New Study Shows 420,000 Raped Each Year in DR Congo

by Laura Hirahara
Impunity Watch Reporter, Africa

A victim of the New Years rape in Fizu, South Kivu with her son; Photo courtesy of USA Today
A victim of the New Years rape in Fizu, South Kivu with her son; Photo courtesy of Pete Muller, AP

Democratic Republic of Congo– An upcoming report in the American Journal of Public Health has revealed that more than 420,000 women are raped annually in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).  This number is significantly higher than those being reported by other organizations, like the UN, who previously estimated a figure closer to 16,000 annually.  However, the AJPH study is based on a 2007 nation-wide survey that also found 1.7 million women in the DRC will be raped at some point in their lives and an additional 3 million will be raped by an intimate partner.  The report, which will be released this June, reads “Not only is sexual violence more generalized than previously thought, but our findings suggest that future policies and programs should focus on abuse within families[.]”

Previously, an accurate accounting of rape in the DRC has been made difficult by the instability of the region.  The DRC is still suffering the effects of the civil war that officially ended in 2003.  Since that time, rebel factions have terrorized civilian populations in an effort to gain control of mineral deposits located primarily in the east.  Rape has become a common weapon and while some men and boys are victims, women are the primary target.  Tony Gambino, the Congo mission director for United States Agency for International Development (USAID), told ABC News, “The worst violence is done by armed boys and men, many of whom are in the Congolese military.”

A number of factors play into the lack of accountability for the crime.  Throughout most of the country, women who are raped are disowned by their families and try to hide the rape rather than speak about it.  Tia Palermo, a co-author of the AJPH study, told ABC News, “There is stigma, shame and impunity so why bother reporting a rape if nothing is going to happen. We know from other conflict regions that less than half of rape victims report their abuse.”  Additionally, even when perpetrators are arrested for rape it is likely they will receive light sentences or simply escape from jail, as a March report from the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights stated.  As Gambino told ABC, “Because officials can be paid off, even a small fish can get out of prison for $5 in the Congo.”

While the February conviction of Lt. Col. Kibibi Mutuare and 10 of the soldiers under his command for the rape of dozens of women in a small South Kivu village over New Years brought 49 women to court to testify, many believe the perception of women in the DRC needs to change.  Melanne Verveer, U.S. Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues, said, “The DRC cannot move ahead without the full inclusion of women politically . . . . economically, through agriculture and beyond, and socially, through a robust civil society movement. . . .Investing in women is not only the right thing to do; it’s the smart thing to do.”

For more information, please see;

NYT– Notes From a Young American in Congo: The Stigma of Rape– 6 May, 2011

USA Today– 420K Congolese Women are Raped Each Year– 11 May, 2011

SF Chronicle– Congo Rape Problem More Widespread Than Thought, Study Shows– 12 May, 2011

ABC News– Nearly Every Minute a Woman is Raped in the Congo– 13 May, 2011

VOA News– Curbing DC’s Gender-based Violence– 13 May, 2011

Legal Arithmetic: Adding Up the Legality of Operation Geronimo

By David Crane
Originally Publishing by JURIST

To assist in the important debate related to the targeting of Osama Bin Laden, I offer up a formula to assist in this important debate related to that targeting. Though simplistic, and in acknowledgement of valid concerns legally and practically related to the targeting, this formula helps clear an intellectual path to a conclusion that perhaps his targeting was lawful.

The death of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan was a lawful military operation. It is a matter of (A) + (B) = (C). When a nation contemplates the use of force, that force must be done with legal authority (A) and within the strictures of the laws of armed conflict (B). If there is both legal authority and that force follows the principles laid down by The Hague Rules of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 then there can be a justified result (C).

Let’s break down the formula further using the facts that are apparent in the killing of Bin Laden. In the early morning hours of May 2nd (Pakistan time), United States Special Operations Forces dynamically entered the compound where Bin Laden, some members of his family, and others lived. Let’s consider (A) the legal authority. After September 11, 2001, Congress authorized the Commander-in-Chief at the time to use force against those individuals who had perpetrated the attack on the United States that fateful day. Under our constitutional scheme, the President could direct the National Command Authority to use armed force against Al Qaeda, including Bin Laden and others. Additional international authorizations via the United Nations and NATO followed. Overlaid in this authorization to use force was the basic international principle of the inherent right of a nation to self-defense, found in Art. 51 of the UN Charter.

Domestically, the authorized use of force was most certainly buttressed by a Presidential finding to kill Bin Laden as a hostile. By law the President must inform the leadership in Congress about these findings. This apparently was done years ago.

Thus President Obama had the legal authority to order Operation Geronimo and to executive the plan. The (A) part of the formula is complete. However in order to have a justified result (C) there must be the comporting of that use of force with the laws of armed conflict (B). Was Operation Geronimo conducted within the parameters of the rules of war?

When the Special Forces entered the compound they had to use the force authorized by following certain principles: military necessity, proportionality, and distinction/discrimination. Bin Laden had been declared a hostile target and as such there was a militarily necessary reason to engage him, an act to further the military objectives of the international community and the United States against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and global terrorism. If there is no militarily necessary reason to engage a target then engaging it is illegal. There was a military necessary reason to engage Bin Laden; hence the principle of military necessity was satisfied.

When the Special Operation Forces entered Bin Laden’s bedroom the force that they used was proportional to the threat proffered by those in that room. Bin Laden apparently showed no sign of surrendering and there were weapons close by him. The use of assigned small arms to engage the lawful target was a proportional response to the threat Bin Laden posed to the Special Forces. The principle of proportionality was thus satisfied.

A final relevant principle related to the use of force in the operation was that of distinction/discrimination. When force is used, the force must be discriminate with the target distinctly engaged. What does this mean? Those who use that force must aim at the target they intend to engage ensuring no one that is protected under the law of armed conflict, e.g. civilians, are hit. The intentional targeting of civilians is never authorized except in self-defense. Unintentional injury or death of civilians in a military operation is called collateral damage and, though unfortunate, not a violation of law. Here the use of force in Bin Laden’s room was very discriminate, two well-aimed shots once in the chest and head of the military target, Bin Laden. The principle of distinction and discrimination was satisfied. The alleged shooting of a wife of Bin Laden appears to have been in self-defense according to the facts given by the Obama administration.

Other persons in the compound were either protected, such as the children, or those who offered resistance or who fired on the Special Forces also were properly engaged as hostile at a minimum under the principle of self-defense. It appears that no civilians were intentionally targeted. Thus the essential (B) part of the equation was satisfied.

Since (A) legal authority and (B) adhering to the laws of armed conflict were in place, the killing of Bin Laden, and those who engaged the Special Forces to protect him were justified killings under our domestic law as well as international law (C). The killing of human beings is never to be lightly taken and when it is done it must be done lawfully. The death of Bin Laden was lawful. It was a matter of (A) + (B) = (C) as well as a great deal of courage by our armed forces.

David Crane is a professor at Syracuse University College of Law and the founding former Chief Prosecutor of the international war crimes tribunal in West Africa called the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 2001-2005.

Violence Continues in Syria Despite US Sanctions

By R. Renee Yaworsky
Senior Desk Officer, Middle East

A fire hose is turned on protesters. (Photo courtesy of LA Times)
A fire hose is turned on protesters. (Photo courtesy of LA Times)

DAMASCUS, Syria—Dozens of people have been killed by security forces in Syria in various cities throughout the country.  The continued violence comes even as the US attempts to increase pressure against Syria by sanctioning President Bashar al-Assad.

On Friday, at least 34 people were killed by Syrian forces and plainsclothes militiamen.  The government forces have been targeting areas where pro-democracy activists have been protesting and demonstrating in the streets.  The security forces used live ammunition and tear gas in efforts to disperse the protesters.  In some cases, homes and businesses of suspected activists were burned down.

In the city of Homs, in central Syria, about 11 people—including a child–were killed.  In Maarat al-Numan, a northwestern city, over 13 people were killed.  According to one protester who spoke with AFP, “The victims in Maarat al-Numan were gunned down at the entrance of the city where many people were converging from other nearby towns to join the protests.”

There were also six deaths in the smaller towns of Daraya and Barza near Damascus, four deaths in Latakia, Hama and Deir al-Zour, and two deaths in Sanamein.

The UN has reported that over 850 people have died as a result of the violence in Syria since March 15.  About 5,000 refugees have poured into Lebanese border towns seeking security.  A UN spokesman explained, “Most of the people who have crossed the border in recent weeks are women and children.  In addition to their immediate need for food, shelter and medical help, they also need psycho-social support.”

On Wednesday, President Obama stepped up sanctions against Syria by adding Assad to a list of officials subject to travel bans and asset freezes.  On Thursday, Obama criticized Syria’s use of force against demonstrators and said, “President Assad now has a choice.  He can lead that transition [towards political reform] or get out of the way.”

SANA, the official news agency of Syria, retorted that “Obama is inciting violence when he says that Assad and his regime will face challenges from the inside and will be isolated on the outside if he fails to adopt democratic reforms.”

For more information, please see:

Deutsche Welle-Dozens killed in Syria as Washington increases political pressure-20 May 2011

LA Times-Syrian protests: Syrian troops fire on protesters, 34 killed-20 May 2011

Al Jazeera-Syrian protests draw deadly fire-20 May 2011