Resources
Friday, May 27, 2022
  • Login
Journalists for Justice
No Result
View All Result

Browse by Topic:

  • Home
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Human Rights
  • Elections
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Careers
No Result
View All Result
Journalists for Justice
  • Home
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion & Analysis
  • Human Rights
  • Elections
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Careers
No Result
View All Result
Journalists for Justice
No Result
View All Result
Home ICJ

Uganda and DR Congo confront each other at ‘World Court’ in The Hague over war crimes reparations

Thomas VerfussbyThomas Verfuss
April 19, 2021
in ICJ
Reading Time: 6 mins read
A A
0
The Peace Palace, seat of the International Court of Justice, the Hague, Netherlands. The Court is the principal judicial body of the United Nations. Credit: United Nations Flickr account

The Peace Palace, seat of the International Court of Justice, the Hague, Netherlands. The Court is the principal judicial body of the United Nations. Credit: United Nations Flickr account

Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

By Thomas Verfuss

Just two days after its 75th anniversary, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague will on Tuesday, April 20, 2021, start hearings on reparations for war crimes in the case Democratic Republic of the Congo versus Uganda.

The judges of the highest court in the world, “the principal legal organ of the United Nations” that has its seat in the Peace Palace, will have to decide on a philosophically difficult question: how much financial compensation should be allocated for loss of life as a consequence of war crimes?

As long ago as in June 1999, the government of the DRC in Kinshasa instituted proceedings at the ICJ against Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda for “acts of armed aggression committed . . . in flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU)”, the predecessor of today’s African Union.

The ICJ Registry, the neutral organ of the World Court that streamlines the functioning of its administration, stated at the time, on June 23rd, 1999: “In its applications, the DRC contends that the invasion of Congolese territory by Burundian, Ugandan, and Rwandan troops on 2 August 1998 (an invasion currently claimed to involve fighting in seven provinces) constitutes a ‘violation of [its] sovereignty and of [its] territorial integrity’, as well as a ‘threat to peace and security in central Africa in general and in the Great Lakes region in particular’. The DRC accuses the three states of having attempted to ‘seize Kinshasa through the lower Congo, in order to overthrow the Government of Public Salvation and assassinate President Laurent Désiré Kabila, with the object of installing a Tutsi regime or a regime under Tutsi control’. The DRC also accuses those states of ‘violations of international humanitarian law and massive violations of human rights’ (massacres, rapes, attempted kidnappings, and murders), and of the looting of large numbers of public and private institutions. It further claims that ‘the assistance given to the Congolese rebellion or rebellions . . . and the issue of frontier security were mere pretexts designed to enable the aggressors to seize the assets of the territories invaded and hold the civil population to ransom”.  

RelatedStories

Search for the next ICC Prosecutor makes little progress

ICC Appeals Chamber adjourns to consider submissions on the acquittal of Gbagbo and Blé Goudé

ICC authorises Afghanistan investigation

As one may note, the case has been dragging on for almost 21 years without a final resolution. ICJ cases have a reputation for often dragging on for a long time, as shall be explained in more detail below. ICJ cases also sometimes don’t have a conclusion, with a final judgement on the merits, because they are “lost in action”, for after a long litigation, the court has to conclude that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the case, or because the very object of the case becomes moot, like in the Lockerbie case about US and UK sanctions against Libya, or because cases are simply withdrawn after some political horse-trading behind the scenes.

The DRC cases against Burundi and Rwanda ended without a judgement on the merits. It is only Uganda that is left.

After years of back and forth, in 2005, the ICJ judges found that “Uganda violated the principles of non-use of force in international relations and of non-intervention; that it violated its obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law; and that it violated other obligations owed to the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The court also finds that the Democratic Republic of the Congo violated obligations owed to Uganda under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961.”

Ugandan or Ugandan-sponsored forces committed war crimes against Congolese civilians; the Congolese government failed to protect the Ugandan embassy in Kinshasa against attacks from mobs. The governments of both countries owe each other reparations, the world’s highest judges ruled.

The tragedy of internal fighting and foreign interventions in Congo, with, as a direct or indirect consequence, the loss of millions of lives, has sometimes been described as “Africa’s Third World War” and neighbouring countries exploiting the natural resources of Congo for the benefit of rich people in “the Western world”. The ICJ judges found that “the Republic of Uganda, by engaging in military activities against the Democratic Republic of the Congo on the latter’s territory, by occupying Ituri, and by actively extending military, logistic, economic, and financial support to irregular forces having operated on the territory of the DRC, violated the principle of non-use of force in international relations and the principle of non-intervention”.

The World Court found that “the Republic of Uganda, by the conduct of its armed forces, which committed acts of killing, torture, and other forms of inhumane treatment of the Congolese civilian population, destroyed villages and civilian buildings, failed to distinguish between civilian and military targets and to protect the civilian population in fighting with other combatants, trained child soldiers, incited ethnic conflict, and failed to take measures to put an end to such conflict; as well as by its failure, as an occupying power, to take measures to respect and ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law in Ituri district, violated its obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law”.

Then comes the crucial point which keeps us busy this week: The court, in 2005, “Unanimously, finds that the Republic of Uganda is under obligation to make reparation to the Democratic Republic of the Congo for the injury caused; Unanimously, decides that, failing agreement between the parties, the question of reparation due to the Democratic Republic of the Congo shall be settled by the court, and reserves for this purpose the subsequent procedure in the case.”

Fifteen years later, there is still no agreement between the governments in Kinshasa and Kampala on the amount of reparations; so the judges have to come in and decide. They have noticed the destruction and loss of life in the decision cited above. But how much is a life lost “worth” in reparations?

The judges of another permanent international court in The Hague, the ICC, which, contrary to the ICJ, does not deal with legal conflicts between states, but with criminal cases against individuals, have been criticised because they awarded only $250 of reparations to the victims of the massacre in the Congolese village of Bogoro, where about 200 people were murdered. On the other hand, some of them, led behind the scenes by their president, sued their own court in another court because they thought that a monthly pay of 15,000 euros tax-free is not enough. It is a tricky thing for an international court, in the spotlight of the international press, to fix an appropriate amount of compensation for loss of life.

As of Tuesday, April 20th, the ICJ judges will engage in this difficult exercise, hearing first the submissions of the Congolese and Ugandan governments, in what has been described by insiders as a “nightmare dossier”. The amount asked for by the Kinshasa government is officially still confidential and will be made public by the ICJ once the public hearings in the Peace Palace start. But it has been described by informed people as having the potential to ruin the Republic of Uganda, if allocated by the ICJ judges.

Previous Post

143,000 Burundian refugees to return home

Next Post

Boris Johnson criticised for rejecting ICC probe of Israel

Thomas Verfuss

Thomas Verfuss

Send Email

Related Posts

ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (right) speaks with another prosecutor on 28 August 2018 during the closing statements in the case against former Congolese rebel leader Bosco Ntaganda at the International Criminal Court in The Hague, Netherlands. Bensouda's term ends in June 2021 and the process to elect her successor is ongoing.

Search for the next ICC Prosecutor makes little progress

December 10, 2020
Geert-Jan Knoops and his client, former Ivory Coast Cabinet Minister Charles Blé Goudé, before the start of an appeals hearing at the ICC on Monday, June 22, 2020.

ICC Appeals Chamber adjourns to consider submissions on the acquittal of Gbagbo and Blé Goudé

June 26, 2020
American Marine in Afghanistan 2007

ICC authorises Afghanistan investigation

March 5, 2020
Gambia moves to ICJ to stop Rohingya genocide

Gambia moves to ICJ to stop Rohingya genocide

November 18, 2019

Kenya’s oil dispute with Somalia pending before Hague court

February 17, 2019

End British colonialism in Africa, Mauritius urges world court

September 4, 2018
Next Post
a British politician and writer serving as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since July 2019

Boris Johnson criticised for rejecting ICC probe of Israel

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Login
Notify of
Please login to comment
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
No Result
View All Result

Recent Posts

  • Said Abdel Kani to remain in custody as Appeals Chamber rejects his plea for release
  • Are we ready? CSOs audit Kenya’s election preparedness
  • Parties prepare to wind up Gicheru case
  • Hope at last for Kenyan victims, but is TFV’s planned support enough?
  • Gicheru asks ICC judge to admit new evidence

Recent Comments

  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on Kenyan lawyer denies bribery charges at the ICC
  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on You did me wrong, Bemba tells ICC as he demands 70 million euros
  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on Two victims’ lawyers in Kenyatta case in line to become next ICC prosecutor
  • JFJ - Journalists for Justice on Profiles of the four people shortlisted for the job of ICC Prosecutor
  • Write My Essay on Afghanistan case fails to take off at the ICC — pragmatism’ or surrender to the powerful?

Archives

Categories

JFJ – Journalists for Justice

We call out impunity wherever it occurs; we advocate justice for all victims of atrocity crimes; and we work with people of goodwill everywhere who share our values.

Browse by Topics:

Archives by Month:

Never Again
INTAHE
BarometreVerite
The Victims' Bantaba
No Result
View All Result
  • Confronting Impunity
  • Communities of Justice
  • Opinion
  • About US
  • Our Work
  • Login

Copyright © 2019. Journalists for Justice has asserted its right to be recognized as creators and owners of the content here. Reproduction in part or in whole is permitted on condition that JFJ is acknowledged and notified.

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
wpDiscuz