Subject: Observations and comments on the report “Is there slavery in Sudan?”

(Unofficial translation by Anti-Slavery International from original Arabic)

Let us begin by thanking you for your visit to the Sudan.  We wish to convey to you our appreciation for the efforts your Organisation is making in achieving its objectives and fulfilling its commitments.  We also wish to convey to you the complete commitment and resolve of the State to support and protect human rights in the Sudan.

However, permit us to raise the following points with regard to the above-mentioned subject, hoping that you will take them into consideration in your preparation of the final report:

The Sudan is sincere.  It has joined all the international treaties which condemn and prohibit slavery in all its current forms.  The Constitution of the Sudan of 1998 guarantees this commitment.  Article 20 (of the Constitution) states that “every man has a right to life and freedom and to feel secure in his person and dignity unless otherwise stated by Law.  He is free and his enslavement, servitude, abuse, torture are prohibited.”  Article 132 (of the Constitution) makes freedom from slavery or torture rights and sanctities not to be violated under all circumstances.

Abduction among tribes in the west and south of the Sudan has existed as long as these tribes have.  It has its deep roots in various economic, social and cultural conditions.  Its growth is fostered by the geographic distance of and weakness of infrastructure in these regions, and lack of awareness, education and security among those tribes.  Customs and traditions organised the ways and mechanisms of resolving this phenomenon and other conflicts in these remote areas in the past, without the intervention of the Law or Authorities.  Those traditional institutions and customs frequently helped to foster stability, peaceful co-existence and interconnectedness among these tribes for long periods of time.  The rebellions leading to the (civil) war played a big role in the reappearance and exacerbation of this phenomenon.  The rebels attacked all tribes in these regions, capturing and killing a great number of the members of the tribes.  This in turn provoked impulses of revenge, riot and self-defence in those tribes.  After the war had started, and because of the absence of security and opportunities for leaving war zones, because of the breakdown in communications, the obstruction by the rebellion of any efforts in establishing peace and mutual trust among the tribes, it has become difficult for traditional mechanisms to solve problems, the first of which is the phenomenon of mutual abduction.

Abduction usually occurs when nomadic tribes come into contact with one another during their travels in search of pasture and water.  Abduction is mutual among different tribes in areas of intersection and is not limited to one specific tribe.  CEAWC recently returned 118 abductees belonging to Baggara tribes and united them with their families in the North.  The southern tribes abduct from one another.  The evidence for this is the agreement made between Dinka and Nuer to stop mutual abduction.  The same may be said of Dinka, Tabusa and Murli in the south of the Sudan.

Abduction is a crime by Article 162 of the Penal Code of the Sudanese Law, not Article 161 as you mention in your report.  Article 161 deals with enticement.  CEAWC works with Article 162’s definition of abduction.  The punishment for this crime by Article 162 is ten years’ imprisonment.  If it is combined with enticement, as defined in Article 161, and forced labour, as defined in Article 163, then the total punishment may reach 18 years’ imprisonment, not including fines or the victims’ compensation.

It is the Sudanese Government’s priority to eradicate this grave phenomenon and therefore it set up CEAWC.  The slowness in procedures is the result of over ten years of accumulation of the phenomenon.  CEAWC is seeking the most effective way to eradicate this phenomenon from its roots.  Even though the Government representatives are familiar with all the international treatises and laws that prohibit slavery, the vastness of the targeted area and its distance from media prevents them from disseminating extensively the “culture of human rights.”  This explains why they have turned to traditional institutions and tribal leadership to spread as much as possible the awareness among the people through direct contact, travelling in those regions, and soliciting their participation in the full solution of this phenomenon.

The number of abductees documented by CEAWC is 1200 only.  Other numbers are not exact and cannot be confirmed.  Some of them are mere claims not confirmed by reports or lists (compiled by those who claim the existence of such large numbers of abductees).  CEAWC is trying to be accurate and to distinguish between abduction, forced labour and other cases of separation (from their families) for other reasons.  Because of the large number of displaced people in these regions, there are difficulties in documentation and treatment of cases other than abduction.

The report makes no mention of the violations committed by the rebellion in its attack of villages, countryside, and refugee camps, and its escalation of fighting with various tribes living in these regions.  You were informed of these violations, which were later confirmed by reports and actual events.

The report does not mention the various ways of peaceful co-existences prevalent in north Sudan, especially in Darfur and Kordofan.  There are large numbers of migrants who moved from the south to the north either because of war or drought and have integrated into northern tribes and have lived peacefully among them.  This confirms that abduction is narrowly limited to distant and isolated regions due to economic, security and trust problems among the tribes there.  CEAWC’s objectives are to support peaceful co-existence through awareness-raising, restoring trust, solution of tribal conflicts, and strengthening basic and developmental structures.  One of the most important recommendations made by the first workshop organised by CEAWC in co-operation with UNICEF in 1999 was to initiate development projects in those regions.  CEAWC hopes to receive international funding for these projects.

When an abductee is identified, CEAWC follows the practice of removing immediately the abductee from abductor to peace centres (centres of temporary care) except in special and complex cases.  These peace centres are managed in co-operation with Save the Children (UK) that has extensive experience in this field.  CEAWC is seeking to expand these centres and to have them served by social workers, who will help to solve social and psychological problems of the abductees and to rehabilitate them in order to reunite them with their family in their original societies.

Uniting abductees with their families is complex and requires patience; for it must be ensured that a child is returned to his family in the best of conditions.  The process is further complicated by the constant movements of tribes from warring areas to peaceful areas.  CEAWC is seeking follow-up mechanisms to monitor those children recently reunited with their families in order to ensure their integration into their original environment, and that children returned to areas under the control of the rebellion will not be exploited or conscripted.  The rebellion has a bad record in this regard.  CEAWC is also studying the possibility of finding other safe passageways and corridors between the areas controlled by the Government and areas controlled by the rebellion.  It is CEAWC’s conviction that children should be united with their families without being subjected to negative mental and physical consequences; reunification should not affect the best interest of the children negatively.

CEAWC deals with special and complex cases with the best interest of the abductee in mind.  The final decision is left to the abductee in the cases of older children and married women; they are to decide what is their best interest.  Children who do not know their families are integrated into substitute families from the original society of the abducted children.  However, efforts to identify and find their real families continue.

The incidents encountered by members of the Dinka Committee were accidental.  They were simply minor problems concerning how CEAWC should carry out its tasks.  The Government interfered only to provide members of the Dinka Committee with protection in fear of conflicts with other tribes in the these regions.  CEAWC has now provided all members of tribal committees with identity cards under the umbrella of CEAWC.  These ID cards, in which it is stated that official and unofficial “authorities” should co-operate with their holders and facilitate their tasks, gives them some protection.  In fact, the vehicle that the chairman of the Dinka Committee uses now carries a government plate for additional protection.  There are now instruction manuals that organise and detail the roles and relations among various committees in order to prevent overlaps in responsibilities or jurisdictions.  The workshops will continue to refine the performance.

The method followed by CEAWC in tackling this phenomenon is grounding on its complete understanding of its roots and manifestations.  CEAWC is committed to the (UN) Commission on Human Rights’ resolution made at the 57th session, on 12 April 2001, which requires bringing to justice persons suspected of supporting or participating in abduction (when they refuse to co-operate with CEAWC).

The report does not mention the success CEAWC achieved within the short period of its establishment, or the unprecedented co-operation it has found among the tribes and their leadership—their complete commitment to the appeals by CEAWC and its programmes designed to spread awareness in various societies of the need to eradicate this phenomenon that has been deep-rooted for many years.

The slow progress made by CEAWC last year was due to the desire of UNICEF and Save the Children (UK), CEAWC’s partners, to review previous funding and to appoint new and experienced officials for this important task.  This coincided with CEAWC’s desire to reorganise its internal structures, without affecting the authorities of the committee, for the purpose of evaluating its previous experience and finding the shortest and most effective ways of eradicating this phenomenon, practically and scientifically, in both the short and long term.

We inform you that CEAWC has received a generous donation from the Government recently in addition to the Government’s commitment to encourage and support around one hundred government employees working for various CEAWC committees, and to the Government’s commitment to continue to support CEAWC politically and in the media in providing all help necessary for CEAWC to complete its work.

We think that the mistakes that accompanied CEAWC’s work were natural and accidental because CEAWC is working towards tackling a long-term phenomenon current in traditional environment and remote areas, the causes of which are economic, social and cultural.  Considering the size of achievements, the accomplished progress and the co-operation found, these mistakes remain insignificant as long as there is readiness and political commitment from the part of the Government to find the last abductee and to reunite him or her with their family.  CEAWC is prepared to work towards eradicating the historical roots of this phenomenon, and towards spreading awareness, security, concepts of peaceful co-existence through spreading peace and concepts of human rights in a planned and programmatic fashion.

We thank you for your efforts and hope that the final report will be a balanced one.  We are fully prepared to co-operate with you and to benefit from your long, rich experience and accept all constructive recommendations that will lead to ending this phenomenon in the Sudan.

2.  Comment from Anti-Slavery International to CEAWC Director dated 12 October 2001

Let me confirm first of all our intention of ensuring that anyone who sees the report we prepared (“Is there slavery in Sudan”) also sees your comments… 

I think the most important piece of information to highlight in your comments is that the number of abductees documented by CEAWC is 1200 only.  This is evidently in strong contrast both to the estimates that by the Dinka Committee (that a total of some 14,000 people are believed to have been abducted since 1986) and the numbers cited to the media by Christian Solidarity International (CSI), which, in a press statement made in early September, doubled its estimate from 100,000 to 200,000, a figure which we regard as having no credibility whatsoever.  However, the number of 1200 abductees documented by the CEAWC is not appreciably more than the number recorded a year ago, and consequently I must emphasise our very considerable concern that the CEAWC appears not to have been able to continue its work of releasing victims of abduction at a significant rate over the past year.

On the other points raised in your fax, we have only a few minor observations to make.

In the light of your comment 4 on the provisions of Article 162 of the Penal Code, we can see now that we were slightly misled by the translations from Arabic into English given in the text of the Penal Code that we received last year.  In commenting, as we did in the second of the five recommendations highlighted in the “Executive Summary” of our report, that the term “abduction” referred only to cases involving young children and people who are insane, we were interpreting the English text of the penal code that we were given during our visit to Khartoum last year.  The translation into English suggests that Article 161 is about “Abduction”, whereas now we have consulted the text in Arabic, we can see that it deals with cases of enticement, just as you point out in your fax.  Again, the translation into English which we received translated the title of Article 162  as “Kidnapping”, whereas we can see in the light of your comment that it does indeed deal with abductions.  We consequently observe that the offence of “abduction” as defined by the Penal Code carries a penalty of 10 years imprisonment, and this is a serious punishment that, in our view, would be commensurate with the crime.  As you will probably appreciate, we remain concerned that there have not actually been prosecutions or convictions of people for this offence, arising out of the very substantial pattern of abductions by people based in South Darfur and West Kordofan, although we are, of course, pleased to note that the CEAWC is committed to implementing the last (20 April 2001) UN Commission on Human Rights resolution. 

You are largely right in saying, in point 7 in your fax, that our report makes no mention of the violations committed “by the rebellion”, that is to say by supporters of the SPLA.  Of course, we report on some cases which were mentioned to us, as in paragraph 53 of our report.  However, our report deliberately focuses on a relatively specific pattern of abuse.  Consequently the report does not mention other abuses which Anti-Slavery is concerned about in Sudan, such as the recruitment and deployment of child soldiers, the extreme forms of exploitation of children held in the custody of the Lord’s Resistance Army in the Juba area, and the prolonged detention by the Sudanese military or security service of children and young adults who were themselves abducted in Uganda by the Lord’s Resistance Army, and who have subsequently escaped from LRA control).  Our report certainly did not set out to document the wide range of abuses committed by both the SPLA and by government forces, regular and irregular, in the context of the war.  We do not think this needs detract from its objective: indeed, we hope that you interpret it as a technical report focusing on a specific and long-term form of abuse, and not a propaganda document produced to score points for one or other side in the context of the war.