Atrocities

Sudan has been engulfed in a devastating civil war since April 2023, when fighting erupted between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). The conflict has displaced millions of people, triggered one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises and led to widespread allegations of war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Al Obeid, one of Sudan’s largest and most strategically important cities, has become the latest flashpoint as the RSF intensifies military operations around the city. The situation has raised fears of a repeat of the violence witnessed in Al Fashir in North Darfur, where fierce fighting, civilian casualties and widespread reports of abuses drew international condemnation.

Against this backdrop, the United Nations Human Rights Council has moved to increase international scrutiny by launching an urgent inquiry into alleged violations committed during the escalating violence.

The United Nations Human Rights Council on Monday adopted a resolution condemning escalating violence by Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces in Al Obeid and authorising an urgent investigation into alleged human rights abuses committed during the fighting.

The motion, introduced by the United Kingdom with support from 14 other countries, was adopted by consensus, although China distanced itself from the decision over concerns about country specific investigations conducted without the consent of the government concerned.

The inquiry will seek to document alleged violations as international concern grows over the deteriorating humanitarian and security situation in the city.

Diplomats warned that the situation in Al Obeid could mirror previous atrocities reported elsewhere in Sudan.

Britain’s Human Rights Ambassador Eleanor Sanders urged the council to prevent a repeat of the violence seen in Al Fashir, warning that similar patterns of attacks against civilians must not be allowed to recur.

South Africa also backed the resolution, describing the situation as a critical warning and expressing concern that the RSF was employing tactics similar to those previously documented during operations in Darfur.

The mounting international concern reflects fears that the conflict around Al Obeid could rapidly escalate into another large scale humanitarian disaster.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights recently warned that a catastrophe is unfolding around Al Obeid.

According to the Human Rights Office, investigators have documented reports of summary executions, kidnappings, torture and widespread sexual violence in areas surrounding the city.

The findings add to a growing body of evidence gathered by United Nations agencies and international human rights organisations documenting alleged abuses committed during Sudan’s civil war.

The Rapid Support Forces have consistently rejected previous allegations, arguing that the accusations are politically motivated and making similar allegations against rival forces.

The newly approved investigation is intended to independently gather evidence, establish facts and improve accountability for alleged violations of international humanitarian and human rights law.

Although the Human Rights Council does not possess judicial authority, its investigations often provide evidence used by international courts, sanctions bodies and future accountability mechanisms.

The inquiry may also increase diplomatic pressure on parties to the conflict while drawing greater international attention to the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Sudan.

While the resolution was adopted without a formal vote, China stated that it did not support investigations targeting individual countries without their approval.

Beijing has consistently argued that international human rights mechanisms should respect national sovereignty and avoid what it considers politically selective investigations.

Despite China’s position, the resolution received sufficient backing from council members to proceed.

The investigation signals growing international concern that Sudan’s conflict is entering another dangerous phase marked by escalating violence against civilians.

Independent documentation of alleged abuses could strengthen future efforts to pursue accountability while increasing international pressure for humanitarian access and renewed peace negotiations.

The inquiry also demonstrates the Human Rights Council’s willingness to respond quickly when there are warnings of possible mass atrocities.

United Nations Human Rights Council

Launching an urgent investigation into alleged abuses and monitoring developments in Al Obeid.

Rapid Support Forces

Facing renewed international scrutiny over allegations of serious human rights violations, which the group denies.

Sudanese Armed Forces

Continuing military operations against the RSF while remaining a central party to the conflict.

Civilians in Al Obeid

Confronting increasing risks from escalating fighting, displacement and humanitarian hardship.

Seeking greater accountability, humanitarian access and diplomatic efforts to reduce violence.

China

Maintaining its opposition to country specific human rights investigations conducted without state consent.

The Human Rights Council will begin organising the urgent inquiry, with investigators expected to collect evidence, interview witnesses and monitor developments around Al Obeid.

Meanwhile, international attention will remain focused on whether fighting intensifies around the city and whether diplomatic efforts can prevent another humanitarian catastrophe similar to those witnessed elsewhere in Sudan.

The Human Rights Council’s decision reflects growing concern that events in Al Obeid are following a pattern already witnessed elsewhere in Sudan’s civil war. The repeated references by diplomats to Al Fashir suggest the international community fears another episode of mass civilian suffering before meaningful intervention becomes possible.

The inquiry itself will not stop the fighting, nor does the Human Rights Council possess enforcement powers. Its primary significance lies in documenting evidence that may later support international legal action, targeted sanctions or future accountability mechanisms. Such investigations also serve as an important warning to armed groups that alleged violations are being monitored by the international community.

The decision also highlights the persistent divisions within the United Nations over country specific investigations. China’s decision to distance itself from the resolution reflects a broader debate between protecting state sovereignty and responding rapidly to alleged mass atrocities. Similar disagreements have shaped international responses to conflicts in Myanmar, Syria and other crisis zones.

For Sudan, however, the immediate challenge remains humanitarian rather than diplomatic. Continued fighting around Al Obeid threatens to worsen displacement, restrict humanitarian access and expose more civilians to violence. If the conflict follows the trajectory seen in other parts of the country, the consequences could further deepen what is already one of the world’s largest humanitarian emergencies.

Ultimately, the inquiry represents an effort to ensure that alleged abuses are documented while there is still an opportunity to deter further violations. Whether it contributes to greater accountability or influences the conduct of the conflict will depend largely on developments on the ground and the willingness of the international community to translate its findings into concrete action.

With information from Reuters.

WASHINGTON — A teen-ager who shocked a congressional committee with her accounts of Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait was revealed Monday to be the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the United States–a fact concealed when she appeared at the late 1990 hearing, conducted as a vote loomed on America’s use of force in the Gulf.

Confirming an opinion article in Monday’s New York Times, California Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Burlingame) said Monday he knew that the 15-year-old girl, publicly identified only as Nayirah, was, in fact, the daughter of Kuwaiti envoy Sheik Saud al Nasir al Sabah.

Her identity was kept secret at her father’s request, Lantos said, because Saud feared that other family members still in Kuwait could become victims of Iraqi reprisals.

The girl’s testimony before the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, which Lantos chairs, had a major impact on lawmakers sharply divided over authorizing President Bush to use force to liberate Kuwait.

Appearing before Lantos’ panel Oct. 10, 1990, the girl testified that she had recently escaped from Kuwait, where she had seen Iraqi soldiers storm into Al Adnan hospital and remove 15 babies from their incubators, leaving them “on the cold floor to die.”

Her account, which was similar to atrocity reports provided by a Kuwaiti doctor and other medical personnel, was later cited by several lawmakers in the speeches they gave in support of their decision to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

The testimony was later called into question, however, by Amnesty International and other human rights groups. After an Amnesty International investigation in Kuwait in April of the following year, an Amnesty spokesman said: “We became convinced . . . that the story about babies dying in this way did not happen on the scale that was initially reported, if, indeed, it happened at all.”

While Lantos knew the girl’s identity at the time of her testimony before his panel, other Congress members, including the Republican co-chairman of the caucus, Rep. John E. Porter of Illinois, said they did not.

Both congressmen defended the decision to have her testify and heatedly denied the suggestion, implicit in the New York Times opinion page piece by Harper’s magazine publisher John R. MacArthur, that lawmakers may have been duped into voting to go to war against Iraq by artful propaganda.

Times staff writers William Eaton and Don Shannon contributed to this report.

The Hague in the Netherlands hosts the world’s most powerful international courts, where judges speak for the conscience of humanity. Yet we consult them only after atrocities have erupted – after wars have shattered communities and legal battles begin.

In theory, law can hold power to account. But has it been enough? Can it truly confront militarism, prevent atrocities, and protect people before disaster strikes?

Join Ali Rae for episode two of All Hail the Military, a five-part series that reveals the systems, power, and hidden complicities that sustain global militarism – and the profound impact it has on us all.

A day after the chavista-controlled National Assembly gave the cold shoulder to Magaly Vásquez, and confirmed Larry Devoe as Attorney General, I spent the day going through the latter’s public record as a “Venezuela agent” in multilateral spaces.

It was a shocking way to spend a Friday afternoon. What was I expecting? Back in 2014, Devoe was handed the so-called Human Rights Council just as Venezuela was about to spiral into a multi-dimensional crisis. Súper Bigote seemingly set three tasks in the international arena:

Find excuses and someone to blame for the disaster that was about to unfold, by casting the chavista government as the victim.

No matter how bad the humanitarian situation can get and the extent to which social indicators were reversed, insist that Chávez lifted millions out of poverty forever. 

Every time other diplomats, foreign officials or humanitarian personnel showed details and data that showed a dire country, answering that Venezuela was sovereign and democratic and no one needed to meddle with our own mess.

Devoe was one of the three main bureaucrats that defined such diplomatic chavista wisdom in those days. These three had fancy degrees from European schools, and were clever enough to fabricate a good headline amidst pervasive criticism. Besides Devoe, there was a lady called Delcy Rodríguez, disgraced in the late-Chávez years but handed the Information Ministry soon after el comandante passed, with studies from London’s Birkbeck University and Paris Nanterre University. There was also Bernardo Álvarez, Maduro’s representative in the OAS who had been the man in Washington when Chavez’s beef with Bush reached peak levels.

Soon after they started to defend Maduro in Venezuela and abroad, the international perception about his regime suffered a deep setback. In July 2016, dozens of Venezuelan NGOs addressed Ban Ki-moon complaining about the behavior of UN agencies in reaction to the country’s humanitarian situation. The letter was based on a report that covered plummeting indicators in the previous four years (measuring institutional quality, human rights and the conditions of vulnerable groups). On August 10, the South Korean secretary general said Venezuela was undergoing a humanitarian emergency, quoting that very report.

In 2016, Devoe said an opposition-drafted amnesty law was a “serious threat” to human rights.

Rodríguez, Álvarez and Devoe had work to do. Footage of Delcy denying the humanitarian crisis in June 2016 (did so again in 2018 before the UNHCR) has circulated in recent days, but it was actually Álvarez who first established the regime’s position. In an IACHR human rights hearing that featured the likes of Alfredo Romero, Carlos Correa, Rafael Uzcategui, Liliana Ortega and other prominent human rights defenders—many of which the newly minted prosecutor will have to deal with— , Álvarez said: “It’s not a humanitarian crisis, that has a political intentionality.”

A 43-year-old UCAB lawyer, with human rights studies from the iconic Alcalá de Henares University, sat next to Álvarez and in front of Romero et al. He was Larry Devoe, and came with the goods in his turn to speak, praising the “23,146 health centers across the territory, a 333% in terms of infrastructure” that Maduro had inherited by 2015.

He made another remark that day that now sounds like a prescient spell. Back then, the opposition-led parliament approved an amnesty bill aimed at 82 political prisoners held in Venezuela. Devoe said its contents were a “serious threat” to human rights with the allegation that the bill pardoned international crimes like the use of minors to commit crimes, drug trafficking, terrorism and corruption.

Whataboutism at its best

Devoe would use that technique several times after. In October 2018, he was invited as a conference speaker in the Autonomous University of Santo Domingo to discuss OAS’ record in defending human rights in the region. His lecture’s talking points: Venezuela became “the theater of operations of OAS and US actions” and the OAS whitewashed the pre-Chávez regime. Before that, he showed up in a local TV program, El Matinal, where interviewer Pablo McKinney tried to make him feel at ease by introducing the brotherly ties between Dominicans and Venezuelans. Devoe started speaking of Venezuela’s all-round, positive transformation since 1999 in terms of human rights. When McKinney raised his eyebrows, Devoe claimed Venezuela had one of the best social security programs in the Americas, but the nation was under MECANISMOS DE AGRESIÓN since 2013.

Devoe kept going. Chavez had ended illiteracy and handed out two million homes, and so goes that famous song. Unconvinced by the explanation, McKinney said he couldn’t bear Venezuelans wandering the streets of his city. Es demasiado grave, to which Devoe replied that Maduro was getting the Allende treatment, and that Venezuelan migrants were returning home from Colombia and the DR because of the treatment they got in those countries.

Is this surprising?

Not really. That was the standard rhetoric wielded by chavista diplomats, or Cuban officials since the 1960s, which Devoe also liked to quote. That doesn’t exempt Devoe from being a cold liar that now heads one of Venezuela’s most important institutions. He’s still good for Delcy, as he was good for the three tasks that I listed several paragraphs ago. 

Devoe could not acknowledge the humanitarian crisis in public. It was too embarrassing. It would give credibility to widespread reports about malnutrition, tropical diseases and growing maternal mortality rates.

The videos show how Devoe reacts to well-documented accusations to “defend the country” and conceal responsibility. Take for instance this occasion in 2018, two years after Ban Ki Moon’s now-historic statement, where Devoe addressed Venezuelan experts in the Inter American Commission on Human Rights. He admits the scarcity of medical supplies, but attributes its cause to “sanctions and economic blockades” (sectoral sanctions then in place affected Venezuelan credit). When asked about Maduro’s public refusal to accept humanitarian assistance, Devoe said:

“Commissioner, Venezuela has the capacity to buy and provide the resources to guarantee the rights of its population.”

A kidney transplant patient, Francisco Valencia, interrupted Devoe to tell him he had not received medical treatment for six months. “I am dying.” Devoe replied: “Well Francisco, I ask you to leave this room and ask Euroclear to unfreeze the 1,650 million dollars that would let us buy your treatment.”

The problem with that statement is not only Devoe’s audacity in talking back to a helpless patient. Venezuelan humanitarian organizations were, at that point, getting resources because of international cooperation. That cooperation was, to an extent, greenlighted by the Venezuelan State. ECHO, Caritas International, the Red Cross, the International Rescue Committee and others were already in the country, liaising with local groups.

Like Maduro and Delcy, Devoe could not acknowledge it. It was too embarrassing. It would give credibility to reports that maternal mortality grew 90% between 2016 and 2017, of 11.4% of acute malnutrition among kids under 5 years old, and claims that the government was hiding data on spikes of tuberculosis, diphtheria and malaria.

Hard Left roots?

It recently emerged that Larry Devoe is the maternal grandson of Pompeyo Márquez, who had been a communist militant during Betancourt and Leoni’s war against Cuba-funded guerrillas. Márquez later joined the party system with Movimiento Al Socialismo (MAS) through Caldera’s pacification process. He broke with Chávez when MAS endorsed his 1998 candidacy, and spent his final years opposing chavismo from within the Left.

On that shocking Friday afternoon, I also came upon a book about Venezuelan universities in the second half of the 20^th century. One chapter speaks about the political climate in Caracas’ Universidad Central in the 1970s. It mentions a Larry Devoe in the youth ranks of MAS, which clashed with the Leftwing Revolutionary Movement (MIR)—where Jorge Antonio Rodríguez, father of Jorge and Delcy, was a student leader—on campus and in student council elections. (At this point, everyone knows the fate of Jorge Rodríguez padre, murdered in the custody of DISIP in 1976 after the kidnapping of William Niehous).

Albeit rivals in the halls of UCV, it seems like the fathers of Larry Devoe and the Rodríguez siblings were part of the same political community 50 years ago. There’s a chance the new prosecutor general, born after the killing of Rodriguez padre, has known Delcy and Jorge for quite a while. Devoe Sr. was a MAS member along with Jorge Valero, a former Venezuelan ambassador to the UN and OAS this century, whom Devoe defended in his Santo Domingo speech.

Delcy, Ernesto Villegas and Larry Devoe presented a 2017 report denying the State’s responsibility for the great majority of deaths during that year’s protests.

Part of what people like Devoe and the Rodríguez siblings likely absorbed early on were accounts of the extrajudicial killings and torture Venezuelan communists endured in the 1960s. Then came the 1976 case of Rodríguez. And later, when Devoe was 11, the Caracazo—preceded by massacres like Cantaura and El Amparo, carried out by state officials, often with impunity.

These events are not just real; they must be remembered as part of the bloodier side of our recent history, one that did not begin in 1999. What is striking is that Devoe, now prosecutor in this “new political moment”, has repeatedly covered up similar crimes, the very kind the Rodríguez siblings have long grieved over.

In 2023, Devoe dismissed the ongoing investigation in the International Criminal Court as a political ploy, said Caracas proved crimes against humanity were never committed, and echoed Tarek William Saab’s claims that Venezuelan courts were doing their job in dealing with the bad apples. That now contradicts the discourse of the Rodríguez siblings, who got rid of Saab to appoint him. Six years before that, Delcy, Ernesto Villegas and Larry Devoe presented a report denying the State’s responsibility for the great majority of deaths during the 2017 protest cycle. This denialism has been a recurring pattern in his career as a Venezuelan State agent, and remains a part of chavismo’s rhetoric about “political violence since 1999.”

Someone told me that Devoe was respectful and decent in one-on-one interactions, even after heated debates over the causes and scale of the Venezuelan crisis. That perhaps he was caged by his own surroundings. Let’s see if Devoe can somehow turn that record around.

After all these years, we have reasonable doubts he’ll do so.