The Truth Perspective: The Human Rights Commission: A Minimal Effort

Ibrahim Shglawi

The Human Rights Commission in Sudan is one of the national institutions expected to play an active role in protecting citizens’ rights—particularly amid the ongoing war since April 2023, which has brought with it an unprecedented wave of violations. Unfortunately, despite its recognized political neutrality, the Commission remains largely confined to protocol-oriented activities rather than maintaining a real presence among civilians suffering the horrors of war.

Its current performance continues to lean more towards ceremonial formality than genuine professional and field-based engagement with victims of violations. At a time when civilians, subjected to the worst forms of crimes and abuses, need an institution to stand beside them, the Commission’s presence on the ground remains limited—if not entirely absent—in the most affected regions.

Moreover, the Commission’s digital and media presence is below expectations. There are no designated hotlines for reporting violations, nor are there active or effective online communication channels. Reactivating the Commission’s official website, updating it regularly, improving its visibility on search engines, and strengthening its presence on social media platforms are no longer optional—they are urgent professional necessities.

The true field today lies where people are: in neighborhoods, cities, on social networks, and in displacement camps. That is where the Commission should be—through discourse, documentation, response mechanisms, and all possible tools of action.

Professionalism in the human rights field does not rest on neutrality alone; it requires active engagement with the suffering of people—through effective communication tools, precise documentation, and legal follow-up that turns testimonies into accountability. Maintaining neutrality does not mean distancing oneself; it calls for courageous and conscious proximity, so the Commission does not become an institution praised by texts but absent from facts.

Humanitarian work in crises as complex as Sudan’s is incomplete without continuous and effective field presence—going beyond documentation to real-time monitoring, witness verification, and providing legal and psychological support to affected individuals and communities. The Commission must act as a vital bridge between victims and justice, enabling citizens to feel the presence of the state during times of danger. It must also promote transparency and trust through modern communication tools such as 24/7 hotlines, professional mobile applications, regularly updated interactive websites, and active social media engagement capable of real-time responses.

The absence of such infrastructure hinders the Commission’s ability to deliver timely humanitarian responses and weakens its credibility in the eyes of both victims and the international community. It is not enough to issue reports long after violations occur; effective responses must be accessible around the clock, with a sustained presence in conflict zones that require accurate documentation and direct communication with civilians.

Regional experiences offer valuable lessons for the Sudanese Commission, particularly the Rwandan and Libyan cases—both of which endured internal conflict that significantly impacted their human rights institutions.

In Rwanda, field presence and transparent communication played a central role in supporting national reconciliation and accompanying victims. The Human Rights Commission acted as a bridge between society and the state, offering a model in empowering victims and ensuring legal and humanitarian accountability—as seen in the experience of the National Unity and Reconciliation Commission (NURC) and the UN HRFOR mission in 1995.

In contrast, Libya’s post-2011 chaos exposed the fragility of official human rights institutions, which failed to keep up with escalating violations. This allowed civil and international organizations to take the lead in documentation, but it also resulted in the state losing control of the human rights file and its ability to protect civilians—according to reports by the United Nations and Human Rights Watch.

These cases affirm that national human rights institutions need effective independence, sustained field presence, and advanced technological infrastructure to enable continuous and efficient communication with the public. They also highlight the need to shield the Commission from political interference so it can serve as a living voice for victims—not just a passive official body. This requires the development of dynamic work strategies grounded in modern tools for communication, documentation, and follow-up.

Therefore, Sudan’s National Human Rights Commission faces a fundamental challenge: transforming itself from a ceremonial official body into an interactive institution capable of immediate humanitarian response, fostering a culture of human rights, and rebuilding trust between citizens and the state—especially during times of intensified conflict and escalating violations.

According to what we see from this #Truth_Perspective, the protection of human rights in Sudan will not be achieved unless the Commission secures a strong field presence, provides victims with safe and rapid communication channels, and uses modern technology to remain close to the fast-changing realities—equipped with effective tools that place the human being and their life at the center of its priorities.

Wishing you peace and well-being.
Tuesday, 15 July 2025
Shglawi55@gmail.com