Global Facilitation Network for Security Sector Reform (GFN-SSR)

Difficult Peace, Limited Justice: Ten Years of Peacemaking in the DRC

 Printable version

How have peace negotiations in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) addressed issues of accountability? What impact have justice initiatives had following the conclusion of each agreement? This report from the International Center for Transitional Justice examines peace negotiations in the DRC since 1999, focusing on justice and accountability. It argues that while significant efforts have been made to advance accountability in negotiations, peacemaking in the DRC has resulted in very limited justice.

The past ten years of peacemaking in the DRC are sobering: there has been both little justice for rampant crimes and little sustainable peace. Reasons for this include questionable political will, the immediate priority of stopping the fighting and a gulf between justice advocates and political leaders. The DRC is a difficult place to advance justice, given the extremely weak national judicial system and poor record of accountability for massive crimes and ongoing insecurity. However, the DRC has also seen lost opportunities where advances for peace and justice could have been made.

While important efforts have been made to highlight accountability in peace talks, justice-related effects have been minimal:

• The DRC’s peace accords generally respect international guidelines on amnesties, prohibiting amnesty for serious international crimes. However, national prosecuting authorities have shown little initiative in prosecuting suspects in national courts.
• A Truth and Reconciliation Commission was established in 2003, but was based on a misguided policy framework, with warring parties directly appointing members. This was an obvious impediment to revealing the truth about human rights abuses.
• Rebels associated with widespread atrocities have been freely incorporated into the national army. The army remains un-reformed and continues to be the main perpetrator of abuses against civilians.
• There has been no serious consideration of a national victim reparations programme. Root causes of the conflict, including land, natural resource extraction, identity and nationality, remain unaddressed and unresolved.
• Root causes of the conflict, including land, natural resource extraction, identity and nationality, remain unaddressed and unresolved.
• The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been engaged in the DRC since 2004. Three Congolese have been arrested for crimes allegedly committed in the DRC, a fourth on suspicion of crimes committed in the Central African Republic. A warrant for the arrest of Bosco Ntaganda has been issued by the ICC, but despite this he continues to hold senior army rank. The ICC has changed warlords' behaviour in some ways, although sometimes with unexpected effects.

• Policy options regarding justice should be proactively identified prior to peace talks. Technical assistance can considerably strengthen justice-oriented results in a peace accord.
• Focused advocacy efforts and resulting policies should be explicitly incorporated into the peace process. A real voice for credible and independent civil society actors in peace talks will strengthen justice and can increase public trust in the outcome.
• A consistent position on justice by all key facilitators has a positive effect. Excluding international crimes from an amnesty may meet less resistance than expected, but mediators should go beyond simply ensuring the correct language of an amnesty.
• Even in preliminary agreements, signalling the intention to implement broader accountability and reform measures has great advantages. Flawed justice components should be strongly resisted.
• A credible, independent mechanism to monitor human rights abuses should be given strong consideration. Greater effort should be made to further credible and independent national prosecution efforts.
• Criminal accountability that does not address crimes on all sides and at all levels will have a limited effect. The threat of action by an international court can affect the behaviour of combatants, but in unexpected ways.

Access full text