By Professor David Hoile

Published by The European - Sudanese Public Affairs Council

Chapter 7


The simplistic characterization used, for example, by Human Rights Watch of Arabs killing Africans doesn't fit.

Human Rights Activist Alex de Waal [576]

All wars, and particularly civil wars, lead to human rights violations. Civilians are inevitably caught up in war and are invariably its primary victims. The conflict in Darfur has been no exception. The Government of Sudan has admitted that there have been serious abuses of human rights in the course of the Darfur conflict. [577] The government is also cooperating with a number of UN protection-oriented agencies, with British funding, in human rights training programmes for Sudanese armed forces and police. The government has also opened Darfur to human rights investigators. Numerous human rights delegations and specialists have visited the region. These include the a United Nations High Commission for Human Rights mission from 24-30 April 2004; the United Nations special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Ms Asma Jehangir, who visited for several days in June 2004; the African Human Rights Commission visited Darfur in July 2004; the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Louise Arbour, and the Secretary-General’s special adviser on the prevention of genocide, Juan Méndez, 20-24 September 2004; the UN special rapporteur on violence against women, Professor Yakin Ertürk, visited Darfur from 25 September to 2 October 2004; Amnesty International visited Darfur in September 2004; the five-member United Nations commission of enquiry into allegations of genocide in November 2004; and so on. All have noted that there were no restrictions placed on their visits.

And, as is so often the case in war, the conflict has been caught up in the propaganda and misinformation that comes with it and that has certainly characterised previous coverage of Sudan. The Sudanese government, for example, has claimed that: “Those with their own agendas are trying to give a very sad view of what is happening. The propaganda in the west is trying to exaggerate what is taking place in Darfur.” [578) It is, of course, essential that human rights are protected, and that those who violate human rights are reported on and that action against human rights violators is taken. It is also commendable that there are dedicated organisations that focus exclusively on human rights issues. Sadly, all too often, many of the western human rights organisations follow political agendas set by a western elite that through prejudice or pressure group politics badly serve the developing world. It must also be noted that the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Ms Arbour, undermined her credibility and that of the United Nations, when in her October 2004 report on Darfur she stated that she had “received no credible reports of rebel attacks on civilians as such”. [579]

De Waal is right. Much of the human rights reporting on the Darfur crisis, and especially that by Human Rights Watch, has been simplistic. It has also been inaccurate, unbalanced and in some cases biased. This is something which has not helped with analysing and by thereby seeking to remedy, what is a complex situation. Human rights commentators, for example, have not been able to differentiate between the activities of government paramilitary forces, those of armed nomadic tribes or those of the heavily-armed criminal gangs that roam Darfur. As a result there have made unrealistic – and indeed impossible – demands on the Sudanese government. Their continual criticism of the government for not doing things that are in many instances beyond their control, which adversely colour western international opinion about Khartoum, merely serves to discredit the western human rights community in the eyes of the governments and people of much of the developing world. The human rights industry certainly appears to have opted for partisan or lazy analysis of events in Darfur, seemingly unable to resist projecting the image of government-supported “Arab” – “Janjaweed” – militias attacking “African”, Fur or Zaghawa, villagers (and in doing so often merely echoing questionable rebel claims).

The United Nations International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur, tasked to “to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights by all parties” and “to determine also whether or not acts of genocide have occurred”, provided a classic example of the unacceptable shortcuts taken by the human rights industry with regard to Sudan. The most obvious flaw was with regard to the standard of evidence the Commission said it required:

In view of the limitations inherent in its powers, the Commission decided that it could not comply with the standards normally adopted by criminal courts (proof of facts beyond a reasonable doubt), or with that used by international prosecutors and judges for the purpose of confirming indictments (that there must be a prima facie case). It concluded that the most appropriate standard was that requiring a reliable body of material consistent with other verified circumstances, which tends to show that a person may reasonably be suspected of being involved in the commission of a crime. [580]

That is to say it chose to make findings based on material from which it might said that a person – or entity – may reasonably be suspected of having been involved in the commission of a crime. That this is an unsatisfactory standard is clear, especially given the serious nature of the alleged crimes. It was a standard, however, that the Commission did not extend to others. The Commission demanded that the Government and affected citizens of Darfur produce “concrete information or evidence” to support their claims. [581] A large number of claims and allegations have been made regarding events in Darfur despite the scarcity of reliable information. United Nations media sources, for example, have noted “a lack of accurate information on the conflict” [582] and Reuters has also stated that “it is hard to independently verify claims by government or rebels in Darfur.” [583] Human rights reports have consistently reported - and attributed - human rights abuses within Darfur in circumstances in which independent confirmation of such assertions is impossible. The New York Times, while echoing many of these allegations of human rights abuses, was candid enough to admit that “it is impossible to travel in Darfur to verify these claims”. [584] Claims of Khartoum’s control over the “Janjaweed” persist despite increasing evidence that they are out of control. [585] The absence of verifiable information regarding events in Darfur was a point raised by Louise Arbour, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. Reporting to the UN on her return from Darfur, Ms Arbour noted: “There is a great need on the part of the international community to improve its capacity to collect, coordinate and analyse information and reports of human rights violations. This is critical to ensure that we have available empirically-founded concrete data if we are to counter the rumours and manipulation of information that is rife in Darfur. Such a capacity will be invaluable to the international community, allowing it to assess trends and further tailor its response to the crisis. It will be invaluable, too, for the Government of Sudan which clearly feels aggrieved by what it perceives to be an exaggeration by the international community as to the extent of the crisis.” [586]

Contradictions in claims by human rights organisations about events in Darfur have also led to question marks about some of the serious allegations that have been made. While Human Rights Watch, for example, eagerly chose to label the conflict as “ethnic cleansing” [587] and have skirted close to using the “genocide” label, Amnesty International researchers have said that observers should be “cautious” about describing clashes as ethnic cleansing. [588] Such labels have also been challenged by the United Nations and senior aid workers on the ground within Darfur. [589] Nonetheless, the claims of “ethnic cleansing” have echoed around the world.

Human Rights Watch: Questionable Sources, Questionable Reports
There is little doubt that groups such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have once again relied upon questionable sources with regard to Darfur. It has also been clear that in some cases their analysts are partisan and their previous methodology with regard to Sudan has been flawed. Human Rights Watch’s counsel and Sudan researcher Jemera Rone has, for example, previously eulogised a Sudanese rebel commander as “thoughtful…curious and intellectual” and with a “respect for the rights of all”. This was in the face of the rebel commander’s direct and indirect responsibility for massive human rights violations including the murder, rape or torture of hundreds if not thousands of civilians, many of whom were women and children. The rebel eulogised by Ms Rone was also directly responsible for the abduction of thousands of under-age children for use as child soldiers and their transportation to Ethiopia. Nearly 3,000 of these children subsequently died from malnutrition or disease: many more died as child soldiers. Ms Rone’s eulogy was an astonishing statement for someone supposedly concerned with human rights to have made and provides a clear insight into the sort of anti-government bias that has coloured key “human rights” reports on Sudan. [590] Many of Human Rights Watch’s claims about Darfur, and much of its analysis, must be seen in this light.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, Human Rights Watch’s reports have been marked by their lack of focus on rebel abuses in Darfur. In its April 2004 report, Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan, for example, Human Rights Watch devotes ten lines within the 49-page publication to rebel violations of human rights claiming to have had “limited access to information about abuses by JEM and SLA”. All it reports, for example, is that in November 2003, JEM “apparently” killed 20 civilians in West Darfur and that in late 2003 the SLA “apparently” killed a prisoner in a police station. HRW also states that both rebel movements are using child soldiers. [591] What little did appear in this report was stated to have come from “interviews” in Chad. HRW researchers appear not to have been in touch, even by telephone, with United Nations officials in Darfur. The UN information network, part of the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - and active in Sudan, publicly documented in July 2003, for example, that “SLA rebels regularly attacked and looted villages, taking food and sometimes killing people…The attacks present a real threat to people’s food security and livelihoods, by preventing them from planting and accessing markets to buy food.” [592] Neither do they appear to have even read BBC news items reporting that the rebels had murdered nine World Food Programme truck drivers, and wounded 14 others, in an attack on a relief convoy in October 2003. (593) In the wake of this attack, the United States government asked the Sudanese government for help with security and access. [594] The following are just a few of the many publicly-reported
instances of rebel human rights abuses – just on aid workers alone – which never made in into Human Rights Watch’s April 2004 report. InNovember 2003 the Government accused rebels in Darfur of killing two of its relief workers and abducting three others in an attack on an aid convoy. [595] One month later, rebel gunmen killed two other relief workers and abducted three others. [596] Rebels also kidnapped other relief workers with JEM gunmen admitted abducting five aid workers working for the Swiss humanitarian group Medair. [597] On 11 February 2004, the Equality and Justice Movement declared its intention to close down every road within Darfur. Rebel attacks on relief convoys continued. A senior UN official in Sudan stated in February 2004 that rebels have made it too dangerous to take aid into parts of Darfur. Aid convoys were still being attacked by armed groups. The spokesman also cited the danger of landmines.” [598] The Sudanese government repeatedly held the rebels responsible for blocking deliveries of humanitarian aid in Darfur. [599]

Human Rights Watch’s August 2004 human rights “report”, Empty Promises? Continuing Abuses in Darfur was even more unbalanced. Its 37 pages contained one sentence alleging a rebel human rights abuse – the “temporary” abduction of aid workers – who were then returned “unharmed”. This was sourced to the United Nations. The organisation’s excuse was that it had not been able to get visas for governmentcontrolled areas of Sudan, and therefore was not able to report on rebel abuses. The disingenuousness of this line is breathtaking. Human Rights Watch has constantly relied upon second-hand or previously published news items for the bulk of its “reporting” on human rights in Sudan. Indeed the only rebel human rights abuse they cited in Empty Promises? Continuing Abuses in Darfur was sourced to the United Nations. As can be seen from the very small sample outlined above, there are numerous well-documented human rights abuses – including many sourced by the United Nations – which Human Rights Watchcould easily have included in its reports. That they chose not to do so is telling evidence of the organisation’s clear bias and hence unreliability with regard to human rights reporting and analysis.

It was also perhaps unsurprising that Human Rights Watch chose to use British journalist Julie Flint as a researcher. Ms Flint, although presenting herself as an “independent journalist” when speaking before the American Senate’s foreign relations committee, is a long-time anti- Sudan activist. [600] Ms Flint’s testimony was predictably light with regard to rebel abuses. She did, however, admit that rebel attacks on government targets “took heavy civilian casualties”. She mentioned that rebels had abducted humanitarian aid workers but did not cite any of the numerous instances of their murder. She stuck to the official position that, despite having been provided with a “list of ceasefire violations and attacks on villages” by the government and other groups in Darfur, they were unable to investigate them because they had not visited government-held areas. This has not, however, prevented HRW from reporting as fact other alleged, government abuses within government held areas. Ms Flint drew heavily upon her guided tour, by rebels, through a rebel-controlled area of Darfur. Ms Flint and Human Rights Watch did admit that “It is…difficult to ascertain what exactly is happening in a place the size of Darfur.” It is all the more difficult to ascertain what is happening if one ignores numerous well-documented accounts by journalists, United Nations workers and other nongovernmenta sources.

Interestingly, it is also worth noting that, although Human Rights Watch’s main Sudan researcher Jemera Rone went on record to criticisethe credibility of Eric Reeves, Flint has no such reservations. She accepts Reeves’ claim of 400,000 deaths in Darfur, describing them as “a serious analysis of mortality” in Darfur. [601] This despite the fact that Human Rights Watch works with the World Health Organisation figure of 70,000. [602] Unusually for a supposed human rights researcher, Flint has also acted as an apologist for rebel war crimes, stating that rebel human rights abuses, including the murder of aid workers, were the responsibility of “rogue rebel commanders”. [603] In short, Ms Flint provides a telling example of the sort of partisan anti-government activist who so often double-up as “independent”, supposedly objective, human rights workers.

Not only has Human Rights Watch been economical with certain facts, it has totally misrepresented others. Its Sudan report for 2003, for example, stated that Sudan “had backed out of peace talks sponsored by Chad”. [604] It is somewhat difficult to reconcile Human Rights Watch’s claim with that of the official Chadian Government peace mediator who went on record in December 2003 to state: “There has been a breakdown in negotiations because of unacceptable rebel demands. The talks have been suspended: it’s a failure.” [605] This is only one of many mistakes and omissions on the part of Human Rights Watch – but is certainly one of its most significant in the slant it put on a crucial aspect of the Darfur crisis. The same 2003 section claimed that Khartoum was “trying to use southern militias, previously used against the SPLA, to fight in Darfur.” This is another particularly off-the-wall claim.

Amnesty International and Darfur
Amnesty International’s reporting on Darfur has been similarly flawed. In its February 2004 report, Darfur: “Too Many People Killed for No Reason”, Amnesty International stated that it “had received very little information regarding killing of civilians by the armed opposition the SLA and the JEM”. Amnesty qualified its position by stating that “in some cases, the armed political groups appear to have put the lives of civilians at risk”. [606] This despite having mentioned in the same report that the United Nations had reported regular rebel attacks upon, and looting of, villages and the killing of civilians. Amnesty International would appear to share the Human Rights Watch methodology of turning a blind eye to independent, publicly-documented accounts of rebel human rights abuses.

All of Amnesty International’s publications on Darfur have been unbalanced and misleading. In Amnesty’s “Sudan Crisis – Background”, it accepts, at face value, the usual rationale for the initiation of violence in Darfur, that the rebels began the war as a result of “marginalisation and underdevelopment of the region”. [607] In its April 2004 report, Deliberate and Indiscriminate Attacks against Civilians in Darfur, Amnesty does not once mention rebel human rights abuses. [608] In its lengthy 2004 report, Arming the Perpetrators of Grave Abuses in Darfur, Amnesty devotes three sentences to the rebels. While calling for an end to any supply of weapons, and vehicles, to the government, it is silent with regard to supply of weapons – by Eritrea and others for example – to the rebels. [609] And, in its December 2004 Open Letter to All Members of the Security Council, Amnesty does not mention the rebels once. [610] Any semblance to objectivity and quality research that Amnesty International may once have tried to claim with regard to its work on Sudan was in any instance starkly contradicted by allowingdiscredited out-and-out propagandists and apologists for rebel human rights abuses such as Eric Reeves to write on Sudan in their publications. [611]

It is also worth noting that previous Amnesty International reports on Sudan in general have been flawed by deeply questionable methodology. Key reports have been largely reliant on newspaper reporting – often utilising second- and third-hand newspaper accounts by partisan journalists. In these reports Amnesty International’s lack of professionalism was also been manifested by its turning a blind eye to independent, reputable, first-hand accounts of rebel use of child soldiers and the daily bombardment of towns. It chose instead to publish claims made by rebel commanders. [612]

As so often has been the case in their reporting of Sudan, the reliabilit of the assertions of groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International should not be taken at face value.

The Hypocrisy of the Human Rights Industry on Darfur In addition to often overt bias, and factual inaccuracies, on the part of human rights groups, there has also been considerable hypocrisy with regard to Darfur. While claiming that the Arab “Janjaweed” raiders are sponsored by the government, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International ignore the fact that the government has regularly taken very firm action against “Arab” tribesmen who have attacked “African” communities. In April 2003, for example, Sudanese courts sentenced 24 Arab armed bandits to death for their involvement in the murder of 35 African villagers in attacks on pastoralist villages. Judge Mukhtar Ibrahim Adam described the attacks as “barbaric and savage conduct”reminiscent of “the dark ages”. [613] In the same month, 44 tribesmen were killed, and 22 injured, in a tribal clash between Arab and Massaleit tribes in West Darfur. Police units contained the violence. [614] In a further example of the government’s firm stance, in October 2003, 14 other Arab tribesmen were also sentenced to death for the murder of non-Arab villagers during attacks and arson within villages in south Darfur state. [615] There is also abundant evidence of the sorts of lawlessness that has plagued Darfur, including considerable “Arab” on “Arab” violence. In one incident alone in May 2002 50 Arab tribesmen were killed in such clashes between the Arab tribes. [616] (Would this qualify as “Janjaweed” on “Janjaweed” violence?) A special criminal court sentenced 86 Arab tribesmen to death for involvement in the murder of other Arab tribesmen.

The stance of the human rights industry on criminal violence in Darfur has been contradictory. Amnesty International, for example, has previously criticised government inaction in responding to the violence and banditry in the region. In February 2003 Amnesty International stated that “government responses to armed clashes have been ineffective”. [617] Amnesty has then condemned the government for taking measures to restore order, such as arresting tribesmen suspected of involvement in violence. [618] The scale of the violence had led to Khartoum introducing special measures. Yet these have also been criticised by Amnesty International. They, for example, have condemned the special criminal courts created by presidential decree to deal with offences such as murder, armed robbery, arson and the smuggling of weapons., and the firm sentences these courts have subsequently handed down. [619] And at the same time these measures are being taken against the very Arab tribesmen that it is alleged the government is supporting militarily.

The fact is that scores of Sudanese soldiers and policemen have been killed in tribal clashes and while trying to apprehend those suspected, including “Janjaweed”, of criminal acts. (Even Amnesty International admits to as much in its more objective moments. [620] Many more Sudanese policemen have also been murdered by rebels, often while carrying out their job of protecting internally displaced peoples.

An Incomplete Picture
Another way in which the human rights industry has distorted perceptions of events in Darfur is through often incomplete or inaccurate analysis of events in Darfur and Sudan. The overriding goal for anyone concerned about human rights should be to end the conflict that is leading to human rights abuses. Merely focusing upon the symptoms and not the cause is an inadequate response. In this respect, however, the human rights groups have been very disappointing. Amnesty International, for example, takes rebel claims about their motivation at face value, asserting without reservation that the Darfur rebels “took up arms in February 2003 to protest at what they perceive as the lack of government protection of the settled population against attacks by nomads and the underdevelopment and marginalisation of Darfur”. Human Rights Watch unquestioningly echoes the stated rebel position when it claims “Both rebel groups were formally created in early 2003 in response to the perceived political marginalization and chronic underdevelopment of Darfur”. [621] Amnesty International would appear to be unaware, and certainly have not noted in their publications, the view of Sudan’s premier human rights activist, Ghazi Suleiman, about the Islamist dimension to the conflict. In so doing, the simplistic analysis of groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch merely serves to advance rebel propaganda and misinform those observers who may rely upon those organisations for accurate information on this issue. Rebel Human Rights Abuses

One of the reasons for the international community’s distorted picture of the Darfur crisis – with the resultant flawed analysis and demands that have ensued – is the under-reporting of the activities of the rebel movements. Having by and large ignored large-scale rebel human rights abuses in the course of 2003, human rights groups are now belatedly starting to document their activities. Even the SLA has had to admit to human rights abuses, accepting in early December 2004, for example, that it had been involved in attacks on civilians, kidnappings and obstructing aid workers. [622]

Almost eighteen months after they first began, Human Rights Watch is now conceding that rebel attacks on towns in early 2003 resulted in considerable loss of civilian life. Even Julie Flint had to admit, in June 2004, that “heavy civilian casualties” were caused during these attacks. She admitted that the April 2003 attack on al-Fasher “resulted in the deaths of numerous civilians”. [623] In its November 2004 report, in a section entitled “Attacks on Civilians”, Human Rights admitted that “the rebel movements have been responsible for direct attacks on civilian objects in violation of international humanitarian law, and for causing deaths and injuries to civilians.”

Rebel human rights abuses
have followed a pattern. They have included systematic attacks on nomadic communities and the destruction of numerous Arab villages. They have included the murder, wounding, and abduction of civilians and the rape of women. These attacks on civilians have continued despite the rebels having signed several internationally-mediated ceasefire agreements, including the November 2004 Abuja protocol. In early December 2004, for example, the governor of North Darfur, Osman Yusuf Kibir, accused rebels of attacking villages and raping women. [624] In January 2005, the government reported that rebels had destroyed eight villages and killed many civilians in attacks in South Darfur. [625] Rebels have also carried out hundreds of armed robberies throughout Darfur, and in so doing killing many civilians. They have also been involved in the theft of thousands of head of livestock – the very lifeblood of many of Darfur’s tribal communities. The Sudan Liberation Army have also murdered several aid workers, foreign and Sudanese, and abducted scores of others. They have also attacked and looted dozens of relief convoys carrying food aid to Darfur’s displaced communities. The rebels have also recruited and armed child soldiers. Newspapers and human rights organisations have provided some glimpses into the scale of rebel abuses.

A Snapshot of Rebel Human Rights Abuses:
Malam, South Darfur. In its November 2004 report, Human Rights Watch provides the outside world with a snapshot of rebel human rights abuses. It reported, for example, on rebel attacks in and around one specific area – Malam, located on the eastern side of the Jebel Marra, approximately one hundred kilometres north of Nyala, in South Darfur. Human Rights Watch has cited numerous examples of the murder of civilians, the rape of women and abduction of young children by Sudan Liberation Army rebels in and around this town, a location inhabited both by Fur and people from the Beni Mansour tribe. SLA rebels have been attacking civilians in this area – one of many in Darfur – since they began the war. Human Rights Watch, for example, noted that it had received a list of sixty Beni Mansour women and girls who were said to have been raped or assaulted by rebels in attacks between 10 February and 7 July 2004 –but stated that it was not able to “verify” these claims. [626] In one attack in the area, on 21 April 2004, the rebels killed ten civilians. Six more civilians were murdered in an attack in nearby Um Dashur in early June 2004. Human Rights Watch also reported that in mid-June 2004 rebel gunmen were said to have raped several Beni Mansour women near Malam. Rebels attacked Malam again in October 2004, killing three civilians, including a 12-year-old girl, and injuring several more. Human Rights Watch stated that their apparent intention had been to loot. It also reported that it had received a list of thirty-nine people, including two children, said to have been abducted in the Malam area between 2 August 2003 and 10 July 2004, adding that their whereabouts remained unknown. In January 2005, the United Nations reported that between 24 and 36 civilians had died and 26 others were wounded in fresh rebel attacks on villages in and around Malam. [627] Rebel human rights abuses in and around Malam provide the international community with documented – albeit imperfectly – examples of rebel abuses in one small specific area of Darfur. From all accounts it is a pattern of abuses that has been repeated throughout Darfur – the vast majority of which have gone unrecorded by human rights organisations or other outside observers.

The Economist has provided us with an equally brief snapshot of rebel abuses, in West Darfur. It reported that rebels burned down 12 villages in the area of Ishbara, located some 120 miles north of Al-Geneina, in West Darfur. They had “killed anyone who crossed their path.” Those civilians who survived now live in the Wadi Bardi refugee camp. Another five villages were said to have been abandoned by petrified villagers. These civilians were from the African Gimir tribe, traditional rivals of the Zaghawa tribe. The Economist reported that SLA rebel leaders had stated that because the Gimir were rivals to the Zaghawa they must therefore be pro-government, and that was why they were attacked. [628] In reality, it comes down to inter-tribal – and in this case intra-African – rivalry. The Daily Telegraph, reporting on the same attacks, pointed out that rebel “brutality at least equals that of” the Janjaweed, and that the rebels “have received none of the international condemnation heaped upon the Janjaweed”. [629] The Independent has also reported on claims that the rebels were “driving Arabs from their villages.” [630] It provided a glimpse of the ten thousand Arab villagers packed into the Mossei refugee camp, near Nyala in South Darfur, reporting on their claims to have “been attacked, driven from their homes, and abandoned to face pending epidemics of cholera, malaria and hepatitis. They say their persecutors are African tribes in league with the Sudan Liberation Army, with their own campaigns of driving out another community.” [631]

Even in their minimalist references to rebel abuses Human Rights Watch and The Economist provides a disturbing picture.

Rebel Armed Robberies and Attacks on Road Transport
Rebel involvement in armed robberies of civilians and civilian premises is clear. These have included any number of civilian premises, including banks and other businesses. An example of a typical attack was that on Yassin, in South Darfur, in January 2004. In this attack rebels looted offices, commercial premises and the zakat (charity) office. In early December 2004, the Sudanese government released documents indicating that the rebels had been involved in 571 armed robberies since early 2003 in the course of which they had killed 169 people. [632] Rebels were said to have attacked over 200 trucks. [633] Human Rights Watch also reported rebel attacks on trucks and the theft of “commercial goods from trucks and vehicles in Darfur”. It also noted that: “These attacks on civilian property are a violation of international humanitarianlaw.” [634] In November 2004, African Union ceasefire monitors confirmed that the SLA had attacked convoys of Nigerian pilgrims on four separate occasions in Darfur. In one attack on three civilian trucks, the rebels killed seven people. Eight others were injured. [635] These systematic attacks prompted an unprecedented intervention by Amnesty International in early November 2004 which directly criticised rebel attacks on civilians and humanitarian convoys. It noted that in one case “Eighteen passengers from nomad groups were taken off a bus between Niyertiti and Thur in South Darfur state by soldiers of the Sudan Liberation Army…Amnesty International has grave concerns about their fate. Thirteen of them are said to have been killed.” [636]

Rebel Theft of Livestock
The rebels have been engaged in systematic theft of livestock throughout Darfur. Human Rights Watch has underlined the seriousness of these thefts: “Given the importance of livestock as the primary family asset, looting of cattle and camels can render the owners destitute. This is particularly true for nomads who depend almost entirely on livestock for their income.” [637] Human Rights Watch has stated that it has received reports of SLA “attacks on convoys of camels that were being taken across traditional trade routes in North Darfur”. These attacks had involved significant numbers of livestock. Human Rights Watch has provided the outside world with a few examples of these attacks. One nomadic leader in South Darfur had reported the theft from the Ma’aliyah tribe of more than 2,500 camels. In another documented attack, in May 2004, SLA gunmen in Land cruisers attacked a cameldrive north of Atrum, in North Darfur. They stole 1,100 camels and abducted 38 civilians – whose whereabouts remain unknown. Rebels were said to have stolen more than 4,000 camels in the course of 2003 in attacks on the nomadic Aulad Zeid tribe in North Darfur. These attacks had involved the use of automatic rifles, rocket-propelled grenades and machine-guns. The rebels had arrived in Land cruisers and trucks. Human Rights Watch mentioned that “many of the herders were killed defending their animals”. [638] Human Rights Watch has called on rebel groups to “Cease all attacks on civilians and civilian property including livestock.” The three incidents Human Rights Watch reported are probably the tip of the iceberg with regard to the scale of livestock theft. Given the visceral seriousness with which blood vendettas and livestock theft are taken, there is no doubt that attacks such as these have led to considerable inter-tribal tit-tot-tat raids and violence to recover livestock and avenge murdered tribesmen. Nomadic tribes would have raided the communities and villages from which the SLA men would have been drawn, as well as the villages in which they were harbouring. While, in passing, documenting what may well have been the cause of a number of reprisal attacks by nomadic tribes on tribes seen as complicit in livestock theft, this has not in any way been reflected in Human Rights Watch accounts of attacks on “African” villages. Human Rights Watch attributes all such attacks as government inspired. This is one more example of a critical failure in analysis by human rights organisations.

Rebel Attacks on Humanitarian Aid Workers and Relief Convoys
Rebel attacks on humanitarian aid convoys have been particularly serious. These attacks have been throughout the course of the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, and have gravely endangered the delicately-balanced emergency feeding programme keeping hundreds of thousands of civilians – many of them from the communities the rebels were claiming to protect – alive in Darfur. Human Rights Watch has called on rebel groups to “Cease all attacks on civilians and civilian property including…humanitarian aid convoys.” The pattern of rebel human rights abuses in attacks on aid convoys and workers is a clearone. The following are a random selection. They murdered nine truck drivers, and wounded 14 others, in an attack on a relief convoy in October 2003. [639] The following months, rebel gunmen killed two relief workers and abducted three others. [640] Later in November JEM gunmen admitted abducting five aid workers. [641] In early June 2004, Associated Press reported the abduction by rebels of 16 aid workers. On 8 June 2004, Agence France Presse reported that rebels had seized nine trucks loaded with relief items, medicines and tents on the road between Nyala and al-Fasher. The rebels abducted four of the drivers. [642] Later that month, rebels attacked aid vehicles and stole 57 tons of UN food aid. [643] In the first week of July, the SLA attacked 26 aid workers, stealing six vehicles and a large amount of cash. There were a number of systematic rebel attacks on aid workers in August 2004. The African Union confirmed that on 22 August, SLA forces had abducted humanitarian affairs workers in the Abgaragil area, and that on 23 August rebels had abducted medical aid workers in Kutum. (644) At the end of August 2004, Darfur rebels abducted six aid workers in North Darfur. WFP condemned the targeting of humanitarian workers. [645] On 31 August 2004, rebel gunmen detained 22 Sudanese health workers near Nyala in south Darfur. A SLA landmine killed two Save the Children Fund workers, one British and one Sudanese, in October 2004. [646] The United Nations special envoy to Sudan Jan Pronk unambiguously confirmed rebel involvement in these deaths: “It was the rebels who are responsiblefor attacking relief workers and convoys, they are responsible for…landmines which killed two relief workers.” [647]

United Nations reported that in late October “forces from the rebel Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) hijacked seven commercial trucks on a road…east of …El Fasher.” [648] In mid-November 2004, the United Nations reported several attacks on buses and aid convoys around Darfur. Travellers had been abducted and killed and vehicles looted by the attackers. [649] By the end of November, The New York Times was reporting that the rebels had been “sharply ratcheting up attacks” on civilian traffic which in turn was preventing relief work. [650] In November 2004 rebels attacked a joint WHO/Ministry of Health medical team. One doctor was killed and four other health workers were injured. The team was also robbed. [651] In November GOAL and the Spanish branch of Médecins Sans Frontières withdrew from the Jebel Marra area in central Darfur after “repeated” rebel attacks on aid personnel, vehicles and relief supplies. [652] Amnesty International noted the pattern of rebel activity: “over the past two months, a number of World Food Program commercial trucks have been attacked in South Darfur.” [653] On 12
December 2004, rebels murdered two more Save the Children aid workers, members of a mobile medical clinic travelling in clearlymarked vehicles. [654] Rebel responsibility for their deaths was confirmed by both the African Union and United Nations. [655] In addition to themurdered aid workers, one other worker was injured and three are still missing. Rebel involvement in the murders was established by the UN. [656] Rebel attacks on aid convoys continued into December. At the end of December the United Nations stated that rebel forces had stolen 13 commercial all-terrain trucks leased to WFP and loaded with food: “These thefts are in addition to multiple losses of commercial and aid agency vehicles to armed groups in recent months.” [657]

Rebel Use of Child Soldiers
Human Rights Watch has clearly documented that both the Sudan Liberation Army and the Justice and Equality Movement use child soldiers. It has correctly pointed out that “it is unlawful…to deploy children as combatants, whether or not they were forcibly recruited or joined on their own accord.” [658] The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court classifies the use of child soldiers as a war crime. The Independent newspaper has reported the presence of hundreds of child soldiers, some as young as ten, with the rebels. [659] Human Rights researchers in North Darfur in July and August 2004 observed and photographed SLA child soldiers, some as young as twelve. [660] Unsurprisingly perhaps, Human Rights Watch sought to contextualise this blatant war crime, virtually presenting the SLA as juvenile social workers. In a different report, however, a child eyewitness, Mubarak, abducted from Kutum in southern Darfur, presented a different picture. A former SLA child soldier, he stated that following an attack on his school, rebels had abducted “several dozen frightened boys…and marched them off into the countryside. The heavily armed men asked the boys if any of them wanted to go. Eight of them raised their hands and…the rebels told them they could run away. Mubarak said he still remembered the loud bangs when the men shot two of the escaping boys. The remaining boys became rebels. ‘I had to join them,’ Mubarak said. ‘I was afraid I would be killed, too.’” [661] The African Union has also confirmed that the Sudan Liberation Army is arming and using child soldiers. [662] The SLA is obviously aware that it is illegal to use child soldiers. Journalists who reported seeing fighters who “seem to be no more than schoolboys” who, when asked their age, reply with “the stock answer”: “I have just become 18, sir. I am not a child soldier.” [663]

Air Power and Rebel Use of Civilian “Human Shields”
One of the issues frequently raised with regard to human rights issues has been the government’s use of air power in its war against insurgents in Darfur with the focus upon any resultant civilian casualties or displacement. That governments reserve the right to use air power in war is obvious. Air power has been used in every recent conflict – not least of which during the Iraq war and subsequent occupation. That civilians are often killed, injured or displaced during even the most clinical bombing attacks against insurgents has also been amply demonstrated in Iraq. The use of air power in Darfur has been no different. That the rebel movements have wittingly or unwittingly drawn air attacks upon the civilian population in Darfur is a matter of record. The government’s position has been predictable. In November 2004, Reuters reported government claims that “rebels…have drawn army fire and aerial bombardment on to Darfur villages by using them as cover and as bases for military operations.” A senior government security chief said that rebels would often have camps next to villages, which were near water sources, and on many occasions attacked the army from within the villages.” [664] Predictable or not, the government’s claims appear to have been at least partly borne out when SLA rebels subsequently admitted as much when they revealed that the Sudanese air force had killed 25 fighters in a raid on a village in north Darfur. The village was 25 miles south of al-Fasher. [665] A British television news item also reported on the rebel presence within villages, in this instance Thabit: “This village is full of rebel soldiers from the Sudan Liberation Army. Eight were wounded in the bombing of Thabit. What happened here was an act of war. But it was an act of war provoked by the rebels to make the government look bad ahead of this week’s peace talks.” [666] Amnesty International’s Benedicte Goderiaux has also pointed out rebel complicity: “Of course it’s the government’s duty to distinguish the SLA from civilians, but the SLA doesn’t help in making that distinction.”
[667] In a report to the United Nations human rights commission, UN officials noted that: “There are some claims that [the rebels] operate from or near civilian areas and rely on towns and villages composed of certain ethnicities for support and supplies. This has endangered civilians in many areas and appears to feed into certain groups being considered as hostile to the Government.” [668]

It has also been claimed, and subsequently confirmed, that rebels have been using displaced persons camps from which to stage attacks on relief convoys and government officials, actions which clearly endanger civilians by provoking a possible military response by government forces. In October 2004, for example, the government stated that an attack on a relief convoy 20 kilometres southwest of al-Fasher had been staged from the Tawila displaced camp. [669] Security forces had also discovered an arms cache near the Zam Zam displaced camp near al- Fasher. In late November 2004, the UN World Food Programme reported that, on 21 November 2004, rebels attacked a police station on the edge of the Kalma IDP camp. This resulted in the death of several policemen. The WFP confirmed that “ominously, the attack appeared to have been launched from inside Kalma camp”. [670] The Sudanese government reported further examples of rebel use of refugee camps, claiming in December 2004 that rebels were using a presence in at least one refugee camp to target and attack policemen. [671]

Unbalanced, misleading and incomplete reporting, coupled with equally misleading or simply inaccurate analysis, by human rights groups confuses and misinforms international perceptions of the conflict. The human rights industry has sadly been party to all these failings in its reporting on Sudan. While all too often taken at face value in a handful of Western capitals, such flawed reporting gravely undermines the credibility of organisations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International in the rest of the word. [670] “Renewed Fighting Shuts Down WFP Operations in North Darfur”, Statement by World Food Programme, Nairobi, 25 November 2004. [671] See, for example, “Darfur Rebels Attack Convoy, Police – Sudan Official”, News Article by Reuters, 16 December 2004.


576 Alex de Waal, “Tragedy in Darfur: On Understanding and Ending the Horror”, Boston Review, Volume 29, Number 5, October-November 2004.
577 See, for example, “Sudan Admits Rights Abuses, Including Rape, by Allies in Darfur”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 22 August 2004 and “Sudan Committee Acknowledges Rights Abuse in Darfur but Rejects Genocide”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 20 January 2005.
578 “The Escalating Crisis in Darfur”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 31 December 2003.
579 “Statement to the Security Council on the Situation of Human Rights in Darfur by Ms Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights”, United Nations, October 2004
580 Report of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur to the United Nations Secretary-General, United Nations, January 2005, p.11.
581 Ibid., p.106.
582 “The Escalating Crisis in Darfur”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 31 December 2003.
583 “Pressure Seen as Key to Ending Sudan’s Western War”, News Article by Reuters, 28 January 2004.
584 “War in Western Sudan Overshadows Peace in the South”, The New York Times, 17 January 2004.
585 See, for example, “Janjawid Militia in Darfur Appears to be out of Control”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 14 May 2004.
586 “Statement to the Security Council on the Situation of Human Rights in Darfur by Ms Louise Arbour, High Commissioner for Human Rights”, United Nations, October 2004.
587 See, for example, Darfur Destroyed: Ethnic Cleansing by Government and Militia Forces in Western Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 7 May 2004.
588 “Sudanese Gov’t ‘Largely Responsible’ for Abuses in Darfur, Says Watchdog”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 27 November 2003.
589 See, for example, “Violence in the Sudan Displaces Nearly 1 Million. An Aid Worker Describes the Gravity of the Humanitarian Crisis”, News Article by MSNBC, 16 April 2004
590 See, for example, Eulogy for a Sudanese War Criminal: Jemera Rone, Human Rights and Double Standards, European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London, 2001, available at <http://www.espac.org>.
591 Darfur, Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2 April 2004.
592 “Widespread Insecurity Reported in Darfur”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 30 July 2003.
593 “Workers in Sudan Aid Convoy Killed”, News Article by BBC News, 28 October 2003.
594 “USAID Seeks Security for Aid Convoys to War-Torn Area of Sudan”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 26 October 2003.
595 “Sudanese Government Accuses Rebels of Murdering its Relief Workers”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 17 November 2003.
596 Ibid.
597 “Rebel Faction Admits Abducting Relief Workers in Sudan”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 20 November 2003.
598 “Western Sudan Too Dangerous for Road Convoys”, News Article by UPI, 17 February 2004.
599 See, for example, “Khartoum Blames Darfur Rebels for Blocking Aid”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 24 March 2004
600 See, for example, “Sudan: Peace, But at What Price? Testimony by Julie Flint Before U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee”, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2004, available at <http://www.hrw.org>. Flint has written some very questionable articles on Sudan, including one for The Observer in 1999 which alleged the use of chemical weapons in the Nuba Mountains. For a detailed critique of some of her claims, see Questionable Sources, Questionable Journalism: The Observer and Sudan, European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London, December 1999, available at <http://www.espac.org>. Flint’s only evidence for what is clearly a very serious allegation she cited an SPLA rebel claim that a pig fell down a crater and died. Claims of Sudanese use of such weapons were extensively investigated – at Khartoum’s request – and tests were run by the United Nations and the internationally renowned Center for Disease Control in the United States. All proved negative.
601 “A Year Gone By in Darfur, and the Despair Has Deepened”, The Daily Star (Beirut), 30 December 2004.
602 See, for example, interview with Associate Director of Human Rights Watch, Carroll Bogert, in Der Spiegel, 14 January 2005.
603 “A Year Gone By in Darfur, and the Despair Has Deepened”, The Daily Star (Beirut), 30 December 2004.
604 “Sudan” section in World Report 2004, Human Rights Watch, London, January 2004.
605 “Sudan Govt, SLA Rebels Peace Talks Break Down in Chad”, News Article by Associated Press, 16 December 2003
606 Darfur: “Too Many People Killed For No Reason”, Amnesty International, London, February 2004.
607 “Sudan Crisis – Background”, Amnesty International, <http://www.amnesty.org>.
608 Deliberate and Indiscriminate Attacks against Civilians in Darfur, AI Index AFR 54/034/2004, Amnesty International, 7 April 2004, <http://www.amnesty.org>.
609 Arming the Perpetrators of Grave Abuses in Darfur, Amnesty International, 2004, <http://www.amnesty.org>.
610 Open Letter to All Members of the Security Council, AI Index AFR 54/162/2004, Amnesty International, 2004, <http://www.amnesty.org>.
611 See, for example, Eric Reeves, “Sudan’s Reign of Terror”, Amnesty Now, New York, Summer 2004.
612 See, for example, The Displacement of Truth: Amnesty International, Oil and Sudan, European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London, 2000, and Amnesty International, Child Soldiers and War Criminals: Troubling Questions, European-Sudanese Public Affairs Council, London , 2001, both available at <http://www.espac.org>.
613 “Court Sentences 24 to Death for Killing 35 People in Tribal Raid”, News Article by Associated Press, 27 April 2003.
614 “Forty-four Sudanese Killed, 22 Hurt in Tribal Clashes in Darfur”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 24 April 2003.
615 “Sudan Sentences 14 to Death for Arson in Turbulent Western Province”, News Article bym Agence France Presse, 16 October 2003.
616 “State of Emergency after Southern Darfur Tribal Clashes”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 22 May 2002.
617 “Sudan: Urgent Call for Commission of Inquiry in Darfur as Situation Deteriorates”, Press Release by Amnesty International, 21 February 2003.
618 “Khartoum Stepping Up Arrests in Strife-Torn Darfur: Amnesty”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 6 August 2003
619 See, for example, “Sudan: Alarming Increase in Executions in Darfur Region”, Press Release by Amnesty International, London, 28 June 2002.
620 See, for example, Darfur: What Hope for the Future? Civilians in Urgent Need of Protection, Amnesty International, London, 15 December 2004.
621 Q & A: Crisis in Darfur, Human Rights Watch, New York, June 2004.
622 “Leader of Darfur Rebels Resorts to Damage Control”, The New York Times, 5 December 2004.
623 See, for example, “Sudan: Peace, But at What Price? Testimony by Julie Flint Before U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee”, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2004, available at http://hrw.org/english/docs
624 “Sudan Governor Accuses Darfur Rebels of Rape and Pillage”, News Article by Agence France Press, 5 December 2004.
625 “Sudan Army: Rebels Burned Eight Villages, Killed Civilians in South Darfur”, News Article by Associated Press.
626If We Return, We Will Be Killed” Consolidation of Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur, Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2004, n.74.
627 “Sudan: Many Reported Killed During New Hostilities in Darfur”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 27 January 2005.
628 “Decision Time in Sudan”, The Economist, 28 August 2004.
629 “The Other Rebels Causing Carnage in Sudan”, The Daily Telegraph (London), 13 August 2004.
630 “Tora Bora Army Strikes Back at the Janjaweed”, The Independent (London), 16 August 2004.
631 “We Are Victims Too, Say Darfur’s Arab Refugees”, The Independent (London), 13 August 2004.
632 “Sudan Says Rebels Kill 89”, News Article by Reuters, 5 December 2004.
633 “Darfur: Sudan Gives Fresh Conditions for Peace Talks”, Daily Trust (Abuja), 30 December 2004.
634 “If We Return, We Will Be Killed” Consolidation of Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur, Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2004.
635 See, for example, “AU Says Rebels Attacked Convoy of Nigerian Pilgrims, Killing Seven People”, News Article by Associated Press, 4 November 2004; and “Sudanese Rebels Attack Convoy of Nigerian Pilgrims”, News Article by PANA, 6 November 2004.
636 “Armed groups must stop targeting civilians and humanitarian convoys”, Press Release by Amnesty International, 3 November 2004.
637 “If We Return, We Will Be Killed” Consolidation of Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur, Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2004.
638If We Return, We Will Be Killed” Consolidation of Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur, Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2004.
639 “Workers in Sudan Aid Convoy Killed”, News Article by BBC News, 28 October 2003.
640 “Sudanese Government Accuses Rebels of Murdering its Relief Workers”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 17 November 2003.
641 “Rebel Faction Admits Abducting Relief Workers in Sudan”, News Article by Agence Francen Presse, 20 November 2003.
642 “Rebels Commandeer Relief Trucks in Sudan’s Darfur Region”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 8 June 2004.
643 “Sudan’s Govt Accuses Darfur Rebels of Attacking FAO Food Convoy”, News Article by Associated Press, 30 June 2004.
644 Report of the Ceasefire Commission on the Situation in Darfur, African Union, Addis Ababa, 4 October 2004.
645 “Abducted WFP Staff Released By Rebels in Darfur”, Press Release by World Food Programme, Rome, 1 September 2004.
646 “UN Envoy Blames Darfur Rebels for Deaths of Aid Officials”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 28 October 2004.
647 “UN envoy blames Darfur rebels for deaths of aid officials”, New Article by Agence France Presse, 27 October 2004.
648 “Humanitarian Aid in Sudan Limited By Insecurity, Road Closures, Says UN Mission”, News Article by UN News Service (New York), 27 October 2004.
649 “U.N. says 200,000 Denied Aid as a Result of Darfur Violence”, News Article by Deutsche Press Agentur, 14 November 2004.
650 “Despite Pact, New Violence Stymies Aid in Sudan”, The New York Times, 28 November 2004.
651 “Doctor Killed, Four Injured in Sudan’s Darfur”, News Article by Al-Rai Al-Amm (Khartoum), 8 November 2004.
652 See, for example, “Foreign Aid Groups Flee Rebel Attacks in Sudan’s Darfur: Report”, News rticle by Agence France Presse, 7 November 2004; “MSF Spain flees rebel attacks in Sudan's Darfur”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 7 November 2004.
653 “Armed Groups Must Stop Targeting Civilians and Humanitarian Convoys”, Press Release by Amnesty International, 3 November 2004.
654 “Staff Murders Stop Aid Work in South Darfur”, The Guardian (London), 14 December 2004.
655 See, for example, “UN Points at Rebels for Darfur Aid Workers’ Death”, News Article by Reuters, 15 December 2004.
656 “UN Points at Rebels for Darfur Aid Workers’ Death”, News Article by Reuters, 15 December 2004.
657 “U.N. Agency Suspends Food Convoys to Sudan”, News Article by Associated Press, 29 December 2004.
658 “If We Return, We Will Be Killed” Consolidation of Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur, Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2004.
659 “Sudanese Rebels Claim New Talks are Last Hope for Peace”, The Independent (London), 15 September 2004. See also, “Sudan Government’s Attacks Stoke Rebels’ Fury”, The New York Times, 11 September 2004, which also confirmed that rebel ranks are “filled” with child soldiers, some no more than 13.
660 “If We Return, We Will Be Killed” Consolidation of Ethnic Cleansing in Darfur, Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 200
661 “Violence in Sudan is Bringing Quick End to Many Childhoods”, International Herald Tribune, 16 August 2004.
662 Report of the Ceasefire Commission on the Situation in Darfur, African Union, Addis Ababa, 4 October 2004. See also “Sudan’s Ragtag Rebels”, The Washington Post, 7 September 2004.
663 “Sudanese Rebel Fighters Braced for Attack”, The Independent (London), 14 August 2004.
664 “Sudan: Darfur Rebels Use Human Shields”, News Article by Reuters, 19 October 2004.
665 See, “Sudan Rebels Say Air Strike Kills 25 Fighters”, News Article by Reuters, 24 November 2004; “Sudan Rebels Retreat under Government Air Attack”, News Article by Reuters, 24 November 2004.
666 News at 7pm, Channel Four (London), 16 December 2004.
667 “Power Struggle: Darfur’s Janjaweed Militia Aren’t the Only Ones Sowing Chaos and Death. Meet the Two Rebel Factions Threatening Yet Another Civil War”, Time, 31 October 2004.
668 Situation of Human Rights in the Darfur Region of the Sudan, E/CN.4/2005/3, UN Commission on Human Rights, Geneva, 7 May 2004.
669 “Rebels from Displaced Camp Attack Relief Convoy”, Sudan Vision (Khartoum), 2 October 2004.
670 “Renewed Fighting Shuts Down WFP Operations in North Darfur”, Statement by World Food Programme, Nairobi, 25 November 2004.
671 See, for example, “Darfur Rebels Attack Convoy, Police – Sudan Official”, News Article by Reuters, 16 December 2004.



Espac Published by The European - Sudanese Public Affairs Council Copyright © David Hoile 2005
powered by hypertools.co.uk