Today, in a landmark decision, the International Criminal Court (ICC) found former Janjaweed commander Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (also known as Ali Kushayb) guilty of 27 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in Darfur between August 2003 and March 2004.
Despite decades of well-documented atrocities, Kushayb is the first and only high-level official to be held accountable before any court for international crimes committed in Darfur or elsewhere in Sudan.
The verdict marks a major development in the effort to confront Sudan’s entrenched culture of impunity and is the culmination of years of tireless advocacy for justice by Darfuri victims and their allies. It is also the first conviction in a situation referred to the Court by the UN Security Council, as well as the first conviction at the Court for gender-based persecution.
The judges of Trial Chamber I unanimously found Kushayb guilty of various international crimes committed during the widespread and systematic attack by the Janjaweed and Government of Sudan forces against the civilian population in West Darfur. These include torture, rape, and murder (both as war crimes and crimes against humanity), as well as persecution against the Fur tribe on political, ethnic, and gender grounds. He was found responsible for the commission of international crimes as a direct perpetrator (including for murder and torture), as a co-perpetrator, and for ordering the Janjaweed to commit offences.
The decision arrives during a perilous moment for the communities victimised by Kushayb and his affiliates. Two decades after the events at issue, Darfur is once again embroiled in a devastating armed conflict, which – exceptionally – has extended across the country. While the Janjaweed militia (which Kushayb led in Wadi Salih and Mukjar localities) was later formalised under former President Omar al-Bashir as the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), they have continued to be implicated in international crimes – including redeploying the same scorched earth tactics heard by the Court against civilians in Darfur and beyond during the current armed conflict.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC – which has opened a new Darfur investigation – has grounds to believe that both the RSF and the Sudanese Armed Forces have committed international crimes in Darfur since 15 April 2023.
Following the ICC’s judgment, the parties are now invited to submit evidence to inform the judges’ decision on the appropriate sentence for Kushayb, which could be up to 30 years of imprisonment or, under exceptional circumstances, a life sentence.
The hearing to receive any additional evidence will be scheduled in the week commencing 17 November 2025, after which the Chamber will retire to deliberate. A further hearing will be scheduled to deliver the sentencing decision.
The Q&A below aims to clarify key aspects related to the counts for which Kushayb was convicted, the period examined by the ICC, the reparations phase, and other relevant issues.
Ali Kushayb Verdict Q&A
Kushayb was found guilty of 27 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, which are divided into the areas in which the charged crimes occurred:.
Kodoom and Bindisi: Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as a war crime; murder as a crime against humanity; murder as a war crime; pillaging as a war crime; destruction of the property of an adversary, without military necessity, as a war crime; other inhumane acts as a crime against humanity; outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime; rape as a crime against humanity; rape as a war crime; forcible transfer as a crime against humanity; and persecution as a crime against humanity on political and ethnic grounds.
Mukjar: Torture as a crime against humanity; torture as a war crime; outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime; murder as a crime against humanity; murder as a war crime; attempted murder as a crime against humanity; attempted murder as a war crime, and persecution as a crime against humanity, on political, ethnic and gender grounds.
Deleig: Torture as a crime against humanity; torture as a war crime; outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime; murder as a crime against humanity; murder as a war crime; attempted murder as a crime against humanity; attempted murder as a war crime; and persecution as a crime against humanity, on political, ethnic and gender grounds.
The Court did not enter a conviction on the four remaining counts, namely other inhumane acts as a crime against humanityand cruel treatment as a war crime (both in Mukjar and Deleig). This is because the judges considered that the underlying criminal conduct was already covered by the other counts.
Focusing on a limited number of events or a limited period is a prosecutorial strategy often used in different jurisdictions, not just the Court. Given the lack of access that the Court had to Sudan since the referral from the UN Security Council, and because of the time that has passed since the commission of the crimes, it is reasonable to think that the Prosecutor might have decided to focus on those charges that would be most likely to grant a conviction.
In determining the appropriate sentence, the Court shall consider such factors as the gravity of the crimes and Kushayb’s individual circumstances. Rules 145 – 148 of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence set out at a high level the process that the Court will follow, and prescribe a broad balancing exercise of the relevant factors, including any mitigating and aggravating circumstances.
Mitigating circumstances may include any efforts by Kushayb to cooperate with the Court (for instance, his voluntary surrender). Aggravating circumstances may include the commission of crimes where the victim is particularly defenceless (such as Kushayb’s victimisation of incapacitated individuals and children).
A phase dedicated to victim reparation will be opened in due course. The Court can make both individual and collective reparation awards. It may order that an award be made to individuals, as well as to an intergovernmental, international or national organization (although this has yet to occur). The Court’s approach to reparations awards has differed in each case.
Before making a reparations order (the formal decision by the Court making an award for the harm victims have suffered), the Trial Chamber may invite representations from Kushayb, as well as victims, other interested persons, and States. It may also appoint experts to provide assistance. Victims may have applied from the outset to receive reparations or may now choose to apply during the reparations phase (1,591 victims were authorised to participate in the Kushayb trial proceedings).
Kushayb would be personally responsible for the cost of implementing any reparations award. As such, the Court may order the payment of a fine and the forfeiture of proceeds, property, and assets derived from the crimes that he committed, as well as the transfer of any money and other property collected through this process to the Trust Fund for Victims (the body usually ordered to implement the reparations). Where, as is likely to be the case for Kushayb, the perpetrator does not have sufficient assets to satisfy the award, the Trust Fund for Victims may use its other resources (i.e., funds made available by voluntary contributions) to “complement” it.
Yes – both the Prosecution and Defence may appeal the trial judgment – in part or in full – within 30 days from being notified of the decision. The Appeals Chamber (composed of five judges) would decide on any appeal. The parties may also appeal the sentencing decision and reparations order, once made.
Kushayb is currently the only person in the Court’s custody in connection with its Darfur mandate.
The Court also has active arrest warrants for former President Omar al-Bashir (who is charged with three counts of genocide, alongside crimes against humanity and war crimes), Ahmad Harun (whose alleged crimes are closely linked to those committed by Kushayb), Abdel Raheem Muhammad Hussein, and Abdallah Banda. All of these individuals remain at large. The Court does not try individuals in their absence, and so these trials will only commence once the individuals have either been arrested or voluntarily appear before the Court.
The ICC has jurisdiction over Rome Statute crimes committed in the “situation in Darfur since 1 July 2002”, following a referral by the UN Security Council to the Court under Resolution 1593 (2005). This means that the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate such crimes where they occur in Darfur or there is otherwise a strong nexus to the situation in Darfur. The UN Fact-Finding Mission on Sudan and civil society organisations have both called for the UN Security Council to extend the Court’s mandate to the entire country, though this is unlikely at present.
In July 2023, the Prosecutor announced that his office had launched a new investigation into alleged international crimes committed in Darfur since 15 April 2023 (i.e., during the current armed conflict). The Office of the Prosecutor is understood to be focusing on atrocities perpetrated by the RSF and allied militia in West Darfur, with increasing attention now also on the situation in Al-Fashir, North Darfur (which has been under siege by the RSF for more than 500 days). The Prosecutor previously announced that final steps were being taken to present applications for arrest warrants with respect to those responsible for crimes in West Darfur.
