AFRICAN COURT DECLARES JURISDICTION AND ADMISSIBILITY IN DRC V. RWANDA CASE

The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights has ruled in Application No. 007/2023, brought by the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) against the Republic of Rwanda. In its decision, the Court affirmed that it has jurisdiction to hear the case and declared the application admissible. The matter now proceeds to the merits stage.

On June 26, 2025, the Court issued its ruling, directing the Government of Rwanda to submit its response on the merits within ninety (90) days of receiving notification of the judgment. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is, in turn, required to file its reply within forty-five (45) days of receiving Rwanda’s response. The Court reserved its decision on the merits, reparations, and costs.

The case, filed on August 21, 2023, centers on allegations by the DRC that Rwanda is responsible for widespread and grave human rights violations committed on Congolese territory. 

These alleged violations include acts committed by Rwanda’s armed forces and its alleged support for the M23 rebel group. The DRC invoked multiple legal instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Protocol on the Rights of Women, and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child.

As part of its request for reparations, the DRC called on the Court to order Rwanda to immediately withdraw its troops from Congolese territory, end all forms of support to M23, pay reparations for harm caused by the alleged violations, and cover all costs related to the proceedings.

In response, Rwanda contested the Court’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of the application. Among other arguments, it asserted that there was no formal dispute, that some of the instruments cited were not human rights treaties, and that the alleged violations did not occur within Rwandan territory.

The Court dismissed these objections. It reaffirmed that under Article 3(1) of the Protocol, the Court has material jurisdiction where an application alleges violations of rights protected under instruments ratified by the Respondent State. The Court further clarified that proof of a prior dispute is not a condition for jurisdiction.

Regarding territorial jurisdiction, the Court held that it could exercise jurisdiction even when alleged violations occur outside the territory of the Respondent State, provided there is evidence of extraterritorial conduct attributable to that State. It found that Rwanda’s armed forces were involved in the ongoing conflict in eastern DRC and thus could not evade responsibility under human rights law.

On admissibility, the Court rejected Rwanda’s claim that the DRC should have first pursued non-judicial remedies under the Great Lakes Pact or the AU Constitutive Act. It held that the applicable procedural rules are those set out in the African Charter, the Court’s Protocol, and its Rules of Procedure. The Court also found that the scale and systemic nature of the alleged violations rendered local remedies ineffective or impractical.

The Court further dismissed objections related to abuse of process, the use of mass media as evidence, and the existence of parallel proceedings before the East African Court of Justice. It concluded that the requirements under Article 56 of the Charter and Rule 50(2) of the Rules of Court were fully met.

This ruling marks a significant development in regional human rights jurisprudence, particularly in inter-State litigation. The next phase of proceedings will involve a detailed examination of the merits of the case and the determination of any reparations.