The case of Eugenie Shakupeva and Others v. the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Views of the Human Rights Committee of March 25, 2021. Communication No. 2835/2016.
In 2016, the authors of the communication were assisted in preparing a complaint. The complaint was subsequently communicated to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
As follows from the text of the Views, the authors claimed violations by the State party of articles 7 and 14 (paragraph 1), considered separately and in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3), as well as articles 2 (paragraph 1), 3 and 26 of the Covenant. They demanded appropriate compensation for damages, in particular the execution of the decision of the South Kivu Military Court of November 7, 2011, as well as the provision of free medical care, psychological rehabilitation and measures for social and economic reintegration. It was also seen from the text of the Considerations that the authors had been subjected to particularly serious sexual attacks, including rape, by representatives of the State, namely members of the Congolese army (Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo), under the pretext that they were women from the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (paragraphs 3.1 - 3.2 of the Considerations).
The Committee's legal position: The guarantees enshrined in article 7 [of the Covenant] include not only the obligation to conduct an effective investigation, but also to provide adequate compensation (paragraph 5.4 of the Views).
Non-payment of compensation, despite the direct recognition of the victim's status, reduces the impact of sanctions, creates a sense of impunity for persons accused of acts violating article 7 of the Covenant, and negates the deterrent effect of the criminal law system for the suppression of crimes, which undermines the victims' faith in the effectiveness of the investigation (paragraph 6.2 of the Considerations). The Committee recalled its general comment No. 31 (2004), which, inter alia, notes that article 2 (paragraph 3) of the Covenant requires States parties to provide compensation to persons whose rights under the Covenant have been violated. If such a remedy is not provided, then the obligation to provide an effective remedy, which is a condition for the effectiveness of article 2 (paragraph 3), is not fulfilled.
Access to the court provided for in article 14 (paragraph 1) of the Covenant will remain speculative if, to the detriment of one of the parties, a final and binding court decision is not enforced, as well as [and] the application of remedies by the competent authorities when they are provided, as provided for in article 2 (paragraph 3 "c") The Covenant (paragraph 6.3 of the Views).
The Committee recalls that sexual violence by its nature primarily affects women, women are in a particularly vulnerable position during internal and international armed conflicts and during such periods States must take all necessary measures to protect women from rape, abduction and other forms of gender-based violence. In particular, States must ensure that victims of sexual violence have effective access to justice, including adequate reparation measures. These measures are all the more important in post-conflict situations, since they prevent the re-victimization of victims of mass rape, as is the case in this case (paragraph 6.4 of the Considerations).
The Committee's assessment of the factual circumstances of the case: the authors' allegations were noted that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant by not paying compensation ordered by the national courts in 2011 after they were recognized as victims of mass rape. The Committee further noted that in 2015, the authors initiated enforcement proceedings for a compensation decision and served the State party with a corresponding payment order. However, after more than five years, no compensation has been paid to the authors.... In the absence of any refutation by the State party, the Committee gave due weight to the authors' allegations and considered that the facts presented to it indicated a violation of article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3) of the Covenant (paragraph 6.2 of the Views).
The Committee drew attention to the fact that although the Military Court of South Kivu confirmed the award of compensation to the authors, so far they have not been able to enforce this decision. The State party has not explained why, more than nine years after the court's decision of 7 November 2011, the authors have not received compensation.... The Committee found that the State party's failure to comply with the above-mentioned decision constitutes a violation of the rights guaranteed to the authors by article 14 (paragraph 1) in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3) of the Covenant (paragraph 6.3 of the Views).
The Committee pointed out the authors' contention that the failure of the national authorities to pay compensation to them as victims of mass rape had only exacerbated the systematization of violence against women and the stigmatization of victims of sexual violence in Congolese culture, contrary to articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant... Taking into account the circumstances in which the mass rapes of which the authors were victims were committed and which were classified by the national courts of the State party as crimes against humanity, as well as the complete non-enforcement of judicial decisions on compensation to the authors and the lack of response from the State party, the Committee considered that the State party had aggravated their situation of extreme vulnerability, as well as the stigma and marginalization they have been subjected to as victims of sexual violence. Moreover, the State's refusal to compensate women victims of violence could mean tacitly allowing or encouraging such actions, which exacerbated their vulnerability. The Committee therefore concluded that the State party had failed to comply with its obligation to protect the authors from gender-based discrimination in accordance with articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant (paragraph 6.4 of the Views).
The Committee's conclusions: the facts revealed violations of article 7, considered separately and in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3), article 14, considered in conjunction with article 2 (paragraph 3), and articles 3 and 26 of the Covenant.