Our Assessment

Rohingya have historically maintained a profound attachment to their homeland in Arakan. Leaving their ancestral land is not a decision taken lightly. When Rohingya undertake dangerous sea journeys, often knowing that they may lose their lives, their departure must therefore be understood in the context of the circumstances that compelled them to flee. Many leave because they believe their lives, liberty or personal security are in imminent danger.

Since the Arakan Army (AA) took control of large parts of Arakan, allegations of mass atrocities, forced recruitment, the use of Rohingya as human shields, rape, beheading and other killings, arbitrary arrest, detention and severe restrictions have created an atmosphere of profound fear among Rohingya communities. At the same time, allegations of looting of livestock, property and other income-generating resources have contributed to the destruction of livelihoods and left many families with increasingly limited means of survival.

These circumstances are important when assessing Rohingya deaths at sea. There is a distinction between direct responsibility and indirect responsibility. Where civilians are killed during an attack, or where a vessel is deliberately attacked, the question of direct responsibility arises. The 5–6 August 2024 Naf River episode is particularly significant because Rohingya civilians were attacked while attempting to flee, and Fortify Rights documented accounts of a vessel reportedly being struck during a drone attack as well as boats capsizing amid the violence and panic.

In many other maritime disasters, however, there may be no evidence that the AA physically sank the vessel or directly caused the drowning. This does not necessarily mean that the circumstances which forced people onto the sea should be separated from their deaths. If Rohingya fled because they reasonably feared killing, arrest, forced recruitment, persecution or other serious abuses, and consequently undertook an extremely dangerous sea journey in search of safety, the conditions that compelled their departure form an important part of the chain of events leading to their deaths.

The same consideration applies where persecution and economic deprivation operate together. When livestock, property, employment opportunities and other means of livelihood are taken away or destroyed, while people simultaneously face insecurity and fear of violence, remaining in their homeland may become increasingly impossible. For some Rohingya, risking death at sea may then appear preferable to remaining under conditions they regard as intolerable.

For these reasons, our assessment is that the AA may bear indirect responsibility for many Rohingya drowning deaths occurring after it established control over their areas of Arakan where the evidence shows that AA abuses, threats, restrictions or destruction of livelihoods were substantial factors compelling those individuals to flee. This is different from asserting that the AA directly killed every person who subsequently drowned. Each maritime incident should still be examined individually to establish the circumstances of departure, the immediate cause of death and the degree of responsibility attributable to particular actors.

Conclusion

The evidence collected since 2024 presents a deeply disturbing picture of Rohingya civilians facing grave abuses during and after the Arakan Army’s territorial conquest of northern Arakan. The record includes credible and, in several cases, independently corroborated evidence of killings, alleged executions, mutilation, torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, large-scale arson, destruction of villages, looting, forced labour, forced recruitment, property confiscation, movement restrictions, economic coercion, forced displacement and deaths during desperate attempts to escape.

The Hoyyar Siri massacre of 2 May 2024 currently represents the strongest individual evidentiary case. Human Rights Watch’s investigation combines 41 witnesses, satellite imagery, verified photographs and video, forensic analysis, mapped killing locations and more than 170 named dead or missing, including approximately 90 children.

The 5–6 August 2024 Maungdaw/Naf River attacks demonstrate another dimension of the crisis: Rohingya were killed while attempting to flee, while others drowned when boats were struck, capsized or sank. The May 2025 maritime disaster documented by ARNC raises further serious allegations that people trying to escape AA persecution were pursued and endangered, with more than 400 reportedly dying or disappearing. The November 2025 and July 2026 tragedies demonstrate that maritime flight continued after AA consolidated territorial control.

Almost all civilian deaths after the AA took control of Arakan must be attributed to the AA. Every Rohingya drowning can be classified as a direct AA killing because the AA is making Arakan a living hell for them. The AA has coerced Rohingya by various means to leave Arakan, while at the same time facilitating Rohingya flight in return for huge ransom-like payments. Various pieces of verified evidence and survivors’ accounts show that the AA forced Rohingya to begin sea voyages even when their chances of surviving storms on the high seas were almost zero. In this way, thousands of Rohingya have lost their lives. This includes direct killings, deaths during flight, independently corroborated findings, and claims requiring further investigation.

Independent investigators should be granted unrestricted access to Buthid Aung, Maungdaw, Hoyyar Siri, detention facilities, displacement sites and alleged burial locations across the Arakan. Evidence should be preserved, survivors protected and alleged perpetrators investigated through credible international mechanisms.

The Rohingya should not be forced to choose between persecution in their homeland and death while attempting to escape it.