“[T]he simplistic characterization – used, for example, by Human Rights Watch – of ‘Arabs’ killing ‘Africans’ doesn’t fit.”

Human Rights Activist Alex de Waal [1]

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. [2] 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 Jahangir, 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.” [3] 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”. [4]

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).

This has been done despite the scarcity of reliable information. United Nations media sources, for example, have noted “a lack of accurate information on the conflict” [5] and Reuters has also stated that “it is hard to independently verify claims by government or rebels in Darfur.” [6] 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”. [7] Claims of Khartoum’s control over the “Janjaweed” persist despite increasing evidence that they are out of control. [8] 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.” [9]

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” [10] 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. [11] Such labels have also been challenged by the United Nations and senior aid workers on the ground within Darfur. [12] 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. [13] 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. [14] 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.”. [15] 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. [16] In the wake of this attack, the United States government asked the Sudanese government for help with security and access. [17] 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. In November 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. [18] One month later, rebel gunmen killed two other relief workers and abducted three others. [19] Rebels also kidnapped other relief workers with JEM gunmen admitted abducting five aid workers working for the Swiss humanitarian group Medair. [20] 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.” [21] The Sudanese government repeatedly held the rebels responsible for blocking deliveries of humanitarian aid in Darfur. [22]

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 government-controlled 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 secondhand 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 Watch could 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. [23] 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 non-governmental sources.

Interestingly, it is also worth noting that, although Human Rights Watch’s main Sudan researcher Jemera Rone went on record to criticise the 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. [24] This despite the fact that Human Rights Watch works with the World Health Organisation figure of 70,000. [25] 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”. [26] 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”. [27] 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.” [28] 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 and has not been mentioned once outside of this particular annual report.

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”. [29] 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”. [30] In its April 2004 report, Deliberate and Indiscriminate Attacks against Civilians in Darfur, Amnesty does not once mention rebel human rights abuses. [31] 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. [32] And, in its December 2004 Open Letter to All Members of the Security Council, Amnesty does not mention the rebels once. [33] 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 allowing discredited out-andout propagandists and apologists for rebel human rights abuses such as Eric Reeves to write on Sudan in their publications. [34]

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. [35]

As so often has been the case in their reporting of Sudan, the reliability 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”. [36] 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. [37] 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. [38] 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. [39] (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”. [40] Amnesty has then condemned the government for taking measures to restore order, such as arresting tribesmen suspected of involvement in violence. [41] 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. [42] 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.[43] Many more Sudanese policemen have also been murdered by rebels, often while carrying out their job of protecting internally displaced peoples.

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. [44]

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”. [45] 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. [46] In January 2005, the government reported that rebels had destroyed eight villages and killed many civilians in attacks in South Darfur. [47] 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.

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”. [48] 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.

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.


1 Alex de Waal, “Tragedy in Darfur: On Understanding and Ending the Horror”, Boston Review, Volume 29, Number 5, October-November 2004.
2 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.
3 “The Escalating Crisis in Darfur”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 31 December 2003.
4 “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.
5 “The Escalating Crisis in Darfur”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 31 December 2003.
6 “Pressure Seen as Key to Ending Sudan’s Western War”, News Article by Reuters, 28 January 2004.
7 “War in Western Sudan Overshadows Peace in the South”, The New York Times, 17 January 2004.
8 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.
9 “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.
10 See, for example, Darfur Destroyed: Ethnic Cleansing by Government and Militia Forces in Western Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 7 May 2004.
11 “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.
12 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.
13 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>.
14 Darfur, Darfur in Flames: Atrocities in Western Sudan, Human Rights Watch, New York, 2 April 2004.
15 “Widespread Insecurity Reported in Darfur”, News Article by Integrated Regional Information Networks, UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, 30 July 2003.
16 “Workers in Sudan Aid Convoy Killed”, News Article by BBC News, 28 October 2003.
17 “USAID Seeks Security for Aid Convoys to War-Torn Area of Sudan”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 26 October 2003.
18 “Sudanese Government Accuses Rebels of Murdering its Relief Workers”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 17 November 2003.
19 “Sudanese Government Accuses Rebels of Murdering its Relief Workers”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 17 November 2003.
20 “Rebel Faction Admits Abducting Relief Workers in Sudan”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 20 November 2003.
21 “Western Sudan Too Dangerous for Road Convoys”, News Article by UPI, 17 February 2004.
22 See, for example, “Khartoum Blames Darfur Rebels for Blocking Aid”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 24 March 2004
23 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.
24 “A Year Gone By in Darfur, and the Despair Has Deepened”, The Daily Star (Beirut), 30 December 2004.
25 See, for example, interview with Associate Director of Human Rights Watch, Carroll Bogert, in Der Spiegel, 14 January 2005.
26 “A Year Gone By in Darfur, and the Despair Has Deepened”, The Daily Star (Beirut), 30 December 2004.
27 “Sudan” section in World Report 2004, Human Rights Watch, London, January 2004.
28 “Sudan Govt, SLA Rebels Peace Talks Break Down in Chad”, News Article by Associated Press, 16 December 2003.
29 Darfur: “Too Many People Killed For No Reason”, Amnesty International, London, February 2004.
30 “Sudan Crisis – Background”, Amnesty International, <http://www.amnesty.org>.
31 Deliberate and Indiscriminate Attacks against Civilians in Darfur, AI Index AFR 54/034/2004, Amnesty International, 7 April 2004, <http://www.amnesty.org>.
32 Arming the Perpetrators of Grave Abuses in Darfur, Amnesty International, 2004, <http://www.amnesty.org>.
33 Open Letter to All Members of the Security Council, AI Index AFR 54/162/2004, Amnesty International, 2004, <http://www.amnesty.org>.
34 See, for example, Eric Reeves, “Sudan’s Reign of Terror”, Amnesty Now, New York, Summer 2004.
35 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>.
36 “Court Sentences 24 to Death for Killing 35 People in Tribal Raid”, News Article by Associated Press, 27 April 2003.
37 “Forty-four Sudanese Killed, 22 Hurt in Tribal Clashes in Darfur”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 24 April 2003.
38 “Sudan Sentences 14 to Death for Arson in Turbulent Western Province”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 16 October 2003.
39 “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.
40 “Sudan: Urgent Call for Commission of Inquiry in Darfur as Situation Deteriorates”, Press Release by Amnesty International, 21 February 2003.
41 “Khartoum Stepping Up Arrests in Strife-Torn Darfur: Amnesty”, News Article by Agence France Presse, 6 August 2003.
42 See, for example, “Sudan: Alarming Increase in Executions in Darfur Region”, Press Release by Amnesty International, London, 28 June 2002.
43 See, for example, Darfur: What Hope for the Future? Civilians in Urgent Need of Protection, Amnesty International, London, 15 December 2004.
44 “Leader of Darfur Rebels Resorts to Damage Control”, The New York Times, 5 December 2004.
45 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
46 “Sudan Governor Accuses Darfur Rebels of Rape and Pillage”, News Article by Agence France Press, 5 December 2004.
47 “Sudan Army: Rebels Burned Eight Villages, Killed Civilians in South Darfur”, News Article by Associated Press.
48 Q & A: Crisis in Darfur, Human Rights Watch, New York, June 2004.

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