Chemical Weapons in Sudan: The Absent Truth Between Victims’ Rights and the Impotence of Internatio

10:23 AM July, 18 2026

Sudanese Online
محمد عبدالله ابراهيم-الخرطوم-السودان
My Library
Short URL

Chemical Weapons in Sudan: The Absent Truth Between Victims’ Rights and the Impotence of International Justice

An Analytical Reading of the Trajectory of American Accusations, the Actions of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, and the Future of International Accountability



Mohammed Abdullah Ibrahim

Journalist and Human Rights Defender

mohammedabdalluh2000@gmail.com



The prohibition of chemical weapons represents one of the most entrenched principles in the international legal system since the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) entered into force in April 1997. This convention established a comprehensive ban on the development, production, acquisition, or use of these weapons under any circumstances. This prohibition reflects an international consensus that the use of chemical weapons constitutes a grave violation of international law, imposing a collective obligation to prevent them and ensure accountability for any related allegations. Consequently, any claims of chemical weapon use in the context of armed conflict transcend mere political disputes or diplomatic maneuvering, becoming an issue tied to the protection of one of the most crucial international prohibitions. It primarily concerns the victims’ right to know the truth and receive justice, and the international community’s right to combat impunity. Simultaneously, it guarantees the right of the accused party to confront these allegations through an independent investigation and fair legal procedures based on evidence, not assumptions or political stances.

In this context, the Sudan file is no longer just an item on the agenda of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW); over the past two years, it has transformed into a real test of the international justice system’s ability to handle one of the most complex issues in contemporary conflicts. After the file began with unilateral accusations and measures taken by the United States based on reports and information, it moved to the halls of the OPCW in The Hague, making Sudan, for the first time, the focus of official discussion within the Organization’s Executive Council. This shift moved the issue beyond the confines of a bilateral confrontation between Port Sudan and Washington. The discussion is no longer limited to continued American pressure on Sudan but has expanded to include the effectiveness of the chemical weapons prohibition regime and the capacity of its legal and technical mechanisms to deal with allegations of such gravity. It also raised fundamental questions about whether this issue will lead to the activation of international verification mechanisms stipulated in the CWC, or if it will remain hostage to political and diplomatic tug-of-war between conflicting narratives, potentially impacting the credibility of the chemical weapons prohibition regime, the future commitments of State Parties to the Convention, and Sudan’s standing within the international system.



From Darfur to The Hague .. Roots of the Issue and the Return of Accusations

The issue of alleged chemical weapon use in Sudan did not begin with the American statement issued in 2025; its roots extend to previous years when international human rights organizations documented allegations of toxic chemical material use during military operations in the Darfur region, particularly in the Jebel Marra area in 2016. These reports garnered widespread international attention, but the Sudanese government vehemently denied them. The OPCW was unable to conduct an independent field investigation to resolve these allegations according to the mechanisms stipulated in the Convention. Since then, this file has remained unresolved through an independent international mechanism possessing credibility and impartiality. The absence of an investigation not only left the truth in dispute but also created a legal and human rights vacuum, depriving potential victims of their right to know the truth and receive justice. It also deprived the accused party of an acquittal based on the results of an independent international investigation if their innocence was proven. This problem embodies one of the most prominent shortcomings of the international justice system in armed conflicts, where truth sometimes becomes not only the first casualty of war but can also fall victim to political maneuvering and the failure of international accountability mechanisms.

The file returned to the forefront of international attention in early 2025 when American media reports revealed information indicating that the Sudanese Armed Forces had used chemical weapons during military operations in Sudan in 2024. After months of technical and legal reviews, the U.S. Department of State announced that, according to its assessment, Sudanese authorities had used chemical weapons and notified Congress to prepare for sanctions under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act. From Washington’s perspective, this announcement was not merely a political stance but was based, as declared, on technical and intelligence reports, information, and assessments. However, issues of grave violations of international law are not settled by government statements or sanctions, because legal truth can only be built on an independent, impartial, and transparent investigation that meets international standards. Sanctions, regardless of their political and legal impact, are not a substitute for the verification mechanisms stipulated in the CWC. Instead, they reflect a sovereign position of a state that relied on its own assessments without settling the truth of the disputed facts from the perspective of international law. Therefore, keeping the file confined between American sanctions on one hand and a Sudanese national investigation on the other, in the absence of an independent international investigation, leaves wide room for debate and delays access to the truth that victims deserve. It also guarantees the accused party’s right to defense and to prove its position through due legal procedures based on an independent and credible international investigation, while simultaneously limiting the international community’s ability to build a legal position based on the results of an impartial technical investigation.



American Sanctions .. From Pressure to Internationalization

American sanctions represented a significant turning point in the issue’s trajectory, but they were not the final station in its development. After the file began with unilateral measures, it moved to a multilateral level within the OPCW, where Sudan was listed for the first time as a separate item under agenda item 6(e) of the Executive Council, titled “Addressing the Threat Posed by the Use of Chemical Weapons (Sudan).” This step reflected the issue’s transition from bilateral pressure to the realm of international diplomacy and the Organization’s mechanisms responsible for implementing the CWC.

During the 112th session of the Executive Council, held in The Hague in July 2026, the United States presented one of its sharpest statements since the crisis began. It affirmed that its technical assessments concluded that the Sudanese Armed Forces had used chemical weapons during 2024, and that Sudan, according to the American view, remained in non-compliance with its obligations under the Convention during 2025. It also announced for the first time within the Organization that the substance used was chlorine gas, considering this a serious violation of the CWC that necessitates measures to ensure a return to full compliance. The statement was not limited to renewing accusations but included a package of demands and procedures that Washington believed formed the basis for addressing the issue. Foremost among these were the submission of a comprehensive and accurate declaration to the Organization’s Technical Secretariat, including any facilities, programs, stockpiles, or activities related to chemical weapons, full cooperation with the Organization, and allowing independent verification and inspection operations in accordance with the Convention’s provisions. The statement also rejected considering the national committee formed by the Sudanese authorities as an alternative to international verification mechanisms, emphasizing that national investigations, regardless of their outcomes, cannot replace the technical and legal mechanisms stipulated by the Convention.

In the same context, the United States linked the continuation of what it described as Sudan’s non-compliance with the imposition of a second round of sanctions under the Chemical and Biological Weapons Control and Warfare Elimination Act, affirming that respect for the CWC is a legal obligation for all State Parties. It also indicated that it still sees the possibility of resolving the issue if Sudan responds to the requirements specified by the Convention. However, the most prominent political message in the statement was the shift in American discourse from addressing Sudan to addressing the State Parties to the Organization. Washington considered that a state that uses chemical weapons and does not return to compliance should not participate in guiding the work of the Executive Council. Although the statement did not explicitly demand immediate action regarding Sudan’s membership, it carried a clear message that the continuation of what the United States considers a state of non-compliance raises questions about Sudan’s eligibility to remain a member of one of the OPCW’s most important bodies.



The Sudanese Response .. Defense and Questions of Independence

In response, the Sudanese authorities did not merely reject the accusations but moved to a new phase, which involved submitting an official memorandum to the OPCW, accompanied by an initial report issued by the National Committee for Investigating Allegations of Chemical Weapon Use. This development is important because it represents the first documented institutional response presented by the Sudanese authorities to the Organization since the crisis began. The committee’s initial report concluded that, based on field inspections, interviews, and information collected, it had not found any substantial, technical, or documentary evidence proving the use of chemical weapons in the examined sites. At the same time, the committee affirmed that its findings are still preliminary, that the investigation is ongoing, and that it will consider any new information or evidence before issuing its final report.

However, the formation of a national investigation committee does not, in itself, fulfill the requirements for an independent investigation according to international standards. International principles governing investigations into grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law emphasize the necessity for an investigation to be independent, impartial, and effective, with full access to evidence and witnesses, and to be free from any conflicts of interest or influence from the parties that may be subject to accusation. From this perspective, entrusting the investigation to a committee established by the very authorities facing the accusations raises legitimate human rights and legal questions about the extent of its institutional and operational independence, even if it commenced its work in good faith or adhered to declared procedures. Trust in the results of investigations concerning grave violations is not built on good intentions or on the entity that formed the committee, but rather on the availability of guarantees of independence and impartiality according to international standards, thereby reassuring victims, public opinion, and the international community about the integrity of the procedures and the credibility of the results. In this context, the results of the national committee do not, from the perspective of international law, serve as a substitute for the international verification mechanisms stipulated in the CWC, nor are they sufficient on their own to definitively resolve or deny the allegations. National investigations may constitute an initial step in gathering facts, but they do not negate the need for an independent international investigation when allegations involve the use of internationally prohibited weapons, especially if the entity that established the investigation committee is the same authority facing the accusations. This raises fundamental questions about its institutional and operational independence and creates a conflict of interest that undermines confidence in its impartiality and the credibility of its results. According to international standards for investigating grave violations, the results of a committee established by the accused party cannot be considered conclusive evidence to deny those accusations or a legal basis for closing the file, because independence and impartiality are not mere formal requirements but fundamental conditions for the legitimacy and credibility of any investigation. In the absence of these guarantees, the results of a national investigation cannot, by themselves, acquire sufficient weight to settle facts that may amount to grave violations of international law, and cannot replace an independent, impartial, and transparent international investigation that meets the standards stipulated in the CWC.



Future Scenarios .. Between International Verification and Continued Confrontation

Despite the escalating accusations and developments in the file over the past two years, the OPCW has not yet announced sending a fact-finding mission or an independent field investigation team to Sudan, nor has the Executive Council issued any decision to activate specific verification mechanisms related to these allegations. This means that the issue remains, at this moment, within the framework of political and diplomatic deliberations among State Parties, and has not yet moved to the stage of independent technical verification, which represents the core mandate of the Organization in dealing with chemical weapon allegations. This situation explains each party’s continued adherence to its narrative: the United States relies on what it describes as technical and intelligence reports, information, and assessments, asserting that these data were sufficient to take unilateral legal actions and raise the issue before the Organization’s bodies. In contrast, the Sudanese authorities deny the accusations and affirm that the allegations have not yet been subjected to any independent international investigation according to the mechanisms stipulated in the CWC, and consider that the absence of such an investigation prevents reaching a legal truth that can be relied upon.

From a human rights perspective, the real crisis lies not so much in the conflicting narratives as in the continued absence of an independent international verification mechanism. The file remaining confined between national assessments on one hand and a national investigation on the other does not fulfill the victims’ right to know the truth, nor does it give the accused party the opportunity to refute the accusations or prove its position through an investigation that enjoys the trust of the international community. Therefore, the absence of an independent investigation serves none of the parties; instead, it perpetuates a state of legal ambiguity and delays access to the truth that is supposed to form the basis for any accountability or acquittal.



In light of the current data, three main scenarios can be envisioned for the issue’s trajectory in the coming phase:

Scenario One: The continuation of the status quo, with the United States and its allies maintaining political and diplomatic pressure and sanctions, while the Sudanese authorities continue to reject the accusations, with the file remaining on the Executive Council’s agenda without new procedural steps.

Scenario Two: The success of State Parties in pushing for the activation of the verification mechanisms stipulated in the CWC, if the necessary legal and procedural requirements are met. This scenario would move the issue from the realm of political debate to an independent technical verification process that could lead to results based on verifiable evidence according to the Convention’s provisions.

Scenario Three: The continuation of the legal and diplomatic confrontation within the Organization’s bodies, with each party seeking to reinforce its narrative and gain the support of member states without reaching a consensus that allows for an independent international investigation. This means the issue would remain hostage to political maneuvering and continued debate without a final legal resolution.

In all cases, the scenario most consistent with the provisions of the CWC and international standards for investigating grave violations is the transition to an independent, impartial, and transparent international investigation. This is because it alone can protect the victims’ right to truth and justice and ensure the accused party’s right to defense through due legal procedures, free from the influence of political pressures or diplomatic considerations.


Conclusion

Whatever path this file takes, it is certain that the issue of chemical weapons in Sudan has become one of the most complex and sensitive issues in contemporary conflicts. It has transformed into a real test of the OPCW’s ability to maintain its technical independence in the face of surrounding political pressures and maneuvering. The final word will remain contingent on the Organization’s and State Parties’ ability to move the issue from the realm of conflicting statements and political stances to an independent technical and legal verification process that reveals the truth based on evidence and international standards.

Respect for the CWC is not achieved through the exchange of accusations, the issuance of statements, the imposition of sanctions, or by relying solely on national investigations. Instead, it is achieved by activating its legal and technical mechanisms independently and transparently, ensuring results that enjoy credibility and international acceptance. If the international community is serious about protecting one of the most entrenched prohibitions in international law, then the responsibility of the OPCW and State Parties should not be limited to condemning any potential use of these weapons. Instead, it must extend to ensuring professional investigations that fully uncover the truth, do justice to the victims, and at the same time preserve the rights of the accused parties to a fair trial and sound legal procedures. Ultimately, the truth cannot be held hostage to political stances or subject to the balances of conflict. It is not a victory for one party over another, but a victory for the rule of law, for the victims’ right to know the truth and achieve justice, and for the fundamental principle upon which the CWC was founded since its entry into force: protecting humanity from the tragedy of using these prohibited weapons, and establishing their prohibition as a fixed international obligation not subject to political selectivity or double standards.