The reality that resulted from the control of the two conflicting parties over geographical areas in Sudan, in which each party uses its absolute powers without international or regional accountability, in addition to the supporters of the parties who were assigned tasks, powers and immunities from being subjected to justice, the combination of legal amendments and the political line of the two conflicting parties that criminalizes the right to expression in any form, made the cities and areas under control insecure, fear, and moral extortion, which is a climate that is inconsistent with the idea of justice and its implementation because it lacks any guarantees for that, in addition to killing for suspicion, made the space between the death and killing non-existent. General intimidation and the use of judicial violence as a tool to transform the law used into texts implemented according to the prevailing political decision of the parties.
However, despite the unconstitutionality of the legal amendments, they called for more than that based on the experience of the summary special courts. Here, we must approach what was done in the public order courts of punishments that ended with flogging and a fine, but the state of war turned it into the same practice, but it ends with execution and imprisonment between 2-20 years and confiscation of funds. All of this is done based on circumstantial or single evidence or resulting from a violation of privacy, but it is considered legal in the legal context in which the Evidence Law in Article 11 clearly allows the acceptance of defective evidence. This leads to what is done far from the law because political trials do not guarantee a fair trial, but in some cases they become better than cases in which the law is implemented on a political basis in the form of extrajudicial killing because at least despite the violations that may occur in the cases, the fate of the person remains known and the likelihood of the ruling and punishment being subject to cancellation, whether by the intervention of the appellate levels, or a political declaration of amnesty or a change in the political situation by a peace agreement that stipulates the cancellation of the conviction. The penalty is based on the common affiliation of one of the parties.
Read the full report in: