May, 19 2009, 01:04pm EDT

DR Congo: Hold Army to Account for War Crimes
UN Security Council Should Demand Government Hold Soldiers Responsible
NEW YORK
The United Nations Security Council, visiting the Democratic Republic of Congo today, should vigorously condemn war crimes by Congolese army soldiers in the eastern part of the country, Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch urged the Security Council to condition UN support for Congolese military operations on the removal of known human rights abusers from command positions.
"The Congolese army is responsible for widespread and vicious abuses against its own people that amount to war crimes," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior researcher in the Africa division at Human Rights Watch. "The government should take urgent action to end these abuses. A military operation that targets the very people the government claims to be protecting can only lead to disaster."
Since late January 2009, soldiers from the Congolese armed forces, the FARDC, on military operations in eastern Congo, have attacked villages and killed at least 19 civilians in North Kivu province, including two women and two elderly men. Army soldiers have also raped more than 143 women and girls in the same period, more than half of the 250 cases of rape documented by Human Rights Watch. Some women were taken as sex slaves by soldiers and held within military positions.
In at least 12 villages in North Kivu province, including Miriki, Bushalingwa, and Kishonja in Lubero and Walikale territories, soldiers burned to the ground hundreds of homes and numerous schools and health centers. They pillaged and looted homes, and arbitrarily arrested at least 85 persons whom they accused of supporting rebel forces. Many of these people have been held without charge, subjected to beatings, and often released only after significant sums were paid. Civilians told Human Rights Watch researchers that they feared army soldiers as much as the Rwandan militias the army is supposed to be neutralizing.
In mid-January, the Congolese army began a joint military operation with the Rwandan armed forces against Rwandan militia groups, the Rally for Unity and Democracy (RUD) and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), some of whose leadership participated in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. The operation "Umojo Wetu" ("Our Unity") followed a rapprochement between the two countries and the demise of a Rwandan-backed Congolese rebel group, the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP), which gave up its struggle against the Congolese government and joined the operation.
During a rapid integration process, at least 12,000 combatants from the CNDP and other rebel groups who agreed to join the military operations entered the Congolese army ranks. The integration has swollen the army's numbers in eastern Congo to an estimated 60,000 soldiers, exacerbating problems of discipline, pay, and command control that have plagued it for many years.
Operation Umojo Wetu ended in late February, when Rwandan soldiers left eastern Congo following an agreement that the Congolese army would continue military operations against the Rwandan militias with support from the UN peacekeeping mission in Congo (MONUC). This second phase, known as Kimia II, began in North Kivu in mid-April and is expanding to South Kivu province.
Since the start of military operations against them, the FDLR and RUD militias have committed war crimes in brutal "reprisal" attacks in North and South Kivu, deliberately attacking and killing at least 200 civilians. In an attack on May 9 and 10, an estimated 60 civilians were reportedly killed and many others wounded in Busurungi, in Walikale territory. Reports from local officials and witnesses indicate the FDLR were the attackers and that Congolese army soldiers based in Busurungi retreated, or were killed, leaving the civilian population unprotected.
During both phases of military operations, Congolese army soldiers have killed, raped, and looted. After Rwandan militias attacked the Congolese army at Miriki (Lubero territory) on March 7-8, killing at least 12 soldiers, including an officer, the Congolese army sent in reinforcements. According to local authorities and Miriki residents, Congolese army soldiers then summarily executed the local police commander, who had reportedly been arrested along with 39 other civilians accused of collaborating with the FDLR militia. Congolese army soldiers then proceeded to pillage and burn 155 houses. Witnesses told Human Rights Watch they saw two truckloads of well-armed soldiers returning to Kirumba later that day with the pillaged goods from Miriki.
In Bwavinyo, also in southern Lubero territory, Congolese army soldiers arrested the village chief on March 8, accusing him of having been aware of an FDLR attack on Bwavinyo earlier that day and not informing the Congolese army. He was released days later, after payment of over US$1,000 to Congolese army authorities. Soldiers then pillaged the village, saying that all the goods had belonged to the FDLR. On March 12, following a warning that the FDLR were close by, army soldiers began shooting randomly, killing four civilians who were on their way back to Bwavinyo from their fields nearby.
Congolese army soldiers repeatedly committed rape during operations, often accusing women of being supporters or wives of the FDLR. Many women and girls have been gang raped. In Kihonga (South Kivu), a woman was raped in her home by two soldiers, who then abducted her husband and forced him to transport their looted goods. He still has not returned. Days later, a 15-year-old girl was raped in the same village by two soldiers, while four other soldiers looted the house and then abducted her mother, who is still missing. Other women were abducted by soldiers to be sex slaves in their camps; they were told that if they ever tried to resist when soldiers wanted to have sex with them, they would be killed.
UN peacekeepers who support the Congolese army in these military operations have tried to minimize some of the abuses by army soldiers, but have been unable to do so in many circumstances. In at least one incident recently, UN peacekeepers fired warning shots over the heads of Congolese army soldiers to try to minimize their abusive behavior.
The 3,000 additional peacekeepers authorized by the UN Security Council in November 2008 have still not arrived in eastern Congo, despite promises from council members that they would urge a rapid deployment. Helicopters and intelligence support, desperately needed by the mission, have also not materialized. On April 9 in New York, Alan Doss, the head of the UN peacekeeping force, warned the Security Council that without such assets, MONUC's "capacity to respond quickly to emerging threats and protect civilians would be curtailed."
"Civilians are trapped, targeted by all sides in this conflict," said Van Woudenberg. "During their visit to Congo, Security Council members should tell President Joseph Kabila that UN peacekeepers cannot support military operations in which war crimes are being committed and that ongoing support will be conditional on concrete action by the Congolese government to bring such crimes to an end."
Human Rights Watch again raised concerns about the role played by known human rights abusers in the military operations supported by UN peacekeepers, including Bosco Ntaganda, who has been given a leadership role in the Congolese army despite an arrest warrant from the International Criminal Court (ICC), and Jean-Pierre Biyoyo, appointed a colonel in the Congolese army despite being found guilty by a Congolese military court of recruiting children into a militia group in March 2006.
Human Rights Watch also urged the council to ensure that Ntaganda is immediately removed from military duties, and to condition future MONUC operational support on his arrest.
"MONUC and the Security Council cannot turn a blind eye when known human rights abusers are in senior positions in military operations they support," said Van Woudenberg. "Congolese civilians urgently need protection from militia groups and abusers in their own army. If the council fails to act, it too will be complicit in putting civilians at risk."
Selected Witness Accounts
27-year-old woman from Bitonga (Masisi territory, North Kivu) who was abducted in late March 2009 by Congolese army soldiers and held as a sex slave in their camp for one month:
"I was in my farm with nine other women when the soldiers came and took us by force. I was with them in their camp near Bitonga for one month, and throughout this time, whoever wanted to would come and force me to have sex with them. They told me that if I ever tried to resist, they would kill me. There were about 18 soldiers in the camp, a mix of Tutsi and Hutu. I finally managed to escape when the soldiers sent me on my own to look for firewood. I was four-months pregnant when they abducted me, and I'm now in constant pain and am unable to walk. I don't think the baby is going to make it. The people in my village had all fled while I was gone because of abuses committed by the same FARDC soldiers who had abducted me."
40-year-old woman raped by four Congolese army soldiers in her house in Chebumba (Kalehe territory, South Kivu) on April 15:
"They came at night when I was asleep. We heard a banging on the door, and then they forced the door open, took my husband out of bed and tied him up. Four soldiers then started to rape me, one after the other, while three other soldiers looted all the goods in our house. I was four-months pregnant, but lots of blood started to flow while they were raping me and I've now lost the baby. The soldiers spoke Lingala, and I didn't understand what they were saying. Three other houses were visited the same night in my village. The soldiers who raped me have since been deployed further south, past Numbi."
15-year-old girl from Kihonga (Kalehe territory, South Kivu) who was raped last year by FARDC soldiers who made her pregnant. After giving birth in late March, she was raped again on May 5 by two FARDC soldiers:
"There were six soldiers who came into my house. They first raped my three-year-old sister, and then two of them raped me while the others looted our house. They threw my newborn baby onto the ground, and because of the shock he is in a lot of pain whenever anyone touches his legs. The soldiers were wearing military uniforms and they spoke Kinyarwanda. There were Hutus and Tutsis and other tribes as well. After they raped me, they took my mother away with them. She hasn't come back yet, and I think she must be dead. Five other houses in Kihonga were visited the same night by the soldiers."
25-year-old woman from Kihonga (Kalehe territory, South Kivu) who was raped in her house by two FARDC soldiers on April 25:
"It happened at night when I was in the house with my husband. We heard people knocking on the door, and they demanded that we open it. We refused, and then two soldiers forced the door open, came in the house, and tied up my husband. They then took me by force and started to rape me. They were both armed, in military uniform, and they spoke Kinyarwanda. One was Hutu and the other was Tutsi. Afterward, they took my husband with them to transport all the goods they looted from our house. I thought my husband would come back, but he never did. His family has since rejected me once they found out what happened, and I now have nowhere to go."
Man from Oninga (Walikale territory, North Kivu) who fled to Kirumba (Lubero territory, North Kivu) after the FDLR began attacking civilians:
"As we fled toward the government-controlled area, we were stopped by FARDC soldiers who looted all our money and goods, and they beat us badly, saying, 'You came from where the enemies are, and you must be their collaborator.' Now that we've made it to Kirumba, we're constantly subject to 'Operation Fenetre' with our host families here: The soldiers come to the houses at night, stick the rifle of their guns through the window, and force us to hand over all the money, food, and objects in the house."
Displaced man from Katoyi (Masisi territory) in Lushebere:
"When I went home to look for food, I was stopped by FARDC soldiers, who forced me to transport their baggage all the way to Kalonge, where they were going for operations against the FDLR. When we got there, they made me give them my clothes and shoes. I was then left almost naked, as they whipped me, calling me an Interhamwe."
Local chief from Masisi territory:
"The FDLR say we are the ones who told the FARDC to come and chase them out of eastern Congo, while our soldiers blame us for having lived with the FDLR and say we're their brothers. We've become the enemies of all sides and don't understand anymore what to think."
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
'No Safety in Appeasement': Law Firms That Fought Trump Vindicated as DOJ Drops Cases
"Another significant victory for the rule of law over Trump's reign of lawlessness," said Rep. Jamie Raskin.
Mar 03, 2026
Congressman Jamie Raskin said the US Department of Justice's decision Monday to abandon its legal cases against law firms that refused to capitulate to President Donald Trump should serve as "a reminder that those who fight back against authoritarianism are winning."
The DOJ asked the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia to dismiss its cases against law firms including Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, and Jenner & Block, which won legal challenges they filed last year after Trump issued executive orders saying they should lose government contracts and their employees should be blocked from government buildings.
Those executive orders were signed because the firms represented and employed high-profile Democrats and other opponents of Trump.
Other law firms, including Skadden Arps and Paul Weiss, angered lawyers within their ranks and the larger legal community when they signed deals with Trump; the latter firm agreed to end its internal diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and provide $40 million in free legal work for the president and causes he supports.
The Trump administration's decision on Monday proved, said Raskin (D-Md.), that "there’s no safety in appeasement.”
“When the Trump administration tried to bully and silence law firms by banning them from federal buildings, courthouses and contracts, a handful—like Susman Godfrey, Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale—fought back," said Raskin. "Today, those firms forced Trump to back down and abandon his blatantly unconstitutional effort to punish lawyers, clients, and causes because Trump disagrees with their speech. Meanwhile, the firms that chose to roll over saddled their associates and partners with doing billions of dollars-worth of free legal work for Trump, his twisted administration and his MAGA allies."
While other firms caved to Trump's demands last year, the companies that didn't quickly won legal victories, with one federal judge saying the executive order targeting Jenner & Block was “doubly violative of the Constitution" because it targeted the clients it represents as well as a lawyer it once employed—Andrew Weissman, who was part of former special counsel Robert Mueller's team that investigated Trump.
“This order, like the others, seeks to chill legal representation the administration doesn’t like, thereby insulating the executive branch from the judicial check fundamental to the separation of powers," US District Judge John Bates wrote last May. "It thus violates the Constitution and the court will enjoin its operation in full.”
"This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing."
Jenner & Block said Monday that "the government’s decision to withdraw its appeals makes permanent the rulings of four federal judges that the executive orders targeting law firms, including Jenner & Block, were unconstitutional."
"Our partnership is proud to have stood firm on behalf of its clients, and we look forward to continuing to serve them—guided by these bedrock values—for many decades to come," said the firm.
Brian Hauss, deputy director of the Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project at the ACLU, said the DOJ had finally admitted "what everyone knew on Day 1: There is no way to defend these unconstitutional executive orders."
“This shameful assault on the rule of law has failed, thanks to the brave lawyers who refused to compromise their integrity," said Hauss.
Vanita Gupta, former associate attorney general under the Biden administration, told NBC News that the law groups that struck deals with the White House had "undermined the rule of law and the legal profession in this country."
"This episode will be remembered as demonstrating the difference between institutions that had the ethical courage to uphold the Constitution and fight bullying and then won, and those that compromised their ethics and gained nothing," Gupta said. "Let’s hope that media companies, universities, and other organizations pay heed."
In addition to his attacks on law firms, the president has threatened universities with funding cuts and federal investigations into what the White House views as antisemitism and extremism on campus and the colleges' efforts to promote diversity and inclusion.
At least six universities have struck deals with Trump. The University of Pennsylvania agreed to ban transgender student athletes from participating on women's sports teams and Columbia University agreed to further crack down on campus protests like those that erupted in 2024 against US support for Israel's assault on Gaza—protests that both the Biden and Trump administrations claimed were antisemitic.
Harvard sued the administration over its decision to freeze $2.2 billion in research funding and was granted a restraining order last year to protect international students whom the White House had threatened with visa restrictions.
On Monday, Raskin said the DOJ's decision to back down from the attacks on law firms was "another significant victory for the rule of law over Trump's reign of lawlessness."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Netanyahu Insists Iran Assault Is 'Not an Endless War' as US Sends More Forces to Middle East
Benjamin Netanyahu infamously predicted that the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 would "have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
Mar 03, 2026
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu insisted in a Fox News appearance late Monday that the intensifying assault on Iran "is not an endless war," even as Trump administration officials declined to provide a clear timeline for the ongoing military operations, deployed more forces to the region, and signaled a more intense bombing campaign is ahead.
As elements of Trump's MAGA base expressed outrage over the war, which is broadly unpopular with the American public, Netanyahu claimed in an appearance on "Hannity" that the US-Israeli onslaught "will create conditions of peace," remarks that came as the Middle East descended into regional war as Iran retaliated against the illegal attacks with strikes on sites in at least nine countries.
The Israeli prime minister's comments recalled his infamous prediction in 2002, ahead of the US invasion of Iraq, that "if you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region."
Netanyahu's remarks to Trump loyalist Sean Hannity echoed those of US Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, who told reporters and the public earlier Monday that "this is not Iraq," dismissing criticism of the administration for plunging the US into another disastrous Middle East war.
"This is not endless," Hegseth said. The Pentagon chief later bristled at a question about President Donald Trump's suggested timeline of "four weeks or less," calling it a "typical NBC sort of got-you type question."
"President Trump has all the latitude in the world to talk about how long it may or may not take four weeks, two weeks, six weeks," Hegseth said. "It could move up, it could move back. We're going to execute at his command."
During the same press conference, Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the US would be sending more forces to the region, declining to offer specifics so as not to "tip the enemy off." Caine also said the US expects to "take additional losses."
"This work is just beginning and will continue," Caine said.
Trump, for his part, said the timeline for the war is "whatever it takes" for the US and Israel to achieve their stated objectives, which have ranged from knocking out Iran's nuclear energy program to full-scale regime change.
"Right from the beginning we projected four to five weeks, but we have the capability to go far longer than that," Trump said.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile, warned that "the hardest hits are yet to come from the US military" and said that "the next phase will be even more punishing on Iran than it is right now." Rubio also indicated that Trump decided to join Israel in attacking Iran because the planned Israeli attack was likely to spark retaliation against US forces in the region, a justification that critics described as "insane."
The Iranian Red Crescent said Tuesday that Iran's death toll from the assault is now close to 800 and counting. The US has confirmed six deaths from an Iranian strike on a military installation in Kuwait.
"That we would just follow an ally into a war of choice that puts hundreds of Americans' lives, if not thousands of Americans' lives, at risk should be bone-chilling to Americans," US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) said late Monday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rights Group Leads Push for UN to Declare US-Israeli Assault on Iran 'War of Aggression'
"No legal framework, international or domestic, can justify this."
Mar 02, 2026
A leading human rights group on Monday urged the United Nations General Assembly to declare the unprovoked US-Israeli assault on Iran—which has already killed more than 500 people in just three days, including many children—a "war of aggression."
In a letter sent to the permanent missions of all UN member states in New York City, Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN) "called on governments to formally request an emergency special session of the UN General Assembly to declare the assault a war of aggression in violation of the UN Charter and to demand the immediate cessation of all hostilities."
"The [UN] Security Council is unable to make that determination because the United States, as a permanent member and a party to the conflict, will veto any resolution," DAWN explained. "The General Assembly should act in its place."
DAWN's call came as the death toll from three days of US-Israeli bombardment of cities, towns, and sites throughout Iran rose to at least 555, according to the Iranian Red Crescent Society. Multiple massacres—including a bombing of a girls' school in Minab that officials said killed at least 180 people, many of them students—have been reported.
"The United States has initiated a war of aggression, which UN General Assembly Resolution 3314 defines as 'a crime against international peace' and which the Nuremberg Tribunal—established by the United States itself—called 'the supreme international crime,'" the group noted.
DAWN continued:
The US and Israeli decision to go to war violates the foundations of jus ad bellum, the body of international law governing when a state may lawfully use force against another. Under UN Charter Article 2(4), all member states are prohibited from using force against the territorial integrity or political independence of another state. There are only two explicit exceptions: self-defense under Article 51, or authorization by the UN Security Council under Chapter VII. Neither applies here. Article 51 permits self-defense only "if an armed attack occurs," and Iran had not attacked the United States. Even under the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, the war is unlawful.
"No legal framework, international or domestic, can justify this US-Israeli war of aggression against Iran," DAWN executive director Omar Shakir said in a statement. "This war is patently illegal, and it must be stopped."
DAWN's call came on the same day that US First Lady Melania Trump chaired a UN Security Council meeting about the role of education in "advancing tolerance and world peace."
Just to be clear, sending his wife Melania to preside over the United Nations Security Council is a display of contempt for the UN by Trump.During his first term, Trump similarly sent his daughter Ivanka to multiple United Nations General Assembly sessions.
[image or embed]
— Leah McElrath (@leahmcelrath.bsky.social) March 2, 2026 at 1:02 PM
"We've become the laughingstock of the entire world," lamented the social media group Occupy Democrats. "This is an unprecedented appearance by an American first dady and yet another sign that [President] Donald Trump prizes loyalty and proximity to himself over competence."
"In fact, this is the first time that the spouse of ANY world leader has been allowed to take the president's seat on the Security Council," Occupy Democrats added. "It sends a clear signal to the world that the United States is now little more than a nepotistic, tin-pot dictatorship."
DAWN also sent a letter to members of Congress urging them to pass a pair of war powers resolutions that would bar US forces from waging an unconstitutional war on Iran. H.Con.Res.38 and S.J.Res.59—introduced last year respectively by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)—would direct Trump to withdraw US forces from unconstitutional attacks on Iran.
"The question before Congress is not whether to authorize this war retroactively," the letter states. "Given that... this war has been illegal under US domestic law from the moment it began... the question before you is whether to end it now, and Congress has the power to do so."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


