Interviewed by Sudanhorizon Sudan’s Attorney General:- We interviewed 36 thousand people, against 182 interviewed by the UN Fact-Finding Mission inside states supportive of the rebellion

The UN Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan has recently made public its recommendations, in which it called for the deployment of international forces in the Sudan. The Commission has also talked about violations by the SAF and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) militias, which the Sudanese government rejected. Meanwhile, the Sudanese National Committee has submitted observations on these recommendations to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. To find out the details on these issues, we called on the Sudanese Attorney General, Al-Fatih Tayfour, who presented the National Committee’s report and Sudan’s response before the Council in Switzerland’s capital. He spoke with us about the details of his report, why Sudan has rejected the commission’s recommendations and what happened at the Human Rights Council sessions. He also explained the activities of the National Committee and how it monitors violations, as well as the future measures to be adopted up to the stage of voting by the council on the Commission’s recommendations. Hereunder is the full text of this interview.

Interviewed by Sabah Musa, Cairo, Egypt

Sudanhorizon: First, could we shed light on what happened during the Human Rights Council session?

Tayfour: Sudan was among 16 countries that have rejected the establishment of this very commission from the start. Only 19 countries have agreed to its formation. With this background, Sudan did not submit a response to the Commission, considering that we do not recognize it and reject its formation. Rather, we submitted our observations to the President of the Human Rights Council. The observations were in 11 pages, covering all the paragraphs of the Fact-Finding Mission, which is 30 paragraphs. Sudan has a statement that was supposed to be read in 5 minutes, and then we commented in 2.5 minutes on the responses of the Commission, civil society organisations, and the UAE. There were a huge number of states that supported the non-interference in Sudan’s domestic affairs and supported the efforts of the National Committee.

Sudanhorizon: How many states exactly? And what are the most prominent among them?

Tayfour: About 33 countries have stressed non-interference in Sudan’s internal affairs, rejected the formation of alternative institutions, and supported Sudan.
Sudanhorizon: How many countries backed the Sudan?
Tayfour: The Human Rights Council membership consists of 47 states.

Sudanhorizon: That means only 14 countries were not on Sudan’s side?

Tayfour: No. Not all states that read statements during the sessions were members of the Council, and even civil society organizations are not part of it.

Sudanhorizon: What are the most prominent countries with influence and voice in the Council that came out and expressed support for Sudan?

Tayfour: The states that spoke well before the council included China, Russia, Iraq, Kuwait, Eritrea, Uganda, Yemen, South Sudan, and other countries. Their statements were focused on supporting the Sudanese National Committee, and some of them even quoted some of the recommendations we presented in Sudan’s statement.

Sudanhorizon: And when will the Human Rights Council respond?

Tayfour: The vote will take place at the end of October, and Sudanese diplomacy must make a great effort. We require a simple majority vote, i.e., 24 countries out of the total of 47.

Sudanhorizon: In light of Sudan’s current situation caused by the war, which led to the vote in the Security Council in favour of renewing the arms ban on Darfur for a year, do not you agree that these circumstances will favour extending the Commission’s work and adopting its recommendations?

Tayfour: This is a different situation. The resolution imposing sanctions on Darfur dates back to 2005, and it has been renewed annually. Even the reasons for which the resolutions were imposed were neither logical nor fair because they restricted the right of the Sudanese state, according to the constitution, the law, and the United Nations charters, that the state and the national army have to defend their borders and national territories and maintain security and stability. We think the last renewal took place reasonably.

Sudanhorizon: Were you expecting that the most recent renewal would be the last in Darfur?

Tayfour: Of course, the circumstances of the war led to this renewal. It is supposed that there would be a debate over the UAE by the Security Council demanding it abide by international resolutions. Supporting a rebel militia which committed atrocities and crimes against humanity, genocide, and ethnic cleansing is unacceptable. The UAE is a UN member state, and its actions against Sudan are very ugly indeed.

Sudanhorizon: Were countries within the Council critical of the UAE?

Tayfour: The discussion was general and implicit. One civil society organisation spoke openly about the UAE.

Sudanhorizon: Did you present new evidence implicating the UAE to the Council that is different from what was presented in the Security Council?

Tayfour: We have submitted complete documents proving this involvement, and the UAE is still supplying the militia with weapons and money. We have presented documentation of the flight itineraries and the type of weapons seized, which are American weapons registered in the UAE. What I know is that an investigation is currently underway within the United Nations about the UAE supplying the militia with American weapons, and Resolution 1591, and the Committee of Experts condemned the UAE, and this resolution is included in the United Nations documents. We have a lot of evidence; there is no room to mention them now, and we will use them in the future in litigation for compensations by the UAE for the Sudanese affected after the destruction of the infrastructure and various state institutions and the damage sustained by Sudanese civilians, including myself, who were affected by this war including looting of capital, homes, factories and companies. The UAE contributed to all of this with its proven flagrant support for the militia, and if it had not been for the UAE’s continued support for the militia, the war would not have continued until now. This is a clear question that all the Sudanese people are aware of. Everyone is very angry with the UAE’s mean attitude, which fails to take into consideration kinship, Arab brotherhood or Islam.

Sudanhorizon: In your comment on the Commission’s recommendations, you mentioned that it announced them well before discussing them in the council, and you considered that to be politicizing its work. However, legal experts and diplomats believe that the committee has the procedural right to do so and that there are similar international precedents on this issue.

Tayfour: This is not true. The commission took action prior to the council meeting in Geneva, and it does not have the right to do so. It is unreasonable and unacceptable to hold a press conference and publish its recommendations before presenting its report to the very council that formed it. This commission wants to garner support for itself in order to secure a renewal, even though it failed in its work.

Sudanhorizon (interrupting): Don’t you think that you made the same mistake by rejecting the recommendations before discussing them?

Tayfour: No, we did not make them public before the discussion.

Sudanhorizon: But the Foreign Ministry issued a statement before the discussion?

Tayfour: I am talking about our committee’s concern about monitoring these violations. The National Committee made observations and submitted them to the President of the Council on time. After we submitted these observations to the President of the Council, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs made a statement in line with the observations we submitted. Our observations were submitted before we went to Geneva at the beginning of this month. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs spoke after we submitted the observations to the President of the Council, not to the commission, because we did not recognise the commission in the first place. Sudan’s statement did not include the observations. In our statement, we talked about what the national Committee did in great detail. As for the comment, it was in response to the representatives of civil society organizations, the Commission, and the UAE. We did not do what the Commission did, and we did not hold a press conference as it did. It tried to promote its proposals. It even made contact with some ambassadors to support its position – according to our information – even before submitting its report to the President of the Council. This is a clear political action. It also went beyond its jurisdiction when it commented about extending the mandate of the International Criminal Court, which Sudan has not ratified, and extending it to all Sudanese territory and expanding the arms ban to cover the whole Sudanese territory. This is not within the jurisdiction of the Human Rights Council in the first place. This is evidence that this commission has gone beyond its work and the jurisdiction of the Council that established it.

Sudanhorizon: Why did you reject 4 requests from the Commission to obtain an entry visa for Sudan?

Tayfour: Sudan, along with 15 other countries, voted against this committee when it was formed. This means that we will not deal with a committee that we rejected in the first place, and this is normal.

Sudanhorizon: These recommendations can develop and go to the Security Council and become resolutions. At that time, what will you do?

Tayfour: We are not talking about the future now. When Sudan rejected this commission, rejected its report, and demanded the end of its mandate, this meant that Sudan would not deal with it. This Commission did not refer to the violations according to the known law. It discusses violations and does not attribute them to the party that committed them. It talked about systematic killing in Geneina and the killing of Khamis Abkar. When it talked about details, it described the crime of ethnic cleansing. When it came to the critical point, it did not speak explicitly. There are violations committed by the militia related to crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing. The commission did not describe these actions as known crimes. Then it talked about the fact that Sudanese law does not handle that, which indicates its lack of knowledge of the state’s laws in which it is investigating the facts. Sudanese law was amended in 2009, introducing an entire chapter that talks about war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing. These articles, from Article 186 to Article 192, have many details and are completely consistent with international conventions. The international description of these crimes is a translation of these agreements and these descriptions. The commission had to study the laws of Sudan. In addition to that, In 2001, the Sudanese Anti-Terrorism Law was issued. This law talks about terrorist groups, supporting terrorism, attacking airports and ports, etc. in detailed articles alongside the Sudanese Criminal Law. We are now applying these laws, and we have no shortage of them. Even if we did, we dare to add new articles. The commission ignored all of this, which confirms that it harbours malicious plans.

Sudanhorizon: Don’t you see that the commission’s report has focused more on the violations committed by the Rapid Support Forces? Wasn’t this a reason for you to interact positively with the commission? Such commissions condemn both parties at war.

Tayfour: There are no two parties; this approach is entirely incorrect. The Rapid Support Forces were forces under the law published in 2017, and they were under the command of the Commander-in-Chief. Still, three days before the war (on April 12), they attacked and occupied Merowe Airport, detained a number of Egyptian nationals who were working as technicians at this airport, and ignored instructions by the Commander-in-Chief and then rebelled. And on April 15, they tried to kill or arrest the Chairman of the Sovereign Council and the Commander-in-Chief. You could not possibly compare the armed forces belonging to a state whose constitutional and legal duty is to protect this state, its territory and its citizens to a rebel militia and then come and say that there are two parties to the conflict; what law allows rebel militia forces to carry out a coup and then violate people’s privacy and systematically rape women and loot and kill? I cannot compare this body to a body whose duty is to defend and protect citizens. This committee only met 182 people from faraway countries such as Chad, Uganda, and Kenya. Why didn’t it come to Egypt, for example, which has the largest number of Sudanese displaced by the war and who are still coming to it? Why did it go to countries supporting the rebellion?

We possess a record of 5001 cases of forced disappearances, and we have in custody 105 mercenaries

Sudanhorizon: And what action did you take within the National Committee?

Tayfour: We started legal actions based on complaints submitted by citizens and commissioners of state institutions that were looted and destroyed, 18,741 reports; of these reports, we submitted 273 reports to trial, a verdict was issued in 141 reports, and the charges were dropped in 43 reports, and trials were held in which all legal requirements were met, whether against the accused from the militia or even some regular forces. In these reports, the committee and the public prosecutors interviewed 36,000 persons, ranging from the complaint, the victim and the witness, while the commission held a press conference to promote what it had concluded, met 182 individuals in all these major violations, and did not meet with those fleeing the hell of war imposed by the militia and those who support it, and the method of collecting data and documentation itself is illegal, did not follow the proper procedures, and its work is a very huge deviation from the legal basis required in such work.

Sudanhorizon: Have you submitted this to the council?

Tayfour: Of course… When we submitted our comments, we mentioned these things, and our comments will be included in the council’s documents.

Sudanhorizon: Does the council recognise the national committee, and can they rely on your work, or are you seen as a non-neutral committee?

Tayfour: Yes, the committee is recognized, because it was given the floor and sat in Sudan’s seat, and we submitted our reports, and met with the President of the council and the High Commissioner, and this is a sovereign matter for the Sudanese state, this committee, as the head of the Sovereign Council, as the head of state and his decisions must be implemented, and also the Attorney General has the right to form committees in accordance with the Public Prosecution Law, and it is headed by the Attorney General, and the Public Prosecution in Sudan is a completely independent body, dour situation is different from the situation in some countries in North Africa, our system is different, as the Ministry of Justice in those countries all hosts all judicial bodies, the judiciary, the prosecution, forensic medicine and prisons, but in Sudan, the Public Prosecution is completely independent from the judiciary and from the executive branch of the state, and in the protocol system the head of the judiciary and the Attorney General come directly after the Sovereign Council, ahead of the Prime Minister himself, and this indicates the neutrality of this committee, and it includes legal experts from different ministries to assist the legal aspect, and there is a subcommittee headed by the head of the Public Prosecution and with him a large number of advisors, agents and members of the prosecution at different levels. These are the ones who supervise the investigations and inquiries and represent the prosecution before the courts in the cases that have been decided, and there are more than 10 new court decisions new cases referred to the courts and will appear in the next report, so work is proceeding at a rapid pace.

Sudanhorizon: What is your next step before the Human Rights Council issues a decision?

Tayfour: This question should be referred to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but my belief and knowledge of the men working in New York and Geneva and Sudan’s ambassadors in different countries of the world is that they will do the job, they will do their duty in the best possible way, and they must strive.

Sudanhorizon: In the worst scenario, if this commission’s recommendations were adopted and its mandate was renewed, what would you do?

Tayfour: Whether this commission mandate is renewed or not, the National Committee will move forward with its work and will not stop and will not pay attention to renewal or not, we have duties towards our people, and we will not wait for such a commission to achieve justice for us, we are capable of achieving justice in Sudan.

Sudanhorizon: The idea is not only to extend the commission work, but to adopt its recommendations and develop them?

Tayfour: When we work seriously and actively, the recommendations will not develop into resolutions, we have an argument and persuasion, how can you talk about a judicial system and describe it as collapsed while it is doing all this work, and how can you talk about events while you are outside Sudan, and there are judicial bodies inside it that work efficiently.

Sudanhorizon: What prevents integration between you and the Fact-Finding Mission?

Tayfour: This is premature; this commission went out with the intent to criminalize Sudan and not to help it out. This would have been apparent if it had wanted to assist the Sudan. Complementarity exists with the International Criminal Court, and we asked the Human Rights Council to help us with the principle of complementarity and technical and professional assistance. But not with this Commission. It did not seek complementarity and wanted to replace the national judiciary.

Sudanhorizon: has this Fact-Finding Mission also ignored the issue of enforced disappearance?

Tayfour: This is because its work is incomplete, and even the states that supported this commission have failed to provide it with the resources it required. The commission itself expressed this.

Sudanhorizon: Do you have any figures? Do you have statistics on the number of those who have forcibly disappeared?

Tayfour: According to our investigations and inquiries we conducted, some 5001 people forcibly disappeared, based on our investigations in the areas that the militia attacked and moved from there to other areas, so they are more like gangs now. We have apprehended 105 mercenaries who were fighting with the militia and who hail from 12 foreign countries and they will be brought to trial.

Sudanhorizon: Have you received reports from those who were in the Rapid Support prisons and were released?

Tayfour: Yes, one of them is an employee of the prosecution who was kidnapped from his home. He personally was witness to cases where people died as a result of torture. He spoke about 88 people who died as a result of torture. He saw these events with his own eyes in the reformatory prisons, which is a place used by the RSF militias for keeping kidnapped persons.

The UN Mission breached its mandate. Its current activities are clearly political

Sudanhorizon: Are there any trials for such crimes, and how can they be applied to the militia members?

Tayfour: There are rulings that will be issued in absentia and within the framework of our international cooperation, as we are members of Interpol and have extradition agreements and other bilateral agreements with countries around the world. When our investigations reach the level where we can request these people, spread around the world, we will request the issuance of red notices to hand them over to Sudan and stand trial at home.

Sudanhorizon: Have you issued red notices yet?

Tayfour: We published some bulletins against 16 people, and there are other bulletins for the Rapid Support Forces partners, topped by Abdullah Hamdok, Rasha Awad, and Shawqi Abdel Azim, who signed a political agreement with the militia and became their official supporters, and thus they became partners. There is also a new list of 22 people. The fugitive defendants are about 346 defendants who were announced to surrender themselves, and we have demanded that people help locate them. Those included 16 defendants who were notified, and we sent letters to 6 countries about this.

Sudanhorizon: Can you spell their and the countries?

Tayfour: We have steps that have to come first, first we have to announce that the defendant is a fugitive, and the procedures are going upward, and we cannot go to the superior procedure without taking the primary procedures; this is meant to avoid inflicting any harm on the defendant himself, and we prefer not to make public the names of the countries concerned. We addressed Interpol and the Council of Arab Interior Ministers, and we expect a response from them because moving forward with the trials will lead to achieving justice, which is a collective responsibility worldwide.

Sudanhorizon: You also called for a fund to help those affected. Why didn’t you start this fund from within Sudan?

Tayfour: This fund will start from within Sudan and include the compensation that the courts will impose on the Rapid Support Forces. We expect that rulings will be issued to confiscate these funds in favour of those affected. A lawsuit will be filed against the UAE and all the supporting countries in international courts. We will pursue them, and they must compensate Sudan because the destruction that occurred requires compensation and international cooperation.

Sudanhorizon: The Rapid Support Forces was dissolved. Why haven’t its properties been nationalised yet?

Tayfour: We will not resort to nationalisation; it may be due to political differences. We are a state of law, and we have sufficient cases and data; why should we then resort to confiscating? We will go to courts of law, and they issue their rulings of confiscation according to the law, and the parties whose money was confiscated have the right to appeal until the ruling becomes final, then it is added to the compensation fund, and there are reports on this subject that have been seized, and no rulings have been issued yet in the major cases, so we are still working on them, and no decisions have been issued yet, nationalisation decisions are arbitrary and do not yield good results. There are many precedents in the past in Sudan and elsewhere where compensation was later on obtained for nationalised properties. Thus we prefer judicial rulings.

Sudanhorizon: In light of the fact that the current Sudanese situation is linked to foreign entities abroad, do you need legal assistance from friendly countries in this situation?

Tayfour: Certainly, we have distinguished relations with many countries, most notably Egypt, and there are respected law firms in Europe, and there are competent Sudanese lawyers abroad and at home. We will benefit from all this professional Sudanese and non-Sudanese expertise in the cases that will be filed outside Sudan against the supporting countries.

Sudanhorizon: A final comment?

Tayfour: We commend the stands of the Egyptian leadership and people for hosting the Sudanese civilians who moved there despite the difficult circumstances. Egypt hosts the largest number of Sudanese and provides them with services. The Sudanese are still there, fleeing the war. Egypt has continued to receive the Sudanese with compassion and love for such a long time, and we are always inseparable from the Egyptian people.