ACHPR Landmark Decision on Reparations for Survivors of Conflict Related Sexual Violence
By Deborah Nyokabi, Equality Now and Steering Committee of Implementation Working Group
The Democratic Republic of Congo consistently reports the highest number of cases of conflict-related sexual violence (CRSV)annually in the Secretary General’s Annual Report. In this context, the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Commission) in Communication 686/18 – Association des femmes avocates défenseurs des droits humains, Institute for Human Rights and Development in Africa & Equality Now c/ République Démocratique du Congo is highly welcome as it addressed reparations for conflict-related sexual violence involving military officials. The communication was filed on behalf of 53 survivors over incidents which occurred in Fizi Territory, South Kivu, on 1 January 2011 whereby Congolese soldiers entered public and private spaces, shot civilians, and committed mass sexual violence and other abuses against women.
Allegations and Reparations
The communication filed before the African Commission alleged violations of various provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the African Charter) and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (the Maputo Protocol) with regard to rape, sexual violence, torture, extrajudicial killings, destruction of homes; and lack of prosecution and effective remedy. It issued a broad set of remedies that include: prosecution and punishment provision with monetary compensation in line with national procedures; adequate medical, psychological, or psychiatric care; human rights training for military personnel, magistrates, and law enforcement officials; public apology to the victims within six months; Publication of the decision on the merits in an official government journal within six months; and Submission of an implementation report to the Commission within 180 days.
Analysis of the Reparation Orders
The reparations orders made by the African Commission are commendable on many fronts, namely: provision of structural interdicts with time frames of 6 months for the prosecution and punishment of perpetrators; and recognition of SGBV as a form of torture at individual, family, and collective levels. However, the reparations can be critiqued on the following basis: 9 years’ time frame from submission of the communication in October 2016 to transmission of the decision in May 2025; Failure to find a violation of Article 8 of the Maputo Protocol on equality before the law stating “it had not been demonstrated that legal/judicial services were denied to the women victims of the attacks for the sole reason that they belong to the category of ‘women” thus employing a comparator standard to men yet 52/53 victims were women which is indicative of a formal rather than a substantive approach to gender equality; Failure to find violation of Article 14 (1) of the Maputo Protocol on violation of sexual and reproductive rights despite determining that rape had been perpetrated on the sole ground that the survivors had not provided evidence of HIV/AIDs infections, and Deferring calculation of compensation amount to national procedures despite unduly prolonged proceedings at the national level and the fact that it was a judgement in default as the State had not responded to the communication.
Outlook on Follow-Up on Implementation
The African human rights system faces an endemic crisis of low compliance with its decisions and recommendations. It is still early to determine whether the DRC government will comply with the reparatory orders, but the outlook looks dim as the 180 days for submission of a report on the status of implementation lapsed on 7th November 2025. The state is yet to submit the report and the status of implementation remains unclear. The DRC has been in a protracted conflict situation state did not engage in litigation and thus the Commission entered a judgement in default. Mechanisms to incentivize follow up on implementation under the Commission’s 2020 rules or procedure include: submission of CSO reports on the status of implementation; filing an application for convening an implementation hearing, and developing a multi-stakeholder approach (MSA) action plan for implementation and the national level; There is also a need for the ACHPR to adopt a gender transformative approach to its communication procedure and working methods to ensure gender responsive remedies as done by the International Criminal Court through its policy on gender-based crimes for the office of the Prosecutor. Ultimately, expeditious and effective implementation is needed to ensure accountability and end impunity on gender-based crimes perpetrated by state agents in conflict situations.
This article was first published in the Community Corner of our Just Reparation newsletter. These contributions are invaluable in enriching our collective understanding and fostering meaningful dialogue within the reparation community of practice. If you would like to be featured, we encourage you to submit your contributions to [email protected].