Washington sees little improvement in human rights

Despite some improvements, the Sudanese government's record on human rights remained a serious concern throughout last year, the US State Department reported this week.

"The government's human rights record remained extremely poor, and although there were some improvements in a few areas, it continued to commit numerous, serious abuses," the US State Department stated in its Sudan country report on human rights practices for 2001.

The continued imposition of an official state of emergency in the country had restricted some basic civil liberties, including freedom of expression and association, the report said.

Although the Sudanese constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention without charge, the state of emergency had superseded these provisions, and the government continued to use arbitrary arrest and detention in 2001. "Critics argue that the state of emergency decree effectively allows indefinite detention of persons without trial and does not require formal charges during the period of detention," it noted.

Human Rights Watch said in February that "emergency tribunals" set up under the state of emergency had been used to impose inhuman sentences such as death by stoning and amputations.

The US State Department reported on Monday that there had been seven reported death sentences handed down by emergency tribunals during 2001, including the sentencing in December to amputation and subsequent execution of a man for armed banditry.

When it was originally imposed in 1999, the state of emergency had had the effect of suspending the constitution and disbanding parliament - two days before it was due to vote on a bill designed to reduce the powers of President Umar Hasan al-Bashir.

Despite being imposed for an initial period of three months, the state of emergency has been in effect continuously since December 1999, and was extended for an additional 12 months at the end of 2001.

According to Monday's US State Department report, Sudanese government-controlled security forces were responsible for numerous, serious human rights abuses last year, including the beating of suspected opponents.

On 16 March 2001, security forces reportedly arrested at his home Hasan Umar Bul Reish, an officer in the opposition Popular National Congress (PNC), beat him in front of his family, and took him to security offices, where they continued to beat him, the report stated. Reish was later taken to the central police hospital, where he died of his injuries the following day. No reported action had been taken on the case by the end of 2001, it added.

Rebel groups had also continued to commit numerous and serious abuses, and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) had continued to violate citizens' rights, despite its claim that it was implementing a 1994 decision to assert civil authority in areas under its control, the report stated.

"The SPLM/A was responsible for extrajudicial killings, beatings, rapes, arbitrary detentions, and forced conscription of boys," it said.

Although the government had "severely restricted" freedom of speech and of the press, some improvements in this area were observed in 2001. In December, the government announced the lifting of official press censorship on all newspapers, and internal security censors were no longer stationed in publishing houses to approve copies of articles, Monday's report stated.

However, the Press Council continued to have the authority to suspend publications that contained articles considered objectionable by the government, it added.

The human rights organisation Amnesty International complained in January that the Sudanese authorities were "using excessive fines and unfair and arbitrary trials to curtail freedom of expression", especially that of the Khartoum Monitor newspaper. [http://web.amnesty.org/]

It expressed concern that the offence of "propagation of false news" under Section 66 of the Sudanese Penal Code, punishable by imprisonment for up to six months or a fine of an unspecified amount, could be interpreted to include any criticism of the government - a state of affairs which constituted a restriction of the fundamental right to freedom of expression.