Sudan’s War and the Age of Impunity: A Reading of Amnesty International’s Report on El Fasher

Abbas Mohamed Salih

The latest report issued by Amnesty International on violations in Sudan’s North Darfur State has once again drawn attention to one of the most tragic chapters of the Sudanese war. It has also forcefully revived a broader question concerning the effectiveness—and limitations—of the international justice system in addressing mass atrocities committed during armed conflicts.

The report concludes that the siege imposed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) on the city of El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur State, along with the accompanying indiscriminate shelling, attacks on civilians, and deliberate destruction of vital infrastructure, amounts to war crimes and crimes against humanity. This conclusion aligns with findings documented over the past two years by human rights organizations, United Nations bodies, and international media outlets regarding the nature of violations committed in Sudan.

However, the significance of the report extends beyond merely characterizing the crimes. It raises deeper questions about the nature of the conflict itself and whether it should still be viewed as an “internal conflict” or a “civil war,” or rather as a struggle increasingly shaped by direct regional involvement and competing geopolitical interests.

Confirming Previously Documented Violations

Published in early June under the title “A City Under Siege… Children Under Fire: Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Rapid Support Forces in North Darfur,” the report documents violations committed during the siege of El Fasher from mid-2024 through late 2025.

According to the report, recurring patterns of abuse included indiscriminate bombardment, forced displacement, and attacks on hospitals, shelters, markets, and educational institutions. It also describes practices amounting to “ethnic persecution” targeting specific communities, particularly members of the Zaghawa tribe.

Despite the report’s significance, many observers argue that it offers little new evidence, serving instead to reinforce findings already documented by United Nations reports, independent human rights organizations, and international media throughout the course of the war.

Much of these violations—as well as the sources and channels of external support—has already been documented through audio and video evidence by human rights groups, independent international media outlets, and even by members of the RSF themselves on social media platforms.

From Armed Rebellion to a Conflict with Regional Dimensions

The scale and nature of the violations suggest that Sudan’s war moved beyond the framework of a traditional internal conflict at an early stage. Historically, Sudan’s conflicts have often been understood through the lens of the so-called “center-periphery struggle” between successive central governments and rebel movements in the country’s outlying regions.

However, the continued flow of external support to the RSF militia, coupled with mounting accusations against the United Arab Emirates of backing the group, has transformed the conflict into a regional proxy war that extends far beyond Sudan’s borders. Indeed, it has increasingly come to resemble a major regional proxy conflict, particularly given the alleged involvement of nearly all of Sudan’s neighboring countries in support of the rebel side.

In this context, repeated denials from Abu Dhabi have done little to stem the emergence of international reports pointing to external assistance for the RSF—support that many analysts argue has prolonged the conflict, contributed to what has been described as “the world’s largest humanitarian crisis,” and complicated prospects for a nationally driven political settlement.

Similar Patterns of Targeting: El Fasher and Gaza

Although the political and legal contexts of the wars in Sudan and Gaza differ substantially, comparisons between El Fasher and the Gaza Strip reveal, in the view of many observers, striking similarities in patterns of deliberate attacks on civilians.

In both cases, densely populated areas have endured prolonged sieges, while essential civilian infrastructure—including hospitals, markets, and displacement shelters—has suffered severe damage amid an unprecedented humanitarian collapse. Starvation has also been used as a weapon to break the will of civilians and compel submission in pursuit of political objectives.

Likewise, policies of forced displacement and the destruction of the basic means of survival constitute grave violations that, taken together, may amount to war crimes under international humanitarian law.

Numerous human rights organizations have repeatedly called for independent investigations and accountability for those responsible. Yet these demands have yielded little progress, largely due to the absence of effective international political will and the persistence of double standards that shield perpetrators and obstruct meaningful justice for victims.

When International Justice Fails

The importance of Amnesty International’s report lies not only in its exposure of atrocities but also in its illustration of the international justice system’s limited ability to deter perpetrators or prevent further crimes.

Despite the steady flow of human rights reports and the ongoing documentation of violations, international pressure has thus far failed to halt attacks against civilians or ensure accountability for those responsible, creating the impression that perpetrators enjoy de facto immunity from prosecution.

This reflects the profound crisis facing the international justice system today, where political calculations and power dynamics frequently override the imperatives of international law. Such realities fuel a culture of impunity and encourage the continuation of similar abuses elsewhere around the world.

The Crisis of Domestic Justice in Sudan

The shortcomings are not confined to the international arena; they also extend to Sudan’s domestic institutions.

In areas that came under RSF control, the destruction of judicial institutions, police forces, prosecution offices, and courts led to the collapse of law enforcement mechanisms, the spread of chaos, and the near impossibility of pursuing criminal accountability.

Meanwhile, state institutions operating in territories controlled by the internationally recognized government continue to face serious challenges in systematically documenting violations and compiling comprehensive legal cases that could be presented before national courts or international mechanisms. Equally important is the need to establish the truth for the families and loved ones of victims.

Moreover, slow documentation processes, weak coordination among relevant institutions, and the failure to fully utilize available international mechanisms have all undermined the pursuit of domestic justice and victim redress. These factors have also reinforced a culture of impunity that has long characterized political settlements and elite bargains aimed at ending Sudan’s wars and resolving its conflicts.

Conclusion

Amnesty International’s latest report reaffirms that what occurred in El Fasher is not merely another chapter in Sudan’s war. Rather, it represents a stark example of grave violations of international humanitarian law that cannot be ignored and that demand independent investigations, genuine accountability, and the prosecution of all those involved in these atrocities.

Yet the issue is no longer simply one of proving that crimes have occurred; it has become a question of whether the international community and national institutions possess the capacity and the political will to hold perpetrators accountable.

Ultimately, the report’s recommendations expose the chronic dilemma confronting international human rights organizations: while they often succeed in documenting abuses and mobilizing global public opinion, they rarely succeed in compelling governments and intergovernmental organizations to take decisive action.

Too often, the principles of justice and accountability remain hostage to shifting political interests and balances of power, entrenching rather than dismantling the culture of impunity.

In sum, the longer the war continues without accountability, the deeper the culture of impunity becomes and the greater the erosion of confidence in the international justice system—threatening not only Sudan’s future but also the credibility of the international order founded on the protection of civilians and the prosecution of those responsible for the gravest crimes committed during conflicts and wars.