VII. Congolese Government and Army’s Failure to Protect Civilians

The protection of civilians in Congo is primarily the responsibility of the Congolese government and its security forces. Yet Congolese government officials have failed to take adequate or effective steps to protect civilians in eastern Congo. Congolese army troops have committed widespread violations of international humanitarian and human rights law, but few have been held to account.

During military operations in Umoja Wetu and Kimia II, the Congolese armed forces made little if any planning for civilian protection, integrated highly abusive militias into its forces, and failed to seriously address the deeply entrenched problem of impunity. In some cases, the Congolese army launched attacks in areas where they knew civilians and humanitarian workers would be put at particular risk.[370]

Inadequate Civilian Protection Planning

Before the Congolese government embarked on the military operations Umoja Wetu and Kimia II, little or no provision for civilian protection in conflict areas was put into place. Once operations were underway and FDLR retaliatory attacks against civilians were launched, the government and army officials made few, if any, adjustments to military operations to account for the increased risk to civilians.

In July, several months after the operations began, instructions were issued to troops that the government had “zero tolerance” for human rights violations and that commanders would be held to account for the behavior of their troops (see below), but there have been no other instructions that would facilitate the protection of civilians from FDLR abuses. When asked by Human Rights Watch researchers what measures were being taken to protect civilians during the ongoing military operations, some senior army commanders responded that civilian protection was the responsibility of MONUC.[371]

The government should have foreseen and taken into account that its military operations would be placing civilians at greatly heightened risk of abuses from FDLR combatants and its own forces. Previous military operations in North Kivu in 2007 and 2008, including a short-lived joint operation in 2007 when CNDP troops temporarily “mixed” with Congolese army soldiers to fight the FDLR,[372] had also resulted in FDLR retaliatory attacks against civilians and abuses by government soldiers. But Congolese decision-makers appeared to focus entirely on the offensive military operations against the FDLR without giving adequate, if any, serious attention to the additional risks to civilians. Civilians suffered tremendously because the Congolese government, with the support of its international partners (discussed below), sought to achieve the twin goals of making a peace deal with the CNDP rebels and weakening the FDLR by launching military operations without adequate provision for the protection of civilians. This had horrific consequences for the people of eastern Congo.

Integration Problems Increase Risks

In a hasty “fast track accelerated integration” process that was part of the arrangement struck between Congo and Rwanda, the Congolese army welcomed an estimated 20,000 former rebels, mostly from the CNDP but also other Mai Mai groups, into its ranks. After registering their names, giving them Congolese army uniforms, and, for some, a cursory health check, the Congolese government deployed them within days on military operations against the FDLR alongside their existing soldiers. At the launch of operation Kimia II, there were an estimated 50,000 government soldiers deployed on military operations in North and South Kivu.[373] The rapid integration process provided no opportunity for vetting the rebels to dismiss human rights abusers, nor were child soldiers removed from the rebel ranks before being integrated into the government army. Once former rebels became government soldiers, their conduct became the responsibility of the Congolese army.

The rapid integration process led to immediate problems. There was confusion over chain of command with newly integrated former rebels and government soldiers who were already in the army often remaining loyal to their old commanders rather than to their new officers. Soldiers’ salaries were seriously delayed or not paid at all, and there were inadequate food rations for the troops. The government, already cash-strapped due to the economic downturn, had not planned in its budget for an increase in troop numbers nor for the cost of major military operations.[374] As troops deployed to frontline locations, there was also no clear record of which soldier had been deployed where, making payments and food distributions even more difficult. Within months, some of the soldiers and their families began to protest, such as those in Kanyabayonga, Beni and Goma (North Kivu). In some locations they deserted or even mutinied. In at least one case, on June 15, in Pinga, Walikale territory, the soldiers tried to kill their commander for the failure to pay their salaries and then attacked a MONUC base.[375]

The payment and logistical shortfalls played a significant role in contributing to attacks on civilians as hungry, unpaid troops looted and pillaged from local populations, often raping the women and girls they attacked and sometimes killing those who stood in their way. Months into the military operations, the Congolese government still had not resolved these problems. While officials acknowledged that the problem existed, and that it increased the risk to civilians,[376] they did not in any significant way curtail military operations while they sought to find solutions.

Problems in the rapid integration process also led a number of former rebel forces to withdraw altogether. Several Mai Mai groups, angry at the lack of salary payments and what they perceived as preferential treatment given to their former CNDP adversaries, dropped out of the process.Some of the groups ended up joining forces with the FDLR.[377]

Entrenched Impunity

Several factors contributed to the numerous serious abuses committed by Congolese army forces against civilians, including commanders who ordered or tolerated atrocities, lack of discipline among the Congolese national troops and the hastily inducted rebel forces, and the failure to pay salaries and provide sufficient food for the troops on operations. Perhaps most crucial was the government’s failure to hold to account those responsible for war crimes and other violations. Impunity for serious abuses, already prevalent in Congo, has intensified since the launch of military operations.

In January 2009 the government promoted Bosco Ntaganda, wanted on an arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, to the rank of general in the Congolese army. Since then he has become the de facto deputy commander of operation Kimia II. The government also promoted or permitted other known human rights abusers to play important operational roles in the military operations, including former CNDP and other commanders:

• Bernard Biamungu, appointed a colonel in charge of the 2nd Operations Zone in Mushake, who is accused of participating in dozens of summary executions in Kindu (Maniema province) in 2003 and Kisangani in 2002;[378]
• Jean Pierre Biyoyo, found guilty by a Congolese military court in March 2006 of recruiting children into a militia group, who was appointed to serve as a lieutenant colonel and the deputy commander of operations in the 32nd sector in Kalehe territory (South Kivu);[379]
• Innocent Zimurinda, accused of participating in the massacres at Kiwanja in 2008 and Buramba in 2007, was appointed to be a lieutenant colonel and commander of the 23rd Operational Sector in North Kivu;
• Sultani Makenga, accused of child recruitment and participation in massacres at Katwiguru, Kiseguru, Buramba, and Rubare, was named colonel and deputy commander of Kimia II operations in South Kivu;
• Delphin Kahimbi, a colonel, was appointed Kimia II commander in South Kivu despite repeated allegations by MONUC officials, as well as Human Rights Watch, of his involvement in the arbitrary arrests, torture, and ill-treatment of detainees, especially Tutsi, in North Kivu and for ordering his troops to fire on UN peacekeepers.[380]

When many of these commanders continued to commit the same atrocities for which they were already notorious, as was the case of Colonel Zimurinda mentioned above, the government claimed it was unable to act to arrest them for fear of causing more harm to civilians should the peace process unravel.[381]

Not only do such decisions violate the Congolese government’s international and national legal obligations to investigate and prosecute individuals responsible for war crimes, they are also horribly misguided. Forgoing accountability effectively sanctions the commission of more grave crimes and puts civilians at even greater risk. All too often a peace that is conditioned on impunity for the most serious crimes is not sustainable.[382] As Philip Alston, the UN special rapporteur onextrajudicial executions, said at the end of his mission to Congo in October 2009, “Peace will not come, nor will justice, until the government and the international community take seriously the notion that those accused of heinous crimes must be indicted immediately.”[383]

Some Good Intentions

The government has attempted to take some measures to tackle abuses by its troops, including the establishment of a special military tribunal and the adoption in July 2009 of a policy of “zero tolerance” for abuses committed by government soldiers.

As noted above, in November 2008, the government established and sent a special military tribunal, called the Military Operational Court (cour militaire opérationnelle), to North Kivu to prosecute crimes committed by its soldiers in the context of military operations. Between January and September 2009, 35 army soldiers and officers, including two commanding officers, were tried for crimes related to human rights violations in North Kivu.[384] The government established a similar tribunal in South Kivu on July 12, which has tried 10 soldiers.[385] Unfortunately, many of those charged escaped detention and were tried in absentia, therefore limiting the tribunal’s impact.[386] The tribunal also lacks important due-process guarantees, including the right to appeal.

Regular military tribunals have also tried some cases of serious human rights violations. For example, in April 2009, a military tribunal in Walikale sentenced 16 soldiers to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity after the soldiers committed widespread rape, in some cases resulting in the death of the victim. Three other soldiers received the death sentence for rape and armed robbery and one soldier was sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment for raping a minor.[387] Ten of the soldiers convicted had fled prior to the trial and were therefore tried in absentia; two others escaped after sentencing.[388]

Between February and August 2009, the Military Prosecutor’s offices in North and South Kivu prosecuted fewer than 100 cases of sexual violence crimes, the vast majority lower ranking officers or soldiers. In the handful of cases where mid-level or senior level officers were prosecuted, sentences are rarely being carried out.[389]

“Zero tolerance”

On July 5, shortly after a meeting between Human Rights Watch and President Joseph Kabila in Goma, the Congolese government issued a policy of “zero tolerance” for human rights violations committed by its soldiers, putting commanders on notice that they would be held to account for the behavior of their troops, including for crimes of sexual violence.[390] The announcement marked an important policy shift and sent a strong signal that human rights abuses would not be tolerated.

Soon after the announcement, on July 11, a Public Court Martial was held in Kavumu (South Kivu) to try an army sergeant accused of raping a pregnant woman in Mwenga a few days earlier. The soldier was convicted and sentenced to 15 years’ imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The one-day trial was attended by top army and police officials to show their seriousness in tackling such crimes, though the speed of the trial and the unusual official attention likely compromised the rights of the defendant.[391] On July 27, a high-ranking officer, Lt. Col. Ndayambaje Kipanga, an integrated former CNDP officer, was tried in absentia and sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity relating to the rape of three teenage girls and illegal detention of two others by the military court in North Kivu. He had escaped two days after his arrest because of lax detention procedures and remains at large.[392] His co-accused, Major NjolokoLusungu, was sentenced to ten years in prison.[393] 

The real impact of the zero-tolerance policy can only be measured by its implementation. Despite a handful of more high-profile trials, the vast majority of crimes described in this report have neither been investigated nor prosecuted. Human Rights Watch has also not documented any decrease in human rights violations by Congolese army soldiers since the policy was announced in July.

Army Response

As of November 2009, no investigations had begun by Congolese military or justice officials into the large-scale human rights violations documented in this report, including the massacres and killings in the area between Nyabiondo and Pinga and the massacre of Rwandan Hutu refugees in the Shalio area. None of the senior officers implicated in these crimes, such as Lt. Col. Innocent Zimurinda, was suspended from operational command pending investigations.

On July 1, Human Rights Watch met with Maj. Gen. Dieudonné Amuli Bahigwa, the Congolese army overall commander of operation Kimia II, and Col. Bobo Kakudji, commander responsible for operation Kimia II in North Kivu, and informed them of many of the human rights violations documented in this report, including the Shalio area massacre of Rwandan Hutu refugees.[394] The commanders said they were unaware of the Shalio incident, but committed to looking into the allegations. During a second meeting with Col. Kakudji on October 2, he informed Human Rights Watch that no investigation had yet been launched.[395]

On October 22, 2009, during a meeting hosted by MONUC, Human Rights Watch again met with General Amuli and other senior Congolese military and justice officials to inform them of the killings and other abuses by Congolese army soldiers in the area between Nyabiondo and Pinga and to reiterate calls for an investigation into the Shalio area massacre. General Amuli told Human Rights Watch that new, clear orders had recently been given, following instructions from President Kabila and Gen. Didier Etumba, the army chief of staff, that commanders of military units were responsible for arresting human rights violators among their troops, and that commanders would be held responsible for massive human rights violations committed by their units. General Amuli also committed to create a small team to work alongside MONUC to identify incidents where the chain of command might have broken down and where incidents were not reported to him. He further agreed to seek MONUC’s direct assistance to investigate allegations in a timely fashion in order to give meaning to the zero-tolerance policy. General Amuli specifically committed to launching an investigation into the allegations of killings and massacres in the area between Nyabiondo and Pinga.[396] On October 30, UN peacekeepers and the Congolese army established a joint provincial committee in North Kivu to investigate human rights violations committed by army soldiers, including those in the area between Nyabiondo and Pinga, and to remove abusive commanders. At the time of writing, the investigations had not yet begun.[397]

While encouraging, it was not clear whether these new commitments by General Amuli would result in genuine action. The continued failure to investigate the killing of Rwandan refugees at Shalio and the failure to arrest Gen. Bosco Ntaganda and other senior officers responsible for gross human rights violations raise serious doubts about the political will to apply the policy of zero tolerance to those most responsible who hold a senior military rank. As long as such individuals remain untouchable, zero tolerance will remain a policy only of good intentions.