On the 12^th and 13^th February 2025, the Democratic Republic of Congo (the “DRC”) had the audience of the African Court on Human and People’s Rights (“African Court”) in a public hearing. The DRC accused the Republic of Rwanda (“Rwanda”) of various human rights violations. This is the African Court’s first interstate application. Prior to this, no state has ever filed an interstate application. Thus, this is a monumental step in the African Court’s contentious jurisdiction.

On 21 August 2023, the DRC submitted an application against Rwanda, asserting breaches of various human rights instruments. These include the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“African Charter”), the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on Women’s Rights, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (“ACRWC”), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”), and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”).

The case presents a complex historical backdrop. The dispute has provenance in the Second Congo War (1998–2003), often referred to as the Great War of Africa and the human rights violations that took place during that war. The Second Congo War was a multifaceted and devastating conflict that ensnared numerous domestic and international actors. The war left a profound humanitarian crisis, with millions perishing from violence, disease, and displacement. While the Second Congo War ended in 2003, tensions between the DRC and Rwanda persisted, culminating in renewed hostilities in 2021.

The DRC’s complaint focuses on events that reportedly  occurred during an armed conflict which broke out in November 2021 between the DRC army and ‘the Coalition’ comprising M23 rebel fighters and the Rwandan army. The DRC claims that, due to a conflict involving its military and a coalition of Rwanda’s armed forces alongside the M23 rebel group, Rwanda should be held accountable for violating several rights enshrined in the African Charter and other human rights instruments. These alleged violations include the right to an effective remedy and reparation, the right to life and personal security, the right to human dignity, the prohibition of slavery, human trafficking, torture, and degrading treatment, the right to liberty, education, property, housing, and the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. Additionally, the DRC asserts violations of the right to family protection, food, development, a clean and sustainable environment, and the collective right to peace.

However, before arriving at the doorstep of the African Court, there are two significant legal confrontations. The first happened in the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (“African Commission”). On 3 March 1999, the DRC filed a communication with the African Commission against Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda. Notably, this was the African Commission’s first-ever interstate communication. Rwanda, however, disengaged from the proceedings after the admissibility phase.

The DRC accused the armed forces of these State Parties of committing extensive human rights violations on the DRC’s soil. It argued that the State Parties violated the following rights: equality, right to life, right to liberty and security of persons, freedom of movement, right to enjoy the best attainable state of physical and mental health, right to education, right of all peoples’ to equality, right to existence, freedom to freely dispose of wealth and natural resources, right to economic, cultural and social development; and right to national and international peace and security. The African Commission agreed with the DRC and held that the State Parties liable for violating these rights.

The second legal confrontation occurred in the International Court of Justice (“ICJ”). On 28 May 2002, the DRC submitted a case against Rwanda to the ICJ, alleging breaches of multiple human rights treaties. Specifically, the DRC requested the ICJ to find Rwanda liable and responsible for aggression against the DRC, including large-scale massacres, rape, throat-cutting and crucifying.

In a judgment delivered on 3 February 2006, the ICJ determined it lacked the authority to assess the substance of the claims. The Court found that Rwanda was not a signatory to some of the treaties involved, such as the Convention Against Torture, while for others, like the Genocide Convention, Rwanda had entered reservations limiting the ICJ’s jurisdiction.

Before the African Court, the DRC requested an expedited procedure, but the African Court rejected this request. In response to the allegations raised by the DRC, Rwanda argued that the Court has no jurisdiction as this is a political matter. Rwanda also alleged that the application is inadmissible and that at the time of the filing of the application, there was no dispute between them. Rwanda has previously criticised the African Court for what it perceives as interference in political issues. Rwanda withdrew its 34(6) Article Declaration of the African Court Protocol, thus restricting the ability of the African Court to receive applications from individuals and NGOs.

Undoubtedly, this case is a landmark moment for the African Court, testing its authority in interstate disputes and the enforcement of human rights obligations. The case challenges the Court to determine its jurisdiction and Rwanda’s accountability. Its outcome could set a precedent for interstate human rights litigation in Africa or expose the limits of regional enforcement.