When the court falls silent: What does the closure of the Abdallah Banda case mean for the victims of Darfur?

The decision of the International Criminal Court to terminate the proceedings in the case of Abdallah Banda was not merely legal news for the victims of Darfur; it was a moment that brought back to mind a question that has persisted for more than twenty years: Is international justice still capable of fulfilling its promise to the victims?

I write these words while believing firmly that judicial independence is a cornerstone of justice, and that courts do not base their decisions on emotions or political pressures, but rather on law and evidence. Therefore, discussion of this decision should not be understood as casting doubt on the International Criminal Court, but rather as an expression of legitimate concern over the implications it may leave on the victims and on the future of accountability in Sudan, particularly at the present time.

Thousands of victims in Darfur waited for many long years, believing that the International Criminal Court would be the place where they would find recognition of their suffering and accountability for those responsible for the crimes committed against them. Their waiting was not merely a wait for a judicial ruling; it was a wait for a moral promise that the international community made to itself — that crimes that shook the conscience of humanity would not be left without accountability.

From a legal standpoint, the termination of proceedings in the Abdallah Banda case does not mean an acquittal, nor does it mean that the crimes attributed to him did not occur. The decision reflects an assessment by the prosecution that the available evidence is no longer sufficient to continue the trial at this stage. This is an important legal distinction that must not be absent from public debate. However, the human and political impact of the decision remains, because victims do not view justice solely from the angle of procedures, but also from the angle of outcomes.

The International Criminal Court was established under the Rome Statute in 1998 to end the culture of impunity. The preamble of the Statute affirms that the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole must not go unpunished, and that prosecuting those responsible contributes to preventing their recurrence. This was not merely a declaration of principles, but a moral and legal commitment that international crimes will not be forgotten, no matter how much time passes.

The Rome Statute is also based on the principle of complementarity, which makes primary jurisdiction belong to national judiciaries, while the Court intervenes when a State is unwilling or unable to conduct genuine investigations and prosecutions. In the Sudanese case, due to decades of armed conflict and weak institutions, the Court became for many victims the last hope of achieving justice.

Conversely, the absence of justice or the decline of trust in it harms not only the victims but also threatens the prospects for peace itself. A peace built on ignoring violations or bypassing the rights of victims remains fragile, because wounds that find neither recognition nor redress remain open and may, over time, become new sources of violence and instability.

In Sudan, this decision cannot be viewed in isolation from the current reality. The war ongoing since 2023 has witnessed grave violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, and thousands of civilians continue to pay the price of this conflict. Therefore, any weakening of victims' trust in international justice will have effects that go beyond a single case, extending to all efforts aimed at achieving accountability for crimes being committed today.

This article should not be understood as an objection to a judicial decision or a call to bypass the legal rules governing the work of the International Criminal Court. Courts rule only on the evidence presented to them, and judicial independence and respect for fair trial guarantees are principles that cannot be compromised. But victims also have the right to express their concern when they feel that the justice they waited for many years has become more distant than before.

Justice is not merely rulings issued by courts; it is trust built by institutions and a moral message affirming that human life and dignity are not subjects of bargaining. When this trust is shaken, the responsibility of the international community grows — not only in supporting the Court, but also in enhancing cooperation with it, protecting witnesses, preserving evidence, and ensuring that procedural obstacles do not become a path leading to impunity.

The closure of the Abdallah Banda case must not be the end of the discussion about justice in Darfur; rather, it must be the beginning of a serious review of how to strengthen the international justice system and provide the necessary resources and cooperation so that it can fulfill its mission in the manner for which it was established.

Files may be closed inside courts, but the memory of victims cannot be closed. Justice may be delayed, but it should not become a promise postponed indefinitely. Serious international crimes are not subject to statutes of limitation, and the rights of victims to truth, justice, redress, and reparation remain valid no matter how long it takes.

The greatest challenge facing international justice today is not merely issuing judgments, but preserving victims' trust that the world still believes that their dignity deserves protection, that their suffering has not been forgotten, and that international law is still capable of being a voice for those who have been deprived of their voice.

In the end, justice is not revenge; it is a recognition of truth, a redress for victims, and a protection for the future. If the international community has pledged that perpetrators of the most serious crimes will not escape punishment, then this pledge must remain valid in deed not in word. Trust in justice is built through actions and is destroyed when victims feel that time has become stronger than the law.

The right of the victims of Darfur and all victims of international crimes in Sudan will remain valid as long as truth remains alive. Justice may stumble, but it does not die, and victims' rights are not closed by a procedural decision nor buried by the passage of time, because humanity itself is the primary stakeholder in ensuring that perpetrators of the most serious crimes do not escape accountability.