Report
of the International Commission of Inquiry on Darfur
to
the United Nations Secretary-General
Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1564 of
18 September 2004
Geneva, 25 January 2005
International
Commission of Inquiry on Darfur
Report
to the Secretary-General
Executive
Summary
Acting under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, on 18 September 2004 the Security Council adopted resolution 1564 requesting, inter alia, that the Secretary-General ‘rapidly establish an international commission of inquiry in order immediately to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties, to determine also whether or not acts of genocide have occurred, and to identify the perpetrators of such violations with a view to ensuring that those responsible are held accountable’.
In October 2004, the Secretary General appointed Antonio Cassese (Chairperson), Mohamed Fayek, Hina Jilani, Dumisa Ntsebeza and Therese Striggner-Scott as members of the Commission and requested that they report back on their findings within three months. The Commission was supported in its work by a Secretariat headed by an Executive Director, Ms. Mona Rishmawi, as well as a legal research team and an investigative team composed of investigators, forensic experts, military analysts, and investigators specializing in gender violence, all appointed by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. The Commission assembled in Geneva and began its work on 25 October 2004.
In order to discharge its mandate, the Commission endeavoured to fulfil four key tasks: (1) to investigate reports of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur by all parties; (2) to determine whether or not acts of genocide have occurred; (3) to identify the perpetrators of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law in Darfur; and (4) to suggest means of ensuring that those responsible for such violations are held accountable. While the Commission considered all events relevant to the current conflict in Darfur, it focused in particular on incidents that occurred between February 2003 and mid-January 2005.
The Commission engaged in a
regular dialogue with the Government of the Sudan throughout its mandate, in
particular through meetings in Geneva and in the Sudan, as well as through the
work of its investigative team. The Commission visited the Sudan from 7-21
November 2004 and 9-16 January 2005, including travel to the three Darfur
States. The investigative team remained in Darfur from November 2004 through
January 2005. During its presence in the Sudan, the Commission held extensive
meetings with representatives of the Government, the Governors of the Darfur
States and other senior officials in the capital and at provincial and local
levels, members of the armed forces and police, leaders of rebel forces, tribal leaders, internally displaced persons,
victims and witnesses of violations, NGOs and United Nations representatives.
The Commission submitted a full report on its findings to the
Secretary-General on 25 January 2005. The report describes the terms of
reference, methodology, approach and activities of the Commission and its
investigative team. It also provides an overview of the historical and social
background to the conflict in Darfur. The report then addresses in detail the
four key tasks referred to above, namely the Commission’s findings in relation
to: i) violations of international human rights and humanitarian law by all
parties; ii) whether or not acts of genocide have taken place; iii) the
identification of perpetrators; and iv) accountability mechanisms. These four
sections are briefly summarized below.
I.
Violations of international human rights law and international
humanitarian law
In accordance with its
mandate to ‘investigate reports of violations of human rights law and
international humanitarian law’, the Commission carefully examined reports from
different sources including Governments, inter-governmental organizations,
United Nations bodies and mechanisms, as well as non-governmental
organizations.
The Commission took as the
starting point for its work two irrefutable facts regarding the situation in
Darfur. Firstly, according to United Nations estimates there are 1,65 million
internally displaced persons in Darfur, and more than 200,000 refugees from
Darfur in neighbouring Chad. Secondly, there has been large-scale destruction
of villages throughout the three states of Darfur. The Commission conducted
independent investigations to establish additional facts and gathered extensive
information on multiple incidents of violations affecting villages, towns and
other locations across North, South and West Darfur. The conclusions of the Commission
are based on the evaluation of the facts gathered or verified through its
investigations.
Based on a thorough analysis of the information gathered in the course of
its investigations, the Commission established that the Government of the Sudan
and the Janjaweed are responsible for serious violations of international human
rights and humanitarian law amounting to crimes under international law. In
particular, the Commission found that Government forces and militias conducted
indiscriminate attacks, including killing of civilians, torture, enforced
disappearances, destruction of villages, rape and other forms of sexual
violence, pillaging and forced displacement, throughout Darfur. These acts were
conducted on a widespread and systematic basis, and therefore may amount to
crimes against humanity. The extensive destruction and displacement have
resulted in a loss of livelihood and means of survival for countless women, men
and children. In addition to the large scale attacks, many people have been arrested
and detained, and many have been held incommunicado
for prolonged periods and tortured. The vast majority of the victims of all of these violations have been
from the Fur, Zaghawa, Massalit, Jebel, Aranga and other
so-called ‘African’ tribes.
In their discussions with the
Commission, Government of the Sudan officials stated that any attacks carried
out by Government armed forces in Darfur were for counter-insurgency purposes
and were conducted on the basis of military imperatives. However, it is clear
from the Commission’s findings that most attacks were deliberately and
indiscriminately directed against civilians. Moreover even if rebels, or persons supporting rebels, were present in
some of the villages – which the Commission considers likely in only a very
small number of instances - the attackers did not take precautions to enable
civilians to leave the villages or otherwise be shielded from attack. Even
where rebels may have been present in villages, the impact of the attacks on
civilians shows that the use of military force was manifestly disproportionate
to any threat posed by the rebels.
The Commission is particularly alarmed that attacks on villages, killing
of civilians, rape, pillaging and forced displacement have continued during the
course of the Commission’s mandate. The Commission considers that action must
be taken urgently to end these violations.
While the Commission did not find a systematic or a widespread pattern to
these violations, it found credible evidence that rebel forces, namely members
of the SLA and JEM, also are responsible for serious violations of
international human rights and humanitarian law which may amount to war crimes.
In particular, these violations include cases of murder of civilians and
pillage.
II.
Have acts of genocide occurred?
The Commission concluded that
the Government of the Sudan has not pursued a policy of genocide. Arguably, two elements of genocide might be
deduced from the gross violations of human rights perpetrated by Government
forces and the militias under their control. These two elements are, first, the actus reus consisting of killing, or
causing serious bodily or mental harm, or deliberately inflicting conditions of
life likely to bring about physical destruction; and, second, on the basis of a
subjective standard, the existence of a protected group being targeted by the
authors of criminal conduct. However, the crucial element of genocidal
intent appears to be missing, at least as far as the central Government
authorities are concerned. Generally speaking the policy
of attacking, killing and forcibly displacing members of some tribes does not
evince a specific intent to annihilate, in whole or in part, a group
distinguished on racial, ethnic, national or religious grounds. Rather, it would seem that those who planned
and organized attacks on villages pursued the intent to drive the victims from
their homes, primarily for purposes of
counter-insurgency warfare.