DR Congo Accuses Rwanda of Genocide and Human Rights Abuses at the ICJ

The legal battle before the United Nations’ highest court deepens an already volatile diplomatic crisis in central Africa. Kinshasa accused Rwanda in its court filing of orchestrating a campaign of severe violence across eastern regions of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Kinshasa’s ICJ Application Alleges Decades of Abuses and Genocide

The application filed at The Hague alleged abuses, committed as part of a campaign of genocide and serious, widespread human rights violations across eastern territories stretching back since 1996. According to the court, the Democratic Republic of Congo grounded its jurisdictional claims partly on the international convention against genocide.

The filing asserts that the targeted atrocities struck Hutus within Congolese territory following the 1994 massacres of Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda, alongside other local ethnic groups. In an accompanying statement, the Congolese communications ministry detailed widespread civilian suffering.

Furthermore, the application contends that Kigali operated both through its own armed forces and through armed groups under its control, specifically naming the M23 rebel movement. Rwanda has consistently denied providing military backing to M23.

Washington Peace Accord Frays Under Fresh Sanctions and Mutual Blame

The legal escalation arrives against the backdrop of a faltering bilateral accord. In December, the two nations ratified a peace agreement promoted by the United States, which seeks broader access to the mineral wealth of the central African nation. Yet that accord has failed to halt ongoing warfare in the east, where the military and more than 100 armed groups vie for land, power, and valuable commodities like gold and coltan.

Recent weeks brought a surge of direct friction. On June 25, the United States targeted the sector by imposing sanctions on Gasabo Gold, a Rwandan gold-refining company, alongside two executives and three related mining firms. Washington froze their assets and blocked American citizens from conducting business with them over allegations of smuggling gold from M23-held territory.

Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe criticized the international response, pointing to what he views as a glaring partiality in Washington’s mediation. In an interview, Nduhungirehe argued that while international pressure falls heavily on Kigali, Kinshasa has neglected its parallel obligations under the Washington framework.

“Do you think the Washington agreement is a one-sided agreement that concerns only Rwanda? Why, in a peace agreement, do we acknowledge that one party has failed to implement its commitments, continues to support the FDLR and continues to use drones that kill civilians, while at the same time saying the other party must fulfil its obligations, as if the agreement applied only to Rwanda?”

Olivier Nduhungirehe, Rwandan Foreign Minister, via RFI

Unresolved Security Obligations Undermine the Joint Oversight Committee

At the core of the diplomatic dispute is a fundamental disagreement over who bears responsibility for stalled security reforms. Rwanda maintains that its primary security threat stems from the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), an armed faction tied to the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi population, and insists the Congolese government has failed to dismantle it.

While international partners established a Joint Oversight Committee to monitor compliance—holding its sixth meeting in London to ease tensions around Minembwe and reinforce ceasefire monitoring—disputes persist. White House senior adviser for Africa Massad Boulos noted at a UN Security Council session that neither side had fully met its commitments.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on June 5 acknowledged Rwanda’s implementation efforts, whereas the Congolese government had yet to initiate its main security obligations regarding the FDLR. As the ICJ weighs its jurisdiction over Kinshasa’s application, the court’s binding rulings remain without direct enforcement powers, leaving the diplomatic track as the primary arena for an uneasy standoff.