspirations of young Sudanese.
Omer Ahmed Abdel Hadi, a student from the Hamar tribe in Kordofan State, was sentenced to five years imprisonment after being arrested upon arrival in Al-Goulid city in the Northern State. He was accused of collaborating with the RSF while traveling to sit for his Sudan Certificate Examinations.
Musab Yahya, a veterinary medicine student from Nyala in South Darfur State, was arrested in Al Fao city, Gedaref State, while on his way to take university exams. He remains detained under accusations of RSF collaboration, unable to complete his studies.
In Kassala State, security forces arrested several members of the Al-Halaween tribe under similar allegations. Many were sentenced to life imprisonment or death without access to legal representation. Among them was young Omer Siddiq, who received a death sentence in a trial widely criticized for its lack of due process.
These cases illustrate how Sudanese youth face systemic repression, with their educational and professional futures sacrificed to a regime intent on maintaining its grip on power. The arrests and harsh sentences of students represent a tragic erosion of opportunity, compounding the suffering of a generation already beset by the hardships of war and instability.
Extrajudicial Actions and Deaths in Custody
Extrajudicial killings and deaths in custody have emerged as a troubling pattern in Sudan, reflecting the government’s blatant disregard for justice and human rights. Mass executions, such as those reported in Al-Halfaya and Kassala, are carried out without trial or legal proceedings, often targeting individuals accused of collaborating with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). These actions are frequently ethnically motivated, exacerbating existing tribal and regional tensions.
The brutal torture and subsequent death of the leader of the Sudanese Congress Party in Gezira State on 17 April 2024 underscores the regime’s oppressive tactics. He was arrested by intelligence personnel on accusations of collaboration and died 19 days later under torture. Similarly, the Atbara Court sentenced Al-Dur Hamid Hamdoun to death on charges of collaborating with the RSF, although the Appeal Court later annulled the sentence.
Field trials are increasingly used as tools of political suppression. For instance, in Port Sudan, the Anti-Terrorism Court sentenced Amal Mohamed Hussein to death on charges of cooperating with the RSF. Similar trials have been documented in Gedaref and other states, where justice is undermined, and verdicts are often predetermined.
Deaths in custody further highlight the systemic abuse. In Al-Kadaro, Rudwan Saleh Rudwan died under torture in a detention center operated by the Weapons Corps. In Singa, Absher Adam Absher, a community leader from the Al-Ramash area, was tortured to death in an army detention center. In Kassala, Al-Amin Mohamed Nour, a young member of the Beni Amer tribe, was killed in custody by the intelligence service under accusations of RSF collaboration. These cases demonstrate the government’s use of torture and execution as tools of repression and control.
The implications of these actions are profound. They instill fear in the population, silencing dissent and suppressing opposition. Families of victims are left with no recourse for justice, fueling anger, resentment, and further division. Communities are destabilized, and trust in the government’s ability to ensure justice is eroded. This cycle of violence deepens ethnic, regional, and political rifts, perpetuating unrest and tearing apart Sudan’s social fabric.
The government’s reliance on extrajudicial actions undermines its legitimacy both domestically and internationally, highlighting the urgent need for accountability and reform. Without intervention, these actions will continue to polarize the nation and worsen the humanitarian crisis.
Violations in Legal Procedures: Denial of Fair Trials
The Sudanese judiciary has consistently failed to uphold fair trial standards, reflecting systemic injustices that disproportionately target marginalized groups and individuals from specific regional or tribal affiliations. Extraordinary courts, often used for politically motivated trials, lack transparency, fairness, and adherence to due process. These courts deny detainees adequate legal representation, subjecting them to judicial proceedings that are widely criticized as “abnormal.”
Political activists, unionists, professionals, members of resistance committees, and ordinary civilians are among the groups most vulnerable to these judicial abuses. Women and vulnerable populations face compounded challenges, including gender-based violence and discrimination.
Cases Illustrating Judicial Failures
Al-Dur Hamid Hamdoun: Initially sentenced to death on charges of collaborating with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), Hamdoun’s case was emblematic of flawed trials. Although the Appeal Court annulled his death sentence, his ordeal highlighted the judiciary’s role in perpetuating systemic repression.
Hanaa Daw Al-Bain: Arbitrarily arrested and subjected to harsh legal procedures, her case demonstrates how women face additional layers of injustice within the legal system.
Aya Mustafa: Convicted in a lower court based on a misinterpretation of video evidence, Mustafa’s eventual acquittal on appeal came only after significant pressure from rights groups. Her case underscores the lack of procedural safeguards and the judiciary’s susceptibility to political influence.
Broader Patterns of Injustice
According to Rehab Mubarak, a Sudanese lawyer and member of the Emergency Lawyers group, at least 250 individuals, including 16 women, have been sentenced to death or life imprisonment in army-controlled states. Many women remain in detention for extended periods without clear paths to trial. For example, detainees in prisons such as Al-Damazin face prolonged incarceration, highlighting the judiciary’s complicity in human rights violations.
Legal practitioners defending detainees face significant risks, including harassment, threats, and arrests. This hostile environment has rendered the formation of defense committees perilous, further depriving detainees of their right to competent legal representation.
The judiciary’s reliance on extraordinary courts, combined with the denial of fair trials, reflects its complicity in Sudan’s broader system of repression. These practices undermine the rule of law and contribute to the ongoing cycle of political persecution, gender-based violence, and human rights abuses.
Role of Judicial and Security Institutions
The entrenched collusion between Sudan’s judicial and security institutions, particularly the General Intelligence Service (GIS), has significantly undermined judicial independence, fostering a climate of fear and repression. The GIS, also known as the National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS), is a powerful government agency responsible for intelligence gathering, surveillance, and national security operations. It plays a pivotal role in monitoring political dissent, suppressing opposition, and maintaining government control. Known for its extensive reach, the GIS is involved in targeting individuals based on political views, ethnic backgrounds, or regional affiliations, often using vague and manipulative laws such as the notorious “law of strange faces.” This law allows security forces to detain individuals on mere suspicion, often disproportionately affecting specific groups.
Instead of serving as an impartial arbiter of justice, the judiciary in Sudan has often been complicit in these abuses. Courts have routinely allowed the security forces to control the legal process, handing down sentences in an environment rife with systemic bias and manipulation. These practices are exacerbated by the use of extraordinary legal procedures and the denial of fair trials. According to Rehab Mubarak, a Sudanese lawyer and member of the Emergency Lawyers group, individuals in several states—Red Sea, River Nile, Kassala, Gedaref, White Nile, Northern State, Al-Managil city in Gezira State, and Karari Locality in Khartoum—are being subjected to politically motivated trials. As a result, death and life sentences have been issued, often without due process or adequate defense.
Imprisonment sentences of 5 to 10 years are disproportionately imposed on individuals from these areas. These regions, long oppressed by Sudan’s central government, are now wrongfully portrayed as breeding grounds for rebellion due to their associations with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Meanwhile, individuals from northern Sudan who oppose the war or voice anti-government views are also severely penalized. They are often convicted under Articles 50 and 51 of the Sudanese Criminal Code of 1991, which penalize actions aimed at undermining the constitutional system or waging war against the state. These provisions are increasingly weaponized to suppress dissent, with individuals harshly targeted for challenging the government’s policies or criticizing its role in the ongoing conflict.
The relationship between the judiciary and security forces in Sudan represents a fundamental breakdown of the rule of law. Rather than serving as independent institutions upholding justice, both the judiciary and the security services have been co-opted to serve the government’s political agenda, silencing any opposition to its authority. This systemic collusion has perpetuated a cycle of political repression, contributing to the deepening of human rights violations and leaving little hope for a fair and transparent judicial process in Sudan.
Human Rights Perspectives – International Legal Standards
Sudan’s judicial practices stand in stark contrast to the international human rights standards enshrined in frameworks such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). These global standards serve as the cornerstone for the protection of fundamental human rights and have been adopted by the United Nations to guide the treatment of individuals within all countries, including Sudan. Specifically, the UDHR includes a range of provisions that safeguard individuals against unjust treatment, such as protections against torture, the right to a fair trial, and the presumption of innocence. These rights, central to the concept of justice, are routinely violated by Sudan’s judiciary, highlighting a significant gap between international law and domestic legal practices.
Article 5 of the UDHR clearly prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment. This provision is designed to protect individuals from physical and psychological harm during interrogation, detention, and imprisonment. However, Sudan has been repeatedly accused of using torture and other ill-treatment methods against detainees, particularly those arrested on politically motivated charges. These abuses are often carried out under the auspices of the security services, including the General Intelligence Service (GIS), who employ torture to extract confessions, intimidate dissenters, and suppress opposition. These actions violate the core tenets of human dignity and are in direct opposition to the protection of individuals from such abuse as outlined in international human rights law.
Article 8 of the declaration stipulates that “Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.”
Article 10 of the UDHR asserts that everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, ensuring due process in legal proceedings. Sudan’s use of extraordinary courts, political trials, and the denial of fair legal representation for accused individuals sharply contradicts this principle. Trials are often conducted in closed courts, with no opportunity for the accused to mount a proper defense or challenge evidence. Furthermore, individuals are routinely convicted without access to adequate legal counsel, violating their right to a fair trial. The judiciary’s complicity in these violations, by either actively participating in or acquiescing to politically motivated proceedings, undermines the integrity of the judicial system and perpetuates a climate of injustice.
Article 11 of the UDHR asserts that everyone charged with a penal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to the law in a public trial. Sudan’s legal system frequently fails to uphold this principle. The presumption of innocence is undermined when individuals are detained indefinitely without trial or when political motives shape legal decisions. In many cases, individuals arrested for opposing the government or belonging to certain ethnic groups are considered guilty by association, with their trial processes pre-determined before they even have a chance to present their case. These practices, which strip individuals of their basic rights to a fair and impartial trial, stand in direct contradiction to the foundational principle of presumption of innocence outlined in the UDHR.
The violations of these core principles—protection from torture, right to a fair trial, and presumption of innocence—reveal the extent to which Sudan’s judicial system fails to align with international human rights frameworks. The continued disregard for these norms not only harms the individuals affected by these practices but also reflects broader systemic issues that hinder the development of a just and equitable legal system in Sudan. The international community’s recognition of these violations, alongside Sudan’s persistent breaches of these human rights, exposes the need for significant reform and accountability to ensure that Sudan adheres to the legal obligations it has committed to under international law.
Impact on Lawyers and Defenders
In many cases, detainees in Sudan are denied access to legal counsel and are subjected to trials in extraordinary, unconventional courts, further undermining their right to a fair trial. Reports indicate that numerous detainees and political activists were arrested without indictment or the opportunity to appear before a court. These individuals are often deprived of legal representation, except in cases of prolonged detention, which typically occurs only after local and international pressures are exerted on the authorities. A notable example is Aya Mustafa, who gained legal representation only after an extended period of detention. Her lawyer managed to secure her acquittal at the court of appeal, highlighting the difficulties faced by detainees in accessing proper legal defense.
On October 2, 2024, the Coordination of Civilian Democratic Forces (Taqaddum) released a statement on the involvement of the Public Prosecution Office in Port Sudan in legitimizing arbitrary arrests and covering up human rights violations. The coordination vowed in the statement that it would be on the lookout for any measures that violate the rights of Professor Montaser and all those who have been subjected to violations by the security services.
This makes it clear to us the difficulty for defendants to obtain lawyers, or even legal representation, where lawyers themselves are exposed to arrest when defending the accused under this complex situation, as was in the case of Professor Montaser Abdullah, who was detained by the security services in Port Sudan on September 7, 2024, after submitting a legal request to access the daily investigation related to the complaint filed against Dr. Hamdok and several other activists.
The current security situation in Sudan exacerbates these challenges, particularly for lawyers, who face increasing risks to their professional and personal safety. Lawyers defending detainees in politically sensitive cases or human rights violations are often threatened, harassed, or arrested. The political climate, coupled with the hostile legal environment, has made the formation of defense committees to protect detainees’ rights increasingly dangerous. These committees, although crucial in providing legal support to detainees, are at constant risk of government suppression, with members facing potential imprisonment or other retaliatory actions.
The security threats to legal practitioners significantly hinder their ability to operate effectively, depriving detainees of access to competent legal representation. This environment of fear not only undermines the rule of law but also places a considerable strain on the already fragile judicial system, where fairness and justice are often secondary to political considerations. The international community’s role in supporting Sudanese lawyers and human rights defenders is more critical than ever, as they continue to risk their lives in their efforts to secure justice in an increasingly repressive environment.
Deaths in Detention
Harrowing cases of deaths in detention illustrate the brutality and inhumanity of Sudan’s detention practices, which have devastating repercussions for communities and families. These incidents highlight the regime’s use of torture, neglect, and extrajudicial killings as tools of repression.
In Al-Kadaro, Rudwan Saleh Rudwan died after being subjected to prolonged torture in an army-operated detention center within the Weapons Corps camp. His family learned of his death on 23 November 2023, having had no prior knowledge of his condition or whereabouts. This case underscores the systematic abuse and lack of accountability within Sudanese detention facilities.
Similarly, Absher Adam Absher, a prominent community leader and chief from the Al-Ramash area, was killed under torture in an army detention center in Singa. He was detained on unfounded accusations of collaborating with the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), a pattern common in Sudan’s judicial system. The loss of respected community figures like Absher causes significant grief and instability, as families and communities grapple with the injustice and lack of recourse.
These deaths in detention represent the broader problem of Sudan’s punitive approach to dissent, where individuals—often activists, lawyers, and ordinary citizens—are killed while under custody, without any due process. The deaths not only devastate families but also contribute to the growing climate of fear and mistrust of the authorities, undermining the legitimacy of the Sudanese state.
Recommendations
Judicial Reform and Independence:
Strengthen the independence of the judiciary by ensuring that judges are appointed based on merit and not political affiliation.
Establish an independent oversight body to monitor the actions of both the judiciary and security services, ensuring accountability for human rights violations.
End Arbitrary Detentions and Torture:
Take immediate steps to cease the practice of arbitrary detention and torture, ensuring all detainees are afforded the right to a fair trial within a reasonable timeframe.
Introduce legal reforms to provide better safeguards against incommunicado detention, forced confessions, and other forms of ill-treatment.
Access to Legal Representation:
Guarantee the right to legal counsel for all detainees, particularly those facing politically motivated charges, and ensure lawyers can operate without fear of harassment or retaliation.
Provide training and protection for human rights lawyers and defenders, enabling them to continue their vital work in promoting justice.
Human Rights Education and Advocacy:
Launch national programs to raise awareness about human rights, the importance of judicial fairness, and the right to legal representation.
Support civil society organizations and human rights defenders in their efforts to hold the government accountable for violations.
International Support and Monitoring:
Encourage international organizations, such as the United Nations and regional human rights bodies, to monitor the situation in Sudan and provide technical assistance for judicial reforms.
Ensure that international sanctions and diplomatic pressure are applied to compel the Sudanese government to respect international human rights standards.
Truth and Reconciliation Processes:
Establish mechanisms for truth and reconciliation that address the historical abuses in Sudan, ensuring that victims and their families receive justice and reparations.
Facilitate dialogues between the government, opposition groups, and civil society to foster peace, national unity, and the rebuilding of Sudan’s social fabric.
By implementing these recommendations, Sudan can begin the difficult but necessary process of rebuilding a legal system that protects the rights of its citizens and ensures justice for all.
