Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (2005)

 

Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (2005)

 

SUMMARY OF THE CASE

On 23 June 1999, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) filed in the Registry of the Court Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi, Uganda and Rwanda “for acts of armed aggression committed . . . in flagrant breach of the United Nations Charter and of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity”. In addition to the cessation of the alleged acts, the DRC sought reparation for acts of intentional destruction and looting and the restitution of national property and resources appropriated for the benefit of the respective respondent States.

 In its Applications instituting proceedings against Burundi and Rwanda, the DRC referred, as bases for the Court’s jurisdiction, to Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute, the New York Convention of 10 December 1984 against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, the Montreal Convention of 23 September 1971 for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation and, lastly, Article 38, paragraph 5, of the Rules of Court. However, the Government of the DRC withdrew the proceedings against Rwanda and Kenya on 15 January 2001.

In the case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda), the DRC founded the jurisdiction of the Court on the declarations of acceptance of the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court made by the two States. On 19 June 2000, the DRC filed a Request for the indication of provisional measures to put a stop to all military activity and violations of human rights and of the sovereignty of the DRC by Uganda. On 1 July 2000, the Court ordered each of the two Parties to prevent and refrain from any armed action which might prejudice the rights of the other Party or aggravate the dispute, to take all measures necessary to comply with all of their obligations under international law and also to ensure full respect for fundamental human rights and for the applicable provisions of humanitarian law.

Uganda subsequently filed a Counter-Memorial containing three counter-claims. By an Order of 29 November 2001, the Court found that two of the counter-claims (acts of aggression allegedly committed by the DRC against Uganda; and attacks on Ugandan diplomatic premises and personnel in Kinshasa and on Ugandan nationals for which the DRC is alleged to be responsible) were admissible as such and formed part of the proceedings.

Following oral proceedings in April 2005, the Court handed down its Judgment on the merits on 19 December 2005.

(a) The Court in dealing with the question of the invasion of the DRC by Uganda. After examining the materials submitted to it by the Parties, the Court found that from August 1998, the DRC had not consented to the presence of Ugandan troops on its territory (save for the limited exception regarding the border region of the Ruwenzori Mountains contained in the Luanda Agreement).

(b) The Court also rejected Uganda’s claim that its use of force was done in self-defence, finding that the preconditions for self-defence did not exist. Considering its magnitude and duration, court held that this was a grave violation of the prohibition on the use of force expressed in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter.

(c) The Court also found that, by actively extending military, logistic, economic and financial support to irregular forces operating on the territory of the DRC, the Republic of Uganda had violated the principle of non-use of force in international relations and the principle of non-intervention.

(d) On the question of occupation and of the violations of human rights and humanitarian law court held that having concluded that Uganda was the occupying power in Ituri at the relevant time, it was under an obligation, according to Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, to take all measures in its power to restore and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety in the occupied area, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the DRC. This had not been done. The Court held that Uganda’s UPDF (Uganda Peoples’ Defence Forces) troops had committed violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law which acts are attributable to Uganda.

(e) Concerning the alleged exploitation of Congolese natural resources by Uganda, court concluded that the UPDF had been involved in the looting, plundering and exploitation of the DRC’s natural resources and that the military authorities had not taken any measures to put an end to these acts.

(f) In respect of the first counter-claim of Uganda, Court found that Uganda did not satisfy court that the DRC had provided political and military support to anti-Ugandan rebel groups operating in its territory, or even to prove that the DRC had breached its duty of vigilance by tolerating anti-Ugandan rebels on its territory. The Court thus rejected the first counter-claim.

(g) On the second counter claim, the Court found that the DRC had breached its obligations under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The removal of property and archives from the Ugandan Embassy was also in violation of the rules of international law on diplomatic relations.

Court directed the parties to enter negotiations for the amount of compensation owed by each Party. On 13 May 2015, noting that the negotiations with Uganda on this question had failed, the DRC asked the Court to determine the amount of reparation owed by Uganda. The Parties subsequently filed written pleadings on the question of reparations.

By an Order of 8 September 2020, the Court decided to arrange for an expert opinion, in accordance with Article 67(1) of its Rules.

On 9 February 2022, the Court delivered its Judgment on the question of reparations, awarding US$225,000,000 for damage to persons, US$40,000,000 for damage to property and US$60,000,000 for damage related to natural resources. It decided that the total amount due should be paid in five annual instalments of US$65,000,000 starting on 1 September 2022, and that, should payment be delayed, post‑judgment interest of 6 per cent would accrue on any overdue amount as from the day after the day on which the instalment was due.

Ahimbisibwe Innocent Benjamin

(Africa Award Winning Lawyer)