Leaks from a UN report on serious human rights violations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) have led to a great deal of commotion. The report compiled by the UN High Commission on Human Rights on violations of international humanitarian law between 1993 and 2003 in DRC was published on 1 October.

However, leaks appeared in French daily Le Monde on 27 August. Rwanda, whose troops are accused of the most serious crimes, has called the report “malicious, offensive and ridiculous”, and threatened to withdraw its peacekeeping force from Sudan.

By Filip Reyntjens*

Rwanda’s reaction was actually the cause, rather than a consequence of the leak. The draft report was communicated to the parties involved in July. Rwanda did everything in its power to avoid publication. On 8 August, Rwanda’s foreign affairs minister wrote to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon that “attempts to take action on this report - either through its release or leaks to the media - will force us to withdraw from various commitments to the United Nations, especially in the area of peacekeeping.”

Genocide credit
It seems that the leaks were deliberate to prevent Rwanda from smothering the report. For Kigali this was a crucial issue: the government was now officially accused of genocide against Hutu refugees in Congo, while for the past 15 years that same government gained legitimacy from the 1994 genocide against the Tutsis. The so-called ‘genocide credit’ was exploited by Kigali as a trading tool and has gained the government sympathy, aid and impunity.

Kigali’s blackmail failed: the published report is not substantially different from the leaked version. It confirmed what was already widely known: during the ten year period studied by the report, war crimes, crimes against humanity and –probably– genocide have taken place in Congo on a wide scale. The report’s authors should be praised for compiling information scattered over dozens of sources into a coherent entity, and for documenting a number of previously unknown episodes.

G-word
The most serious and systematic crimes are placed firmly on the doorstep of Paul Kagame’s Rwanda. The report not only mentions dozens of occurrences of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but also points at “circumstances and facts from which a court could infer the intention to destroy the Hutu ethnic group in the DRC in part”, a reference to the genocide convention.

A UN investigative team already came to a similar conclusion in 1998: “The systematic massacre of those (Hutu refugees) remaining in DRC was an abhorrent crime against humanity, but the underlying rationale for the decision is material to whether these killings constituted genocide, that is, a decision to eliminate, in part, the Hutu ethnic group”. The psychologically charged discussion of the ‘g word’ is not that relevant: the other documented crimes are serious enough to warrant the prosecution of suspects. The report does not even address the tens of thousands of civilians killed by the RPF in Rwanda in 1994 and between 1997 and 1998.

Besides Rwanda, many other regional players were responsible for serious human rights violations: the armed forces of Congo, Angola, Burundi and Uganda are mentioned, but also unofficial armed groups ranging from ethnic militias to rebel movements from Congo and neighbouring countries. Apart from a few militia leaders from Ituri and former rebel leader Jean-Pierre Bemba, no one has ever been prosecuted.

Prosecutions
What should be done now that there is convincing evidence that violations of international humanitarian law have taken place on a massive scale? In the past, perpetrators have got away with impunity, which led to more serious crimes. For example, it is likely that if the Rwanda Tribunal (ICTR) had given the signal that perpetrators of crimes committed by the RPF in Rwanda in 1994 would be indicted, the Kigali regime would have acted with more restraint in Congo in 1996 and 1997.

The report points out that prosecutions are not just a necessity, but an international legal duty. It also explores a number of scenarios. Although the Congolese judiciary has the authority over crimes committed on Congolese soil, it is too weak and has too little independence to take on such an immense task. The report calls for a mixed judicial mechanism consisting of national and international members. It also urges that national judicial authorities act in a similar way, applying the principles of universal jurisdiction. In the past, a few countries have already judged Hutus suspected of involvement in the 1994 genocide. However the RPF, has so far been left untouched by the Rwanda Tribunal.

Legally and philosophically the situation is clear: hundreds of suspects should be prosecuted. But there is such a thing as Realpolitik. Will President Kagame, his defence minister General James Kabarebe, who was very ‘active’ in Congo, and dozens of other high-ranking Rwandan officers be arrested, indicted and sentenced to many years in jail? Are political leaders, such as those in Washington DC and London who have systematically supported the Rwandan regime and President Kagame, willing to accept such a prospect? Would the African Union, which has resisted handing over Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir to the International Criminal Court, let that happen? Would the European Commission, which likes to lecture Kabila on human rights, insist on prosecutions? I fear the answer to these questions is ‘no’. My bet is that Rwanda and other states and players in the region will suffer some political damage, but that the perpetrators will again escape prosecution and punishment. We will all be guilty of the fact that millions of vulnerable civilians in Central Africa continue to be threatened by strategies of violence unleashed by leaders who enjoy total immunity.
 

* Professor of Law and Politics, Institute of Development Policy and Management (IOB), University of Antwerp.