Congolese Justice in the Light of International Human Rights Law

An assessment of the DRC justice system through African Commission decisions, UN Human Rights Committee Views and the 2024 Universal Periodic Review. The central test is whether legal guarantees produce effective remedies for people in practice.

A critical assessment of the rule of law in practice, informed by Congolese, African and United Nations decisions.

Legal commentary by Fernandez MURHOLA
International human rights defender, National Human Rights Commissioner of the DRC from 2015 to 2022, practitioner of African and UN human rights mechanisms, and specialist in civil and political rights.

Kinshasa, 22 September 2026

Introduction: judging justice by its results

The Congolese justice system cannot be assessed solely through its Constitution, the number of courts, administrative reforms or conviction statistics. These describe an institutional structure. They do not always show what happens to a person who is arrested, detained, tried, acquitted or recognized as a victim.

The question is therefore practical: does the justice system of the Democratic Republic of the Congo meet the international obligations the state has accepted concerning judicial independence, fair trial, personal liberty, effective remedies and reparation?

The DRC is a party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Torture, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other protective instruments. It has thereby accepted scrutiny by African and UN mechanisms.

That scrutiny does not diminish Congolese sovereignty. It asks whether the state has fulfilled its own commitments. It also separates three matters too often confused: a rule's existence, a decision's quality and the decision's actual effect on someone's life.

1. A substantial legal framework, uneven implementation

The Congolese Constitution establishes judicial independence and entrusts the judiciary with the protection of individual freedoms and fundamental rights. The Covenant prohibits arbitrary detention, guarantees a competent, independent and impartial tribunal, protects the presumption of innocence and, in criminal cases, provides for a conviction to be reviewed by a higher tribunal. The African Charter protects equality before the law and the right to have one's cause heard.

The principal problem is not a lack of rules. It is the gap between what those rules promise and what institutions deliver. Under international human rights law, passing legislation is not enough. The state must prevent violations, investigate them when they occur, bring perpetrators to justice and provide meaningful redress.

That obligation runs through the entire judicial process: arrest, investigation, trial, enforcement of the judgment and effective reparation for the victim.

2. The African Commission as a mirror of judicial shortcomings

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights is not the African Court. The former is a quasi-judicial African Union body; the latter is a separate international court. Precise terminology matters. The Commission's findings nevertheless provide an important measure of Congolese practice under the African Charter.

Military justice and fair trial

In communication 281/03, Marcel Wetsh’okonda Koso and Others v. DRC, the Commission found violations of Articles 7 and 26 of the Charter. It held that trying ordinary offences committed by civilians before a military court was inconsistent with a fair trial. It recommended judicial independence, compensation and the alignment of national legislation with the DRC's obligations.

The lesson remains relevant: military justice can be specialized, but it cannot become a parallel system freed from ordinary safeguards.

In communication 259/02, Working Group on Strategic Legal Cases v. DRC, the Commission found violations of Articles 1, 4 and 7. It called for effective application of the ordinary Code of Criminal Procedure and for national law to be brought into line with international obligations. The prosecution of serious offences does not suspend the right to a fair trial.

In joined communications 274/03 and 282/03, INTERIGHTS, ASADHO and Mr O. Disu v. DRC, the Commission found violations of Articles 5, 6, 7 and 18(1). It called for the Military Order Court to comply with fair-trial standards, the reopening of certain proceedings, compensation and continued observance of the death-penalty moratorium.

These cases show that reform does not end when a law is published. It takes effect when judges, prosecutors, security services and prison authorities change their practice.

Higher courts are not beyond scrutiny

Communication 286/04, Dino Noca v. DRC, concerned civil justice and property rights. The Commission found violations of Articles 3, 7(1)(c) and 14 of the Charter. It also found a Supreme Court judgment of 28 November 2003 incompatible with the Charter and called for restitution of the disputed property or fair compensation.

A judgment may be final in domestic law and still conflict with an international obligation. The court's rank does not remove the need to examine its compatibility with human rights.

In communication 302/05, Mr Mamboleo M. Itundamilamba v. DRC, the Commission found violations of Articles 3 and 7 following a prolonged failure to enforce an arbitral award. It asked the state to recognize the complainant's right and provide compensation. Judicial protection depends not only on a sound judgment, but also on its implementation.

A favourable judgment left unenforced

In communication 502/14, S.A. v. DRC, the Commission considered the case of a survivor of sexual violence who had won a case in the Congolese courts. It nonetheless found violations of Articles 1, 7 and 14 of the Charter and provisions of the Maputo Protocol. It called for the domestic judgment to be enforced, the awarded sums and interest to be paid, and measures to prevent recurrence.

Injustice can arise before trial, during proceedings or after judgment. A decision that remains a dead letter does not fully realize the right to a remedy.

The Batwa of Kahuzi-Biega and collective rights

In communication 588/15, brought on behalf of the Batwa of Kahuzi-Biega National Park, the Commission found in 2022 that numerous Charter rights had been violated, including equality, life, property, health, culture, natural resources and development.

Its recommendations included recognition of ancestral land, the Batwa's return, compensation, a community development fund, legislative measures, public apologies and training for staff of the Congolese Institute for Nature Conservation.

The case broadens the discussion. Justice must address individual wrongs and collective, territorial, cultural and historical violations. Conservation cannot justify erasing peoples from their ancestral land.

3. The Human Rights Committee and scrutiny under the Covenant

The UN Human Rights Committee is not a court in the conventional sense. Under the Optional Protocol to the Covenant, it issues “Views” on individual communications. These interpret a state party's treaty obligations and identify measures expected to remedy violations.

Review of a conviction by a higher tribunal

Oly Ilunga Kalenga v. DRC, communication 3828/2020, concerns access to a court, detention, fair trial and review of a conviction by a higher tribunal. The Committee adopted its Views on 9 July 2025. The case directly questions a system in which a high court tries someone at first and final instance.

An accused person's public office cannot, by itself, empty the right in Article 14(5) of the Covenant of its substance. Any special procedure must remain compatible with review of conviction and sentence.

Detention, health care and procedural safeguards

In communication 2465/2014, Eugène Diomi Ndongala Nzo Mambu v. DRC, the Committee examined incommunicado detention, detention conditions, access to health care and fair-trial guarantees. Its Views of 3 November 2016 concerned, in particular, Articles 9, 10 and 14 of the Covenant.

Criminal procedure does more than guard against wrongful conviction. It protects a person from the moment of arrest and throughout detention. Health care, access to a lawyer and the ability to prepare a defence are not administrative favours.

In communication 2396/2014, Floribert Ndjabu Ngabu, Pierre Célestin Mbodina Iribi and Bède Djokaba Lambi Longa v. DRC, the Committee considered arbitrary arrest and detention, prompt appearance before a judge and reparation. Its Views of 29 October 2020 show why review of a deprivation of liberty must be prompt, independent and effective.

Communication 1890/2009, Franck Kitenge Baruani v. DRC, involved allegations of torture or cruel treatment, arbitrary arrest and interference with private and family life. The Committee adopted its Views on 27 March 2014. Here too, justice starts before the hearing: at the police station, in security services and in detention facilities.

The right to life and the duty to investigate

In communication 2731/2016, Déborah Kitumaini and Others v. DRC, the Committee examined the killing of human rights defender Pascal Kabungulu and the long absence of justice. Its Views of 6 November 2020 concerned the right to life, effective remedy, personal security and family protection.

The state does not fulfil the right to life merely by refraining from killing. It must seriously investigate a killing, protect relatives and pursue those responsible. An absent, delayed or merely formal investigation may itself violate the Covenant.

Effective remedy, reparation and enforcement

In communication 2990/2017, Moïse Katumbi v. DRC, the Committee considered complaints concerning liberty, fair trial, privacy, expression and political participation. Its Views of 16 March 2023 must be read carefully: one case cannot represent an entire justice system. It can nevertheless show whether available remedies can prevent a violation or deliver meaningful redress.

Communication 3658/2019, Louis d’Or Balekelayi Nyengele and Others v. DRC, adopted on 25 October 2023, addressed an effective remedy in an electoral dispute involving Constitutional Court decisions. It reinforces a simple point: pronouncing a judgment does not complete the judicial function. A recognized right must be exercisable.

4. Other treaty bodies complete the picture

International scrutiny does not end with the Human Rights Committee. Other bodies review the DRC's periodic reports and make observations on specific barriers to justice.

Preventing torture

The Committee against Torture has examined safeguards for arrested persons, torture prevention, investigations, prosecutions, reparation and detention conditions. Its work requires an examination of the whole chain from arrest to custody, investigation, trial and enforcement of sentence.

Justice for children

The Committee on the Rights of the Child has examined juvenile justice, child detention and children associated with armed conflict. Its 2017 concluding observations, CRC/C/COD/CO/3-5, call for stronger protection. A child in conflict with the law remains a child with rights. Deprivation of liberty must be a last resort and for the shortest appropriate time.

Women, sexual violence and remedies

The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women has emphasized sexual violence, survivor protection and the state's obligations during conflict. An accessible system of justice must enable women to report safely, obtain a genuine investigation, avoid retaliation, participate in proceedings and receive reparation.

Social rights and disability

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights notes that poverty, distance from courts, lack of legal aid, procedural costs and poor access to information can make a right unusable. Access to justice is therefore also a geographic and financial question.

The DRC's initial report to the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities adds a further requirement: physical, procedural and informational accessibility. A person cannot effectively use a court if the building is inaccessible, the procedure has not been adapted or the documents cannot be understood.

5. Universal Periodic Review: 284 recommendations in 2024

The DRC has undergone four Universal Periodic Review (UPR) cycles. Its fourth review took place on 5 November 2024. Report A/HRC/58/6 contains 284 recommendations. In its February 2025 addendum, the Government supported 235 and noted 49.

The recommendations address, among other things, stronger law, transitional justice, access to courts, the capacities of civilian and military personnel, the independence of the National Human Rights Commission, sexual violence, investigation, prosecution and reparation.

The UPR is not a court. It is a political peer review among states. Its value lies in convergent diagnoses and public commitments. Concerns about Congolese justice therefore come not only from non-governmental organizations; they are also debated within the Human Rights Council.

6. Three distinctions that matter

Careful analysis avoids three confusions.

First, a registered case is not necessarily a finding against the state. Communication 285/04, Kizila Watumbulwa v. DRC, was removed from the list for lack of diligence in pursuing it. Other communications were declared inadmissible. Describing these as adverse findings would weaken the analysis.

Second, not every mechanism issues judgments. Courts issue judicial decisions. Commissions and committees may issue decisions, Views or recommendations. Special procedures may publish reports, opinions, communications or urgent appeals. Each document's authority should be explained in light of its author and mandate.

Third, an international decision does not automatically replace domestic proceedings. It identifies an incompatibility, clarifies the state's obligation and recommends or requires a remedy. Implementation still depends on the competent national authorities.

7. Five points where rights can fail

African and UN documentation identifies five vulnerable points in a person's experience of justice:

Before trial: arrest, custody, access to counsel, protection from torture and information about the grounds for detention.
During investigation: the magistrate's independence, access to the case file, scrutiny of evidence and a reasonable time frame.
At trial: impartiality, public hearings, an adversarial process, equality of arms, presumption of innocence and reasoned decisions.
After conviction: appeals and review of conviction and sentence by a higher tribunal where the Covenant requires it.
After a final judgment: enforcement, restitution, compensation, rehabilitation and measures to prevent recurrence.

A failure at any point may make a remedy illusory. This framework replaces vague criticism with a way to locate the problem, identify the responsible authority and choose an appropriate response.

8. Three reforms to begin

Establish a public register of international decisions

The DRC should maintain a national register of international human rights decisions and Views. For each case, it would identify:

the violation found and the relevant decision;
the victim or group concerned, subject to protection needs;
the reparation required;
the authority responsible for implementation;
deadlines, measures taken and evidence of completion;
necessary legislative or administrative reforms.

Such a register would not exist to embarrass the state. It would help it manage its obligations, avoid fragmented responses and inform victims.

Conduct a national justice audit

A credible audit would use verifiable indicators: court independence and impartiality, access to counsel, reasonable time, pretrial detention, review by a higher tribunal, military justice, enforcement of judgments, reparation, protection of witnesses and defenders, geographic and financial accessibility, and consistency of domestic case law with international instruments.

The purpose is not to produce an abstract ranking. It is to measure the gap between promised guarantees and people's experience, and then track that gap over time.

Train judges in the application of treaties

Congolese judges apply the Constitution, domestic law and international treaties integrated into the legal order. Training should therefore cover African case law, the Views of UN treaty bodies and the interpretation of fundamental rights.

It should reach civil, criminal and military courts, prosecutors, judicial police and prison authorities. Without a shared understanding of safeguards, one part of the system can undo the work of another.

9. Pretrial detention, reparation and transitional justice

Pretrial detention deserves special attention. It must be lawful, necessary, individualized, reviewed by a judge, limited in time and reconsidered regularly. It cannot be punishment before conviction. A culture in which detention is the default and liberty the exception conflicts with the Covenant.

Reparation is not simply money. Depending on the violation, it may include restitution of property, compensation, care, rehabilitation, reopening of proceedings, investigation, apologies, reform or guarantees of non-repetition. The remedy must respond to the harm and, as far as possible, restore the victim's rights.

Transitional justice must meet the same standard. Truth, justice, reparation and guarantees of non-repetition belong together. The process must respect individual responsibility, presumption of innocence, defence rights, judicial independence, evidence and protection of victims and witnesses. It must be neither a de facto blanket amnesty nor an instrument of revenge.

Conclusion: judge a justice system by the rights it makes real

The DRC has a Constitution, civil and military courts, a Constitutional Court, a Court of Cassation, a Superior Council of the Judiciary, a National Human Rights Commission and many international commitments. This architecture matters. It still does not answer the decisive question: what happens when someone invokes a right in practice?

African decisions and UN Views justify neither a blanket condemnation of Congolese justice nor a declaration of full compliance. They reveal specific problems: military-court jurisdiction, arbitrary detention, torture, failure to investigate, ineffective remedies, single-instance trials, unenforced judgments, inadequate reparation and difficulty protecting collective rights.

The right method is to compare four things: proclaimed guarantees, accepted obligations, decisions delivered and rights actually enjoyed. The gap between them is an observable measure of the rule of law.

An independent judiciary is defined not only by its ability to issue decisions but also by its willingness to be measured against the Constitution, international conventions and human dignity. A judgment's authority never excuses the state from respecting fundamental rights. Precisely because a judgment comes from the state, it must remain subject to law.

Documentary references

This article presents the author's analysis. The references distinguish documented facts, legal interpretations and proposed reforms.