Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What are the most reliable sources for casualty figures in the Sudan conflict?
Executive summary
Reliable casualty figures for Sudan are scarce and contested: independent data projects like ACLED report at least ~28,700 conflict fatalities through late 2024 while academic modelling and public‑health studies suggest far higher, possibly tens of thousands more unrecorded deaths, especially from disease and starvation [1] [2] [3]. United Nations human‑rights and humanitarian agencies document rising civilian killings and widespread displacement but explicitly warn that reporting is incomplete and that many deaths go unrecorded [4] [5].
1. Why counts differ: incomplete access and methodological gaps
Counting deaths in Sudan is hampered by collapse of health and civil registry systems, communication blackouts, and active frontlines; the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and EU analysis conclude that vastly more fatalities went unrecorded (e.g., LSHTM found ~90% of fatalities unrecorded in Khartoum State), which explains why event‑based tallies and modelled estimates diverge [6] [3].
2. Event‑based monitors: ACLED and NGOs — transparent methods, conservative lower bounds
The Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) compiles reported incidents from media, partners and verified social posts and documented over 28,700 fatalities by November 2024, including some 7,500 civilians — a widely cited, regularly updated dataset that functions as a reproducible, minimum count rather than a full mortality estimate [1] [2].
3. Academic and public‑health studies: modelled excess mortality and wider tolls
Public‑health teams and academic studies (e.g., LSHTM and other research cited by BBC/VOA and Science) use surveys, satellite imagery and mortality models to estimate deaths from both violence and conflict‑related disease/starvation; these approaches indicate the real toll could be many times ACLED’s reported intentional‑injury figures and explicitly warn that most deaths—especially indirect deaths—are unrecorded [3] [2] [7].
4. United Nations and human‑rights reports: focus on civilian protection, limited counting mandate
UN human‑rights offices and humanitarian agencies document rising civilian killings, ethnic violence and mass displacement and provide official reporting used for advocacy and aid planning, but they do not attempt exhaustive casualty recording and repeatedly note gaps in information and access [4] [5] [8].
5. Local groups and specialized casualty‑recording initiatives: granular but fragmented
Local civil‑society efforts and emerging projects like Every Casualty Counts work to train recorders and document deaths to international standards; they aim to fill gaps but face funding shortfalls, limited access and security risks that currently prevent comprehensive national coverage [7].
6. How journalists and analysts combine sources: cross‑checking and ranges
Reputable reporting and trackers combine ACLED-style event counts with UN situational reporting and academic excess‑mortality models to present ranges rather than single figures — for example, media and analysts contrast ACLED’s ~28,700 recorded fatalities with studies suggesting much higher death tolls, sometimes citing broad ranges from tens of thousands to “several hundred thousand” when indirect causes are included [1] [7] [2].
7. Practical guidance: which sources to trust for what purpose
- For conservative, verifiable incident counts and temporal trends use ACLED (documented fatalities, reproducible dataset) [1] [2].
- For rights‑based analysis of abuses and civilian targeting rely on OHCHR/UN human‑rights reporting [4] [8].
- For estimates of total mortality including indirect deaths consult academic public‑health studies and modelling (LSHTM and peer‑reviewed work cited in VOANews/Science) while treating their ranges and assumptions explicitly [3] [2].
- For grassroots, victim‑level records and future accountability, follow Every Casualty Counts and local casualty‑recorders while noting coverage gaps [7].
8. Limitations and competing narratives to watch
All major sources concede undercounting: the EUAA and LSHTM flag massive underrecording in Khartoum and other areas, and ACLED themselves call their totals non‑exhaustive; some political actors or media outlets may cite higher or lower figures to advance advocacy or denial narratives, so always check methodology and whether numbers count only violent deaths or also indirect mortality from starvation and disease [6] [1] [3].
9. Bottom line for researchers and readers
No single “most reliable” figure exists; the most responsible approach is to triangulate: use ACLED and UN reports for minimum verified incident counts and trends, supplement with academic excess‑mortality studies for likely total deaths, and track local casualty‑recording initiatives for granular accountability — and always report ranges and methodological caveats rather than single point estimates [1] [4] [3] [7].