DR Congo Initiates New Proceedings Against Rwanda at International Court of Justice

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has initiated new proceedings against Rwanda before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), alleging a three-decade campaign of genocide and widespread human rights abuses in eastern Zaire and subsequently eastern DRC. The application, filed on June 26, 2026, accuses Rwanda of direct responsibility for atrocities including massacres, sexual violence, torture, and forced displacement, primarily targeting Hutu populations and various Congolese ethnic groups since 1996. The DRC invokes several international conventions, including the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, to establish the Court's jurisdiction. This marks the third attempt by the DRC to bring Rwanda before the ICJ, underscoring the persistent tensions and calls for accountability in the Great Lakes region.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has taken a significant legal step by filing a new application against Rwanda at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on June 26, 2026. This action accuses its eastern neighbour of perpetrating a "campaign of genocide and serious, widespread human rights violations" in eastern Zaire, and later eastern DRC, spanning a period from 1996 to the present day. The allegations encompass a range of grave abuses, including massacres, extrajudicial executions, acts of torture, sexual violence, forced displacement, and discrimination based on ethnic origin and gender.

This filing represents a critical development in the long-standing and often volatile relationship between the two Central African nations, whose borders have been a flashpoint for conflict rooted in the aftermath of the 1994 Rwandan genocide. The DRC seeks to hold Rwanda internationally responsible for these alleged violations of international law and to obtain reparations for the victims. The case is poised to test the boundaries of inter-state accountability for mass atrocities and will be closely watched by the international legal community and human rights advocates.

This article will delve into the legal framework underpinning the DRC's application, examine the historical context of the conflict, analyze the specific allegations and jurisdictional bases invoked, and consider the potential implications for international law and the pursuit of justice in the Great Lakes region.

The International Court of Justice, established by the Charter of the United Nations, serves as the principal judicial organ of the UN, tasked with settling legal disputes between States in accordance with international law. Its contentious jurisdiction is primarily based on the consent of the States involved, which can be expressed through special agreements, treaty clauses, or declarations accepting compulsory jurisdiction. A cornerstone of the DRC's current application is the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Convention), which defines genocide as specific acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group. Article IX of the Genocide Convention explicitly grants the ICJ jurisdiction over disputes relating to its interpretation, application, or fulfilment, including those concerning a State's responsibility for genocide.

The eastern region of the DRC has endured decades of instability and conflict, significantly exacerbated by the influx of Rwandan Hutus, including perpetrators of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, into eastern Zaire (as the DRC was then known) following the genocide. This historical context laid the groundwork for subsequent wars and the proliferation of numerous armed groups, with the DRC consistently accusing Rwanda of supporting various militias, including the M23 rebel group, to destabilize the region and exploit its vast natural resources. Rwanda, in turn, has consistently denied these allegations, asserting its actions are aimed at addressing its own security concerns stemming from the presence of Hutu armed groups linked to the 1994 genocide.

This is not the first time the DRC has sought recourse against Rwanda at the ICJ. An earlier application filed in 2002, concerning "Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda)," was ultimately dismissed by the Court in 2006 for lack of jurisdiction. The Court found that Rwanda had either not signed, or had made reservations to, some of the treaties cited by the DRC as bases for jurisdiction, or that other conditions for a case were not met. A prior attempt in 2001 was withdrawn by the Congolese government itself. These past procedural hurdles highlight the significant jurisdictional challenges inherent in inter-state disputes before the ICJ, particularly when a respondent state has not accepted the Court's compulsory jurisdiction.

The DRC's latest application to the ICJ is comprehensive, alleging a "campaign of genocide and serious, widespread human rights violations" perpetrated by Rwandan authorities, both directly through its armed forces and indirectly through armed groups under its control, since 1996. The allegations initially targeted Hutu populations who fled to eastern Zaire after the 1994 Rwandan genocide, and later extended to various Congolese ethnic groups, including the Nyindu, Bembe, Lega, Nande, Hunde, and Bashi. The specific abuses cited include massacres, extrajudicial executions, torture, sexual violence, forced displacement, and discrimination. These claims are supported by various reports from UN experts and human rights organizations, which have frequently implicated Rwanda in providing military and logistical support to groups like the M23 rebels in eastern DRC.

To establish the ICJ's jurisdiction, the DRC relies on compromissory clauses within several international instruments to which both states are parties. These include the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the 1965 International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, and the 1984 Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The success of the DRC's application will hinge on the Court's determination of its jurisdiction, a hurdle that proved insurmountable in the 2002 case against Rwanda due to Rwanda's reservations to certain treaties and its non-acceptance of the Court's compulsory jurisdiction. However, the Court's recent decision in *The Gambia v. Myanmar* (2022), affirming jurisdiction under the Genocide Convention, demonstrates the Court's willingness to hear such cases, particularly given the *erga omnes partes* nature of obligations under the Convention, where all contracting parties have a common interest in compliance.

Should the case proceed to the merits, the DRC will face a high evidentiary burden, particularly in proving the specific intent to destroy a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group "in whole or in part," which is a crucial element of the crime of genocide. The Court has previously addressed the issue of state responsibility and reparations in the context of armed conflict in the region, notably in *Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda)*. In that case, the ICJ found Uganda responsible for violations of international law and ordered reparations amounting to US$325 million, providing a precedent for potential outcomes if the DRC's current application is successful. The DRC is seeking not only a declaration of Rwanda's international responsibility but also an order for Rwanda to cease its alleged violations and to pay full reparations to the DRC and its victims.

The Democratic Republic of the Congo's latest application to the International Court of Justice against Rwanda represents a determined effort to seek international accountability for decades of alleged atrocities. For legal practitioners, this case underscores the enduring importance of international human rights and humanitarian law, particularly the Genocide Convention, as mechanisms for inter-state dispute resolution. The initial phase will critically focus on jurisdictional arguments, where the DRC must convincingly demonstrate that the Court has the competence to hear the dispute, navigating past precedents where such claims against Rwanda were unsuccessful.

Should jurisdiction be established, the case will move to the merits, presenting a complex evidentiary challenge for the DRC to prove the alleged campaign of genocide and widespread human rights abuses. The outcome will have profound implications not only for the relationship between the DRC and Rwanda but also for the broader framework of state responsibility under international law and the enforceability of *erga omnes partes* obligations. Practitioners should closely monitor the Court's rulings on jurisdiction and the subsequent proceedings, as they will offer valuable insights into the evolving jurisprudence on inter-state accountability for mass atrocities and the role of international judicial bodies in addressing protracted conflicts.