From Rwanda in 1994 to the DRC in 2024, war is fought on the bodies of women. How must the international community respond?

Conflict related sexual violence (CRSV) presents a global security challenge. Beyond the deeply personal, traumatic consequences of such violations, sexual violence that occurs in conflict settings comes with broader societal repercussions. Used strategically to terrorise populations, inflict humiliation and trigger displacement, CRSV is a tactical weapon of war and can amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

From the Rwandan genocide in 1994 to the modern day conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), how has the international community’s response to CRSV both on the ground and in international courts evolved? On the one hand, there has been promising progress in conceptualising victim-centred interventions and addressing sexual violence on the ground, despite chronic underfunding. However, the most fundamental condition necessary for the deterrence of CRSV is an end to a tradition of impunity through prosecution by international courts, namely the International Criminal Court (ICC). The failure of the ICC to effectively prosecute CRSV undermines progress made to address sexual violence on the ground and is symptomatic of a broader institutional neglect of women’s pressing security needs. This article proposes that the ICC must reform to overcome institutional rigidities so that legal frameworks to prosecute CRSV can actually be implemented and women’s security can be secured.

Rwanda in 1994

The case of the Rwandan genocide against the Tutsi population exemplifies how sexual violence is used strategically in conflict. Tutsi women had a significant role in maintaining inter-ethnic social cohesion in Rwanda through marrying across ethnic lines. The humiliation and ostracization of Tutsi women through rape was thus a deliberate tactic used to damage the social fabric of Rwanda. Whilst approximately 90% of Tutsi women and girls were sexually molested and 500,000+ instances of genocidal rape occurred, the international community’s response was limited.

Response on the ground

During the genocide, the international community proved itself incompetent at intervening to prevent to CRSV. Responses to the needs of CRSV survivors in the aftermath of the genocide were limited, with only a minor proportion of the U.S. $572 million aid program to Rwanda being allocated to gender-related issues, such as trauma counselling for women.

Response in the courts

The international community’s judicial response to the genocide established important precedents in tackling CRSV. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) was the first international tribunal to rule that rape, and CRSV more broadly, constitute genocide. One must not dismiss the significance of this, especially since the ICTR operated in a context where CRSV was still mischaracterised as a private crime or normalised as the inevitable consequence of men fighting in war.

However, despite the symbolic strides made by the ICTR, the tribunal failed to prosecute sexual crimes on equal terms with other incited acts of genocide. This can be explained by a lack of political will to create methodologies and investigative procedures conducive to collecting rape testimonies.

The failure of the international community to address CRSV in Rwanda begs the question:

Has the international community evolved to better address CRSV?

The DRC in 2024

The DRC currently presents the most pressing case of CRSV, with the highest number of reported CRSV cases worldwide. Women in the DRC have endured decades of CRSV which has intensified following resurgent violence between armed groups and government forces last year.  In the first quarter of 2023 alone, more than 10,000 people accessed gender-based violence services. In internal displacement camps in and around North Kivu, 7900+ cases of CRSV were reported in just under 3 months (2023).

Response on the ground; actualising meaningful interventions

International organisations’ response in the DRC signals the dawn of a new era when it comes to combating CRSV. Since the Rwandan genocide, a more sophisticated framework for addressing CRSV has been developed which recognises that CRSV is a strategic weapon of modern warfare used to divide communities and terrorise female civilians. Consequently, UN interventions are guided by a CRSV protection mandate which takes a commendably community-based and victim-oriented approach. For instance, the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) works with local women-led organisations which have reached more than 9,000 people with gender-based violence prevention.

However, whilst a comprehensive framework for intervention exists, implementation is limited. The UNHCR, MONUSCO (UN peacekeeping mission in the DRC) and the UN Action Against Sexual Violence in Conflict have provided preventative services, emergency medical treatment and psychosocial care to victims. However, severe underfunding - UN Action is funded completely from voluntary, extra-budgetary donations and UNHCR has received only 33 per cent of the budget necessary to address the displaced DRC population  -  means that such interventions only reach a fraction of those in need. Public pressure on world powers to increase aid to the DRC, as well as increased UN funding allocated to CRSV victims, may ensure the actualisation of what could be a holistic program to combat CRSV. Effective intervention could transform the nature of conflict on the ground, disincentivizing militia leaders from using CRSV and other civilian crimes to achieve their military goals.

Response in the courts; progress or incompetence?

Since the Rwandan genocide, the international community has established a permanent legal framework for prosecuting CRSV crimes. The ICC’s Rome Statute identifies acts of CRSV as crimes against humanity punishable under international criminal law. Under the tenure of Chief Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda (2012-2021), the ICC developed a Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes which suggested effective investigation and prosecution methods. Thus, on paper, we have come a long way since the ICTR; here is an international court with the framework to investigate and prosecute CRSV.

The reality is much less encouraging. Once one delves into the prosecution history of the ICC, it becomes clear that the ICC has failed to enforce accountability for CRSV. This is exemplified in the acquittal of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, the former Vice President of the DRC and the first person to be convicted of sexual violence crimes by the ICC. However, his conviction (issued on the basis of command responsibility) was overturned with the rationale that Bemba did not have “effective control” over his troops, despite findings that he had direct communication lines with commanders who were systematically committing rape.

Bemba’s case is indicative of a broader pattern at the ICC: forces pushing for action against impunity for CRSV are overpowered by institutional rigidities which prevent true accountability. The ICC has inflexible standards for presenting evidence of sexual violence. Sexual crimes are notoriously difficult to collect evidence for; their effects are less visible and survivors, fearing stigmatisation, are reluctant to come forward. Despite this, evidence collection for gender crimes is not prioritised by ICC prosecution and few structural changes have been made to accommodate for the fact that evidence of CRSV is usually uncovered later on in proceedings. In fact, the ICC imposed stricter requirements for specifying charges (ie. submitting evidence for CRSV) at the very beginning of proceedings.

In the DRC, the results of such judicial incompetence are nothing short of outrageous. Bemba has since returned to the country, and is the current Minister of Defence. Understand what this means; members of the Congolese Armed Forces and high-ranking officials in the government - actors that are supposed to prevent sexual violence – are themselves perpetrators.

This lack of international prosecution renders other interventions futile because when perpetrators like Bemba face no consequences, actions on the ground are only treating the aftermath of CRSV. The root cause - a culture of impunity that incentivises perpetrators - persists. Distant and detached as it may seem, international law is a huge player in conflict on the ground. If command responsibility is legally enforced, militia leaders are less inclined to instruct troops to commit CRSV. This subsequently changes the nature of warfare; displacement, community destruction, civilian terrorisation and public health crises resulting from CRSV are mitigated. Thus, effective prosecution of CRSV by international courts is the cornerstone of any successful response by the international community.

Approaching justice; solutions and suggestions for the ICC

Clearly, guaranteeing women’s security in conflict requires the ICC to reform its institutional practices . Firstly, a longer time frame for charges of sexual violence to be added to a case is necessary. Secondly, evidence-collection methods which acknowledge the unique nature of sexual violence need to be developed. Allowing sexually abused women to testify before a trial starts (commendably introduced by Her Excellency Fatou Bensouda in an ICC case) should become the norm. Improving evidence collection also highlights a need for increasing the representation of female prosecutors at the ICC, as female victims of CRSV have expressed more willingness to report crimes if they are reporting to female investigators. Furthermore, in an effort to breach what is often a sharp divide between events on the ground and rulings in the court, the ICC could work with peacekeepers in war zones to collect and verify evidence of CRSV as events unfold. 

However, one must not labour under the misapprehension that a lack of substantial evidence is the only obstacle to prosecution. The ICC Lubanga case – wherein there was extensive evidence for CRSV but it wasn’t prosecuted for the sake of “expediency” -  exposes that even when evidence is abundant, an institutional neglect of accountability for crimes against women’s bodies persists. Sexual violence, at its core, is about the subordination of women. The fact that sexual and gender-based crimes are not given equal status to other war crimes indicates a systemic failure to actually act towards the ICC’s purported goal of advancing gender equality. Clearly, there is a need for international advocacy so that female victims’ need for justice is not subordinated.

Conclusion

CRSV remains a pressing humanitarian issue in need of a coherent international response. Commendably, advancements in addressing CRSV through a victim-oriented approach have occurred on the ground and legal frameworks for combatting CRSV have been conceptualised. However, institutional rigidities and a lack of judicial will means that the root cause of CRSV – impunity - persists. In 1996, esteemed human rights lawyer Binaifer Nowrojee explained the ICTR’s failure to prosecute CRSV in the following way:

“The problem, for the most part, lies not in the absence of adequate legal prohibitions, but in the international community's willingness to tolerate sexual abuse against women.”

30 years later, this statement still rings true.

Please note:

Due to spatial constraints and in acknowledgement of the fact that women and girls are disproportionately the victims of CRSV, the focus of this article is on CRSV committed against women. However, the following sources are good starting points for those interested in researching conflict related sexual violence against men and LGBTQ+ people: https://www.ictj.org/publication/sexual-violence-men-boys, https://www.gjmedph.com/Uploads/O3_Special_Issue_2023.pdf

By Lili Krasznai