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.
Sudan civil war death toll and perpetrators
Executive summary
Estimates of deaths in Sudan’s civil war (since April 2023) vary dramatically across studies and institutions — commonly cited figures include roughly 28,700 “intentional injury” deaths from a conservative scientific model (not counting famine/disease) [1], while multiple media and UN-cited sources report totals around 150,000 killed when indirect deaths and wider evidence are folded in [2] [3] [4] [5]. Human-rights bodies and investigators attribute the bulk of documented atrocities — mass killings, summary executions, sexual violence, and targeted attacks on civilians and hospitals — primarily to the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and allied militias, though the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and allied groups are also accused of retaliatory abuses [6] [7] [8].
1. Death-counts: wildly different methods, wildly different results
Academic teams using satellite imagery, burial-site modelling and health records produced much lower conservative figures for direct violent deaths — for example, one study estimated at least 28,700 deaths from “intentional injuries,” including about 7,500 civilians, and explicitly noted that this excludes deaths from malnutrition and disease [1]. By contrast, journalists, UN briefings and major outlets have reported totals near 150,000 killed when indirect causes, unrecorded fatalities and broader evidence are included; NPR, The New York Times and Vatican News cite figures around 150,000 [3] [4] [2]. The Council of sources shows that different methods (hospital/morgue counts, satellite inference, modelling, and on-the-ground reports) produce non‑overlapping windows of the toll [1] [9].
2. Why the gap? recording, access and indirect deaths matter
Researchers warn that official counts under‑record deaths because hospitals, morgues and civil‑registration systems have collapsed or are inaccessible; one study said over 90% of deaths in Khartoum went unrecorded, implying national figures are far higher than recorded tallies [1] [10]. Humanitarian and UN reporting emphasise that additional deaths from famine, disease, interrupted chronic care (HIV, TB, diabetes) and attacks on health infrastructure are not included in some violent‑death estimates, and those indirect deaths can multiply the human cost [1] [4].
3. Who the investigators blame: RSF repeatedly accused of mass atrocities
Independent UN fact‑finding, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty point to large‑scale crimes by the RSF and allied militias — summary executions, mass killings, rape, looting and deliberate attacks on hospitals and displaced‑persons camps — particularly in Darfur and cities such as El Fasher, Zamzam and parts of Khartoum state [6] [11] [8]. The US State Department formally determined that RSF forces committed genocide in Darfur in January 2025 and sanctioned RSF leadership for atrocities [12]. UN investigators and rights groups also document RSF use of drone and artillery strikes affecting civilians [13] [11].
4. Accountability: international mechanisms and contested narratives
The UN Independent International Fact‑Finding Mission has gathered testimony, geolocated incidents and compiled dossiers to identify possible perpetrators and urged international action — including arms‑embargo enforcement and ICC engagement — while noting domestic institutions are unwilling or unable to conduct credible investigations [14] [7]. Security‑council and regional diplomacy have been active, but international responses are contested; accusations of foreign arms flows (e.g., allegations about UAE support for RSF) complicate attribution debates and political will for enforcement [15] [13] [16].
5. Both sides accused of abuses; context of reprisals and fragmentation
While reporting emphasizes RSF responsibility for many documented mass atrocities, multiple sources also say SAF and allied forces have committed retaliatory abuses in territories they retook, including arbitrary detention, torture and executions of those perceived to have supported the RSF [7] [6]. Amnesty and HRW stress that the conflict is not a simple two‑actor duopoly: allied militias, local armed groups and fragmentation across regions have broadened the field of perpetrators [8] [6].
6. What remains uncertain and why cautious reading is essential
Available sources make clear that precise body‑counts are contested and evolving: conservative scholarly tallies focusing on direct violent deaths are far lower than aggregated estimates that include indirect deaths and unrecorded killings [1] [2]. Investigations are ongoing, and UN fact‑finding missions continue to compile evidence for prosecutions and future accounting [14]. Available sources do not mention a single definitive, universally accepted death toll — instead they show a contested range and agreement that abuses have been widespread and warrant accountability [1] [2] [14].
Conclusion — The evidence assembled by UN missions, human‑rights organisations and investigative studies converges on two firm findings: [17] the human toll is very large and likely far higher than early official counts, and [18] the RSF has been repeatedly implicated in large‑scale atrocities, with SAF and other actors also accused of abuses — a mix that international investigators say requires urgent accountability and protection measures [1] [6] [14].