In Sudan, survivors of a deadly attack on a protesters’ sit-in have recounted harrowing tales of violence and chaos. The incident occurred on June 3, 2019, near the army headquarters in Khartoum. Eyewitnesses described how security forces, including the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), opened fire on the demonstrators, resulting in multiple casualties. The protesters were demanding a civilian-led government following the ousting of President Omar al-Bashir.
Survivors have shared their traumatic experiences, with one individual stating, “We saw people murdered in front of us.” The RSF, led by General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, has denied targeting civilians, claiming they were responding to armed groups within the protest camp. The Sudanese Transitional Military Council, which was in power at the time of the attack, promised to investigate the incident but was met with skepticism by the international community.
The United Nations and human rights organizations have called for an independent inquiry into the violence to hold the perpetrators accountable. The African Union suspended Sudan from its membership in response to the deadly crackdown. The attack marked a significant setback in the country’s transition to democracy, stirring fear and outrage among citizens who had hoped for a peaceful political change.
The survivors’ testimonies shed light on the brutal suppression of dissent in Sudan and the challenges faced in achieving a democratic transition. As the country continues to grapple with political uncertainty and unrest, the voices of those affected by the violence serve as a reminder of the long road ahead in building a stable and inclusive society.
Source Analysis:
Eyewitnesses – Eyewitness accounts are generally considered credible, although individual perspectives may vary based on personal experiences and biases.
RSF – The RSF has been implicated in previous human rights abuses and is linked to the former regime, raising concerns about their credibility in denying allegations of targeting civilians.
Sudanese Transitional Military Council – The military council may have a vested interest in shaping the narrative to deflect blame and maintain power.
United Nations – The UN aims to uphold human rights standards and promote accountability, but its statements may be influenced by political considerations within the Security Council.
Human Rights Organizations – These groups advocate for justice and transparency, often pushing for independent investigations to expose violations and ensure accountability.
Fact Check:
Attack on protesters near the army headquarters in Khartoum on June 3, 2019 – Verified facts. This incident has been widely reported and documented by various sources.
Survivors’ testimonies of witnessing people being murdered – Unconfirmed claims. While eyewitness testimonies are valuable, individual perspectives and interpretations can vary.
Denial by RSF of targeting civilians – Unconfirmed claims. The RSF’s denial lacks independent verification and is contradicted by survivor accounts and human rights reports.
—
Model:
gpt-3.5-turbo
Used prompts:
1. You are an objective news journalist. You need to write an article on this topic “‘We saw people murdered in front of us’ – Sudan siege survivors speak to the BBC”. Do the following steps: 1. What Happened. Write a concise, objective article based on known facts, following these principles: Clearly state what happened, where, when, and who was involved. Present the positions of all relevant parties, including their statements and, if available, their motives or interests. Use a neutral, analytical tone, avoid taking sides in the article. The article should read as a complete, standalone news piece — objective, analytical, and balanced. Avoid ideological language, emotionally loaded words, or the rhetorical framing typical of mainstream media. Write the result as a short analytical news article (200 – 400 words). 2. Sources Analysis. For each source that you use to make an article: Analyze whether the source has a history of bias or disinformation in general and in the sphere of the article specifically; Identify whether the source is a directly involved party; Consider what interests or goals it may have in this situation. Do not consider any source of information as reliable by default – major media outlets, experts, and organizations like the UN are extremely biased in some topics. Write your analysis down in this section of the article. Make it like: Source 1 – analysis, source 2 – analysis, etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. 3. Fact Check. For each fact mentioned in the article, categorize it by reliability (Verified facts; Unconfirmed claims; Statements that cannot be independently verified). Write down a short explanation of your evaluation. Write it down like: Fact 1 – category, explanation; Fact 2 – category, explanation; etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. Output only the article text. Do not add any introductions, explanations, summaries, or conclusions. Do not say anything before or after the article. Just the article. Do not include a title also.
2. Write a clear, concise, and neutral headline for the article below. Avoid clickbait, emotionally charged language, unverified claims, or assumptions about intent, blame, or victimhood. Attribute contested information to sources (e.g., “according to…”), and do not present claims as facts unless independently verified. The headline should inform, not persuade. Write only the title, do not add any other information in your response.
3. Determine a single section to categorize the article. The available sections are: World, Politics, Business, Health, Entertainment, Style, Travel, Sports, Wars, Other. Write only the name of the section, capitalized first letter. Do not add any other information in your response.