March, 10 2009, 12:59pm EDT

DR Congo: Militia Leader Guilty in Landmark Trial
Crimes Against Humanity Conviction an Important Step for Justice
NEW YORK
The conviction of the Mai Mai commander Gedeon Kyungu Mutanga and 20 other Mai Mai combatants for crimes on major charges, including crimes against humanity, by a military court on March 5, 2009, was a crucial step toward creating accountability in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Human Rights Watch said today.
The trial by the military court of the garrison of Haut-Katanga, in Katanga province, lasted for 19 months and was the country's largest trial involving charges of crimes against humanity. In its landmark ruling, the military court also found the government liable for failing to disarm the Mai Mai militias and awarded damages to the victims.
"This conviction is a victory for the victims of Gedeon and his Mai Mai militia, who inflicted horrific atrocities on thousands of people in central Katanga," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior researcher in the Africa division at Human Rights Watch. "This trial has shown the important role that Congolese courts play in giving victims a voice and in making clear that attacks on civilians will have serious consequences."
Known commonly by his first name, Gedeon (whose legal name is Gedeon Kyungu Mutanga Wa Bafunkwa Kanonga) was the commander of the Mai Mai militia responsible for brutal crimes committed in the "triangle of death" in central Katanga between 2003 and 2006.
The judges of the military court found him guilty of crimes against humanity, insurgency and terrorism. Another six defendants, including Gedeon's wife, Ilunga Monga Nkuma, were also found guilty of crimes against humanity, in addition to other crimes. Fourteen defendants were convicted of insurgency, and three of them were also convicted of terrorism. Four defendants were acquitted because of insufficient evidence, while another was acquitted because he was a minor at the time the crimes were committed and was deemed not criminally liable.
Gedeon and six other defendants were sentenced to death. Although Congo has not carried out executions for a number of years, Human Rights Watch expressed serious concern about the sentence. Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all circumstances because of its cruel and inhumane nature. The death penalty is not an applicable punishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The court also ruled that the government had civil liability for failing to disarm the Mai Mai, its former allies, after the war in Congo ended in 2003. The judges awarded damages to dozens of victims who were accepted as civil parties to the criminal proceedings. One was awarded the equivalent of US$300,000 while others were granted between US$80,000 and US$150,000. The Congolese government is jointly liable with those convicted of the crimes. The ruling sets an important precedent for compensation for those who have suffered human rights abuses.
"Awarding damages to victims sends a strong message that the government is not above the law," said Van Woudenberg. "We urge the government to respect the ruling and to comply as a matter of priority."
The military trial was also significant because the judges applied the definition of crimes against humanity as found in the Rome Statute of ICC. The Rome Statute was ratified by the Democratic Republic of Congo government in 2002, and its application by the military court illustrates the ICC's impact beyond its own trials in The Hague.
Investigations and legal proceedings against Congolese army commanders who also committed abuses in Katanga during the same period have not been equally successful, however. There have been only four convictions of soldiers, for failing to assist persons in danger, despite the evidence of serious crimes including summary executions and rape. One of those convicted was the military commander of the Congolese army's operations against the Mai Mai, Major Andre Ekembe Monga Yamba, but he was sentenced to only 15 months in prison.
Human Rights Watch called on the Congolese government to place those convicted of crimes against humanity, including Gedeon, in a high-security prison in Katanga or in another part of the country, to minimize the risk of escape. The present intention is to transfer him to Kassapa prison, Katanga's main prison, but Human Rights Watch researchers who visited the prison in June 2008 found the security there to be insufficient. Prison breaks have been common in Congo.
"All too often, we have seen human rights abusers convicted in trial but then left to escape from prison only weeks or months later," said Van Woudenberg. "The government needs to ensure this will not happen with Gedeon and others convicted of crimes against humanity."
Background
Gedeon's Mai Mai militia was a local defense force supported by the Congolese government during the war with Rwanda and Uganda, which began in 1998. After the war ended in 2003, the national government sought to integrate the Mai Mai into the national army, but failed. Increasingly hostile to the government, Mai Mai leaders took control of huge swathes of central Katanga, fought their former allies, the Congolese army, and terrorized local civilians whom the Mai Mai initially claimed they were defending.
By November 2005, the United Nations estimated that 150,000 people had been forced to flee their homes and that hundreds had been killed. The suffering and abuses were so widespread that local residents called the region where Gedeon operated "the triangle of death".
Human Rights Watch researchers documented crimes committed by both parties to the conflict in central Katanga: the Mai Mai militias and the Congolese army, the FARDC, who carried out a brutal military operation in 2005 to attempt to neutralize the Mai Mai militia. In July 2006, Human Rights Watch sent detailed legal submissions to the ministers of justice and defense calling for judicial investigations into the abuses and for those responsible to be held to account (https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/drc/2006/katanga/legal.htm).
Gedeon was detained on May 16, 2006, and the trial against him began on July 10, 2007. Gedeon's wife, his six bodyguards, and 17 others of his co-accused were charged between November 2007 and January 2008 in the same proceedings. Another commander was apprehended in January 2009 and was also included in the trial.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Trump's Billionaire Education Secretary Makes 'Backroom Deal' to Shaft Low-Income Borrowers
Amid a cost-of-living crisis, millions of low-income borrowers may now be forced to spend several hundred more dollars a month paying for student loans.
Dec 09, 2025
As student debt exacerbates the financial struggles of millions of Americans, the Trump administration has taken a major step toward killing the Biden administration's student loan forgiveness program.
On Tuesday, the Department of Education announced that it had reached a settlement with the state of Missouri to end the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, which allowed more than 7 million mostly low-income Americans to reduce their federal student loan payments.
Rather than setting monthly payments based on income, the SAVE program bases them on how much borrowers earn and the size of their families, which is referred to as an income-driven repayment option, or IDR. SAVE cut most enrollees' monthly loan payments in half and left 4.5 million of them, mostly those earning between 150–225% of the federal poverty level, paying $0 per month.
In March 2024, a coalition of 11 states led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach sued in federal court to stop the SAVE plan. The next month a similar lawsuit was filed by another coalition of seven states led by Missouri's former attorney general, Andrew Bailey.
In February, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the states, blocking 8 million borrowers from accessing lower payments under the program. Now President Donald Trump's administration which aggressively opposes student loan forgiveness, has agreed to settle the lawsuit, effectively killing SAVE.
“For four years, the Biden administration sought to unlawfully shift student loan debt onto American taxpayers, many of whom either never took out a loan to finance their postsecondary education or never even went to college themselves, simply for a political win to prop up a failing administration,” said Undersecretary of Education Nicholas Kent. "The Trump administration is righting this wrong and bringing an end to this deceptive scheme. The law is clear: if you take out a loan, you must pay it back."
The settlement also includes a provision requiring that, for the next 10 years, the Department of Education notify the state of Missouri at least 30 days in advance before instituting broad-based student debt relief.
As the Debt Collective, a membership-based debtors' union, explained in a post on social media: "30 days is enough notice that Missouri will find standing to sue for relief before it even happens. So not only is Trump gutting the SAVE plan, they're essentially putting a moratorium on cancellation for the next 10 years with this agreement."
"What Republicans admit is that the executive administration does have authority to cancel federally held student debt," the group added. "They just want to make it so that it will be administratively and practically impossible to deliver it because of this technicality. It's stealing in advance."
SAVE was already slated to end in 2028 following July's passage of Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which replaced it with a pair of less generous income-based repayment plans that require many debtors to pay hundreds more per month. The deadline to switch to one of the new plans will now move up, though the administration has not yet clarified when borrowers will have to switch.
The Debt Collective predicted that the end of SAVE "means many more debtors will likely be forced to default on their loans," which the group added "is bad for millions of families and our economy."
According to an analysis of federal student loan data from the American Enterprise Institute, a libertarian think tank, more than 12 million borrowers in the US are already in default or otherwise behind on their student loan payments.
Since their introduction, former President Joe Biden's student loan forgiveness policies have been chipped away at bit by bit through litigation. In 2023, the conservative US Supreme Court struck down the administration's plans to forgive up to $20,000 in student loan debt for millions of Americans, ruling that the plan exceeded the administration's executive authority. A year later, it halted SAVE as well while it considered the merits of the Missouri lawsuit.
The group Protect Borrowers, which supports student loan forgiveness, argues that SAVE is "not a novel use of executive power," noting that Congress gave the Education Department the authority to create IDRs in 1993 and that several other programs have been created since.
"This settlement is pure capitulation—it goes much further than the suit or the 8th Circuit order requires," said Persis Yu, the group's deputy executive director and managing counsel. "The real story here is the unrelenting, right-wing push to jack up costs on working people with student debt.”
A September survey by Data For Progress found that student loans make it more difficult for many borrowers to keep up with other bills amid a growing cost-of-living crisis: 42% of respondents said their debt payments had a negative impact on their ability to pay for food or housing. More than a third, 37%, said it had a negative impact on their ability to cover healthcare costs for themselves or their dependents, while the majority, 52%, said it had a negative impact on their ability to save for retirement.
“While millions of student loan borrowers struggle amidst the worsening affordability crisis as the rising costs of groceries, utilities, and healthcare continue to bury families in debt," Yu said, "billionaire Education Secretary Linda McMahon chose to strike a backroom deal with a right-wing state attorney general and strip borrowers of the most affordable repayment plan that would help millions to stay on track with their loans while keeping a roof over their head."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Leads Call for Senate to Force RFK Jr. to Answer for 'War on Science'
"Failure to conduct an oversight hearing on Secretary Kennedy's actions would be an abdication of our responsibility—both from a moral perspective and as a matter of sound public health policy."
Dec 09, 2025
On the heels of a federal panel appointed by US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. voting to reverse a recommendation that newborns receive the hepatitis B vaccine, Sen. Bernie Sanders led a Tuesday call for the HHS leader to be hauled before a relevant congressional committee to answer for his actions that "undermine the health and well-being of the American people and people throughout the world."
In a letter signed by Democrats on the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee and Sanders (I-Vt.), its ranking member, the lawmakers wrote to Republican Chair Bill Cassidy (La.), a medical doctor, to argue that "Kennedy has waged an unprecedented war on science and vaccines that have saved millions of lives," and demand his testimony.
The letter highlights Kennedy directing the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "to publish false information on its website suggesting that childhood vaccines cause autism," ousting a CDC director "who refused to rubber-stamp his dangerous and unsubstantiated" recommendations, spreading misinformation about the measles vaccine during an outbreak, and defunding research "that will leave us woefully unprepared for future pandemics and public health emergencies."
Kennedy has also "packed a critical scientific body, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), with vaccine deniers, completely upending the rigorous scientific process for reviewing and recommending vaccines to the public despite a commitment he made to you that ACIP would be 'maintained without changes,'" the letter continues, citing last week's hepatitis B vote.
"Mr. Chairman: Holding an oversight hearing on Secretary Kennedy’s ill-conceived actions is more important now than ever," argued Sanders and Democratic Sens. Angela Alsobrooks (Md.), Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (Del.), Maggie Hassan (NH), John Hickenlooper (Colo.), Tim Kaine (Va.), Andy Kim (NJ), Ed Markey (Mass.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), and Patty Murray (Wash.).
"Under Secretary Kennedy;s leadership, over 1,700 people have been infected with measles. Whooping cough cases are surging nationwide, and concerns about a severe flu season continue to grow. Vaccination rates across the country are falling. Children are dying from illnesses that vaccines could have prevented," the senators stressed.
"Secretary Kennedy's response to these crises has been to spread misinformation, end campaigns encouraging flu vaccinations, fire officials who disagree with him, and place individuals with significant conflicts of interest in positions of power—completely undermining Americans' faith in our nation's public health institutions," they wrote.
The senators pointed out that "dozens of scientific and medical groups" have called for Kennedy's resignation or removal, as have more than 1,000 current and former HHS staffers. They also noted a September warning from nine former CDC directors that the secretary "is endangering every American's health," a similar joint statement the following month by ex-surgeons general, and another this month from a dozen previous Food and Drug Administration commissioners.
The letter also references Cassidy's comments about ACIP, the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, and Kennedy's supposed commitment during the confirmation process to come before the HELP Committee on a quarterly basis, which hasn't happened.
"Failure to conduct an oversight hearing on Secretary Kennedy's actions would be an abdication of our responsibility—both from a moral perspective and as a matter of sound public health policy," the letter argues, calling for his testimony as soon as possible.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Clear Breach': Watchdog Hits FIFA With Ethics Complaint Over Made-Up Trump 'Peace Prize'
Multiple rights organizations have slammed FIFA for giving Trump a "peace prize" given what they describe as his "appalling" human rights record.
Dec 09, 2025
International soccer organization FIFA has now been hit with an ethics complaint over its widely criticized decision to award President Donald Trump its first-ever "FIFA Peace Prize" last week.
The Athletic reported on Monday that FairSquare, a watchdog organization that monitors human rights abuses in the sporting world, filed an eight-page complaint with FIFA’s Ethics Committee alleging that FIFA president Gianni Infantino has repeatedly violated the organization's own code of ethics, which states that "all persons bound by the code remain politically neutral... in dealings with government institutions."
The complaint then documents multiple cases in which Infantino allegedly broke the political neutrality pledge, including his public lobbying for Trump to receive a Nobel Peace Prize; a November interview at the America Business Forum in which Infantino called Trump "a really close friend," and hit back at criticisms that the president had embraced authoritarianism; and Infantino's decision to award Trump with a made-up "peace prize" after failing to help him secure a more prestigious version.
FairSquare zeroed in on Infantino's remarks during the 2026 World Cup draw last week in which he told Trump that "you definitely deserve the first FIFA Peace Prize for your action for what you have obtained in your way, but you obtained it in an incredible way, and you can always count, Mr. President, on my support."
The organization remarked that "any reasonable interpretation of Mr. Infantino’s comments would conclude that he a) encouraged people to support the political agenda of President Trump, and b) expressed his personal approval of President Trump’s political agenda." This was a particularly egregious violation, FairSquare added, because Infantino was "appearing at a public event in his role as FIFA president."
Even without Infantino's gushing remarks about Trump, FairSquare said that "the award of a prize of this nature to a sitting political leader is in and of itself a clear breach of FIFA’s duty of neutrality."
FairSquare isn't the only organization to criticize Trump receiving a "peace prize" from the official governing body behind the World Cup.
Human Rights Watch was quick to blast FIFA last week for giving Trump any sort of peace prize given what it described as the administration’s “appalling” human rights record.
Jamil Dakwar, human rights director at the ACLU, also said that Trump was undeserving of the award, and he noted the administration “has aggressively pursued a systematic anti-human rights campaign to target, detain, and disappear immigrants in communities across the US—including the deployment of the National Guard in cities where the World Cup will take place.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


