UN greenlights investigation into Sudan atrocities in tight vote

The Human Rights Council approved in a tight vote a proposal to appoint a fact-finding mission on abuses committed in Sudan since war broke out between two rival military factions on 15 April. The initiative – led by the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany and Norway – was approved on Wednesday with 19 votes in favour, 16 against and 12 abstentions.

Nearly six months into the conflict, intense fighting in Sudan’s capital, Khartoum, and other areas has forced millions to flee their homes and has plunged the country into a humanitarian crisis. Ceasefires have been disregarded by the warring sides one after the other, and humanitarian groups have been struggling to reach people trapped by the fighting.

“There is, in our view, an urgent need to investigate and gather evidence of human rights violations and abuses and violations of international law, no matter where in Sudan they were committed or by whom they were committed, and is precisely what this proposed fact-finding mission (will do),” UK ambassador to the UN, Simon Manley, told the council as he presented the proposal.

Calling it “one of the worst human rights situations in the world”, Belgium’s representative said on behalf of the European Union: “Despite repeated promises by both sides to investigate the serious human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law, the silence has been deafening. A larger inquiry is necessary to fill this vacuum.”

The move turned out to be unpopular with a significant part of the council. Sudan, which opposed it from the start, slammed the text for disregarding its sovereignty and equating Sudanese armed forces with rebel militias, most notably the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

Both have been reported to have committed rights violations and disregarded civilian lives as international humanitarian law states they should.

Sudan’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, Hassan Hamid Hassan, also hit states for creating another mechanism while the humanitarian response plan for Sudan was so far funded to a meagre 30 per cent. 

China, Somalia and Eritrea took the floor to side with Sudan and voted against the resolution.

Expressing a more nuanced view, South Africa said that while the proposal should help bolster the various initiatives at the international and regional level to resolve the conflict,  “this is unlikely given the deep divisions and entrenched positions prevalent on this issue”.

It abstained along with several other African states, including The Gambia, Malawi and Gabon.

Nicolas Agostini, Geneva representative for the NGO DefendDefenders, told Geneva Solutions: “Given the level of opposition to accountability by some states and bullying by Saudi Arabia and others, we knew it wasn’t going to be easy to establish an international investigation on Sudan. But states that support strong mechanisms found a majority.”

“It speaks to the continued relevance of the Human Rights Council, which is able to respond to many – albeit not all – of the world’s human rights crises,” he said.