El Fasher at the Edge of Genocide: When Prevention Becomes an Imperative
By Dr. Abdelnasser solum Hamid
El Fasher, the capital of North Darfur, lies at the heart of a protracted conflict that has devastated the social and humanitarian fabric of its population for decades. The city, home to tens of thousands from diverse ethnic communities, has witnessed tragic developments in recent years, most notably an eighteen-month siege, culminating in its fall to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) in late October 2025.
The situation in El Fasher is no longer merely a military issue; it has become a direct test of the effectiveness of the absolute prohibition against genocide under international law. The report issued on 19 February 2026 by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Sudan, submitted to the United Nations Human Rights Council, concluded that the documented patterns of conduct bear the hallmarks of genocide and that genocidal intent constitutes “the only reasonable inference” from the regularity of the facts. This characterization, while not a final judicial determination, moves the matter from moral condemnation to legal accountability.
Genocide, as defined under the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, requires a specific intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. The decisive element is not the number of victims but the direction of the perpetrator’s will. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in the Krstić case, established a critical principle: intent can be inferred from the pattern and regularity of actions when a random explanation is implausible in context.
The prolonged siege preceding the RSF’s takeover was not merely a military tactic; it constituted the first link in an escalating cumulative trajectory. Extended restrictions on food, medicine, and essential services eroded the social fabric and diminished the population’s capacity to seek refuge or escape. According to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, the final RSF offensive in El Fasher resulted in over 6,000 deaths in the first three days alone, with approximately 4,400 killed within the city and 1,600 during attempts to flee along exit points and access roads, alongside widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure and mass displacement—one of the most severe waves of violence Darfur has witnessed since April 2023. Under international humanitarian law, starvation or denial of relief to civilians may constitute a war crime; yet the Genocide Convention considers placing a group in living conditions intended to destroy it as one of the constituent acts of genocide, when accompanied by specific intent. The distinction lies not in the means employed but in the direction of their use.
Systematic weakening does not, in itself, prove intent but establishes an environment that renders subsequent targeting more decisive. When a group’s collective capacity for survival is depleted, any directed action carries existential consequences, and violence evolves into a layered structure, each stage reinforcing the next. The report further documented repeated targeting of non-Arab communities, particularly the Zaghawa and Fur, and the continued use of sexual violence as a tool to undermine social structures and spread terror within a deliberately targeted group, reflecting a systematic pattern of violations.
The persistence of these acts in the absence of credible accountability undermines any claim that they are isolated incidents and underscores the principle of command responsibility. This responsibility extends to those who knew or should have known and failed to take reasonable measures to prevent or punish violations. At this stage, inaction is not external to the process—it is part of it.
The issue is not solely about proving intent; the temporal dimension is equally critical: when must the duty to prevent be activated? Article I of the Genocide Convention does not merely criminalize conduct; it establishes a proactive obligation of prevention. The International Court of Justice affirmed in the Bosnia v. Serbia case (2007) that the duty to prevent arises upon the existence of a serious risk of genocide, not after it has occurred. Accordingly, individual responsibility extends to states that fail to use the means reasonably available to prevent the crime.
The pertinent question is no longer whether genocide has occurred but whether the trajectory has reached a point that demands immediate intervention. Genocide does not happen instantaneously; it unfolds incrementally, allowing repeated acts without deterrent costs. Waiting for the full picture before acting transforms the absolute prohibition from a preventive norm into a post-factum principle. Its value is measured not after the occurrence but in the capacity to disrupt the process.
Today, El Fasher is not merely a conflict zone but a moment to test the efficacy of one of the strongest principles of international law. The absolute prohibition on genocide is not measured by the number of post-event condemnations but by its capacity to halt the trajectory before completion. If this prohibition is to remain a peremptory norm, its credibility is tested in moments of imminent danger, not after the catastrophe. At the edge, prevention becomes an imperative, and inaction constitutes failure, not neutrality.
In this context, the international community bears direct responsibility. Safe humanitarian corridors must be established to deliver food, medicine, and essential aid to civilians. Diplomatic and legal pressure must be exerted on the RSF, and commanders and fighters responsible for the violations must be held accountable. This responsibility must be translated into tangible action to prevent the completion of the genocidal trajectory, reaffirming the effectiveness of international law in protecting civilians and reinstating deterrence for armed actors.
About the author:
Dr. Abdelnasser solum Hamid
Senior Researcher and Director of the Sudan & East Africa Program, FOXS Sweden – Senior Researcher in Crisis Management and Counterterrorism