Interview by Thomas Hofnung
Why did you not use the word "genocide" in your report?
It is not for us to legally qualify what is happening in Darfur. A semantic debate is not necessary when massive human rights violations are committed every day, principally by the Janjaweed militias allied to the Sudanese government.
How do you explain the inertia of the international community in the face of violence that’s been going on for four years?
Different countries have tried to resolve the crisis, each in its own way. It is pathetic. We need a common approach to put pressure on the regime in Khartoom to accept the deployment of a hybrid force from the African Union and the UN. All the refugees that we encountered in the camps in Chad during our investigation demanded protection from the international community. They said they needed that more than food. After the genocide in Rwanda, we said “never again”. And now the conflict is overflowing into neighboring Chad and Central Africa. In one year, the number of displaced Chadians has passed 30,000. If one does nothing we are heading straight for a regional conflict.
Are you surprised by the reaction from Khartoom, qualifying your report as "partial"?
Unfortunately it was predictable. What’s important, however, is (the opinion) of the Human Rights Council.
Will they accept your recommendations before submitting them to the Security Council?
Their decision will be a test for its credibility. Will it seize the opportunity to address massive human rights violations in Darfur or sink to the level of the former Human Rights Commission?