March, 10 2009, 12:59pm EDT

DR Congo: Militia Leader Guilty in Landmark Trial
Crimes Against Humanity Conviction an Important Step for Justice
NEW YORK
The conviction of the Mai Mai commander Gedeon Kyungu Mutanga and 20 other Mai Mai combatants for crimes on major charges, including crimes against humanity, by a military court on March 5, 2009, was a crucial step toward creating accountability in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Human Rights Watch said today.
The trial by the military court of the garrison of Haut-Katanga, in Katanga province, lasted for 19 months and was the country's largest trial involving charges of crimes against humanity. In its landmark ruling, the military court also found the government liable for failing to disarm the Mai Mai militias and awarded damages to the victims.
"This conviction is a victory for the victims of Gedeon and his Mai Mai militia, who inflicted horrific atrocities on thousands of people in central Katanga," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, senior researcher in the Africa division at Human Rights Watch. "This trial has shown the important role that Congolese courts play in giving victims a voice and in making clear that attacks on civilians will have serious consequences."
Known commonly by his first name, Gedeon (whose legal name is Gedeon Kyungu Mutanga Wa Bafunkwa Kanonga) was the commander of the Mai Mai militia responsible for brutal crimes committed in the "triangle of death" in central Katanga between 2003 and 2006.
The judges of the military court found him guilty of crimes against humanity, insurgency and terrorism. Another six defendants, including Gedeon's wife, Ilunga Monga Nkuma, were also found guilty of crimes against humanity, in addition to other crimes. Fourteen defendants were convicted of insurgency, and three of them were also convicted of terrorism. Four defendants were acquitted because of insufficient evidence, while another was acquitted because he was a minor at the time the crimes were committed and was deemed not criminally liable.
Gedeon and six other defendants were sentenced to death. Although Congo has not carried out executions for a number of years, Human Rights Watch expressed serious concern about the sentence. Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all circumstances because of its cruel and inhumane nature. The death penalty is not an applicable punishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The court also ruled that the government had civil liability for failing to disarm the Mai Mai, its former allies, after the war in Congo ended in 2003. The judges awarded damages to dozens of victims who were accepted as civil parties to the criminal proceedings. One was awarded the equivalent of US$300,000 while others were granted between US$80,000 and US$150,000. The Congolese government is jointly liable with those convicted of the crimes. The ruling sets an important precedent for compensation for those who have suffered human rights abuses.
"Awarding damages to victims sends a strong message that the government is not above the law," said Van Woudenberg. "We urge the government to respect the ruling and to comply as a matter of priority."
The military trial was also significant because the judges applied the definition of crimes against humanity as found in the Rome Statute of ICC. The Rome Statute was ratified by the Democratic Republic of Congo government in 2002, and its application by the military court illustrates the ICC's impact beyond its own trials in The Hague.
Investigations and legal proceedings against Congolese army commanders who also committed abuses in Katanga during the same period have not been equally successful, however. There have been only four convictions of soldiers, for failing to assist persons in danger, despite the evidence of serious crimes including summary executions and rape. One of those convicted was the military commander of the Congolese army's operations against the Mai Mai, Major Andre Ekembe Monga Yamba, but he was sentenced to only 15 months in prison.
Human Rights Watch called on the Congolese government to place those convicted of crimes against humanity, including Gedeon, in a high-security prison in Katanga or in another part of the country, to minimize the risk of escape. The present intention is to transfer him to Kassapa prison, Katanga's main prison, but Human Rights Watch researchers who visited the prison in June 2008 found the security there to be insufficient. Prison breaks have been common in Congo.
"All too often, we have seen human rights abusers convicted in trial but then left to escape from prison only weeks or months later," said Van Woudenberg. "The government needs to ensure this will not happen with Gedeon and others convicted of crimes against humanity."
Background
Gedeon's Mai Mai militia was a local defense force supported by the Congolese government during the war with Rwanda and Uganda, which began in 1998. After the war ended in 2003, the national government sought to integrate the Mai Mai into the national army, but failed. Increasingly hostile to the government, Mai Mai leaders took control of huge swathes of central Katanga, fought their former allies, the Congolese army, and terrorized local civilians whom the Mai Mai initially claimed they were defending.
By November 2005, the United Nations estimated that 150,000 people had been forced to flee their homes and that hundreds had been killed. The suffering and abuses were so widespread that local residents called the region where Gedeon operated "the triangle of death".
Human Rights Watch researchers documented crimes committed by both parties to the conflict in central Katanga: the Mai Mai militias and the Congolese army, the FARDC, who carried out a brutal military operation in 2005 to attempt to neutralize the Mai Mai militia. In July 2006, Human Rights Watch sent detailed legal submissions to the ministers of justice and defense calling for judicial investigations into the abuses and for those responsible to be held to account (https://www.hrw.org/legacy/campaigns/drc/2006/katanga/legal.htm).
Gedeon was detained on May 16, 2006, and the trial against him began on July 10, 2007. Gedeon's wife, his six bodyguards, and 17 others of his co-accused were charged between November 2007 and January 2008 in the same proceedings. Another commander was apprehended in January 2009 and was also included in the trial.
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
House GOP Prepares to Make It Easier for Tech Giants—Like Musk's X—to Scam Consumers
"Allowing companies like Apple, PayPal, and X Money to avoid federal laws creates a blind spot for rampant financial abuse and fraud," said one watchdog group.
Mar 11, 2025
House Republicans on Tuesday are expected to join their Senate colleagues in advancing a resolution that would roll back a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule designed to protect the American public from scammers on digital payment platforms, a move that watchdog groups say would personally benefit President Donald Trump and billionaire Elon Musk.
The House resolution, led by Rep. Mike Flood (R-Neb.), targets a CFPB rule that was finalized shortly after the November election, in the waning days of the Biden administration. The CFPB said at the time that the rule would help ensure that companies offering digital payment services "follow federal law just like large banks, credit unions, and other financial institutions."
But the CFPB is now led by Project 2025 architect Russell Vought, who has halted virtually all of the agency's work while Musk's Department of Government Efficiency overtakes the bureau, looking to gut it from the inside.
With their effort to rescind the CFPB's digital payments rule, congressional Republicans are aiding Musk's assault on the CFPB and delivering a major win for his push into financial services with X Money. The Senate voted mostly along party lines to rescind the rule last week.
"This is a gift to Big Tech and likely the personal finances of Trump and Musk themselves," Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US, said in a statement as the GOP-led House Financial Services Committee took up the resolution. "These companies process over 13 billion transactions a year, and millions of Americans are relying on them for safe and secure payments."
"Allowing companies like Apple, PayPal, and X Money to avoid federal laws creates a blind spot for rampant financial abuse and fraud," Carrk added.
Accountable.US noted in a recent report that both Trump and Musk stand to benefit financially from efforts to gut the CFPB and eliminate rules enacted under the Biden administration.
"Last year, Trump Media & Technology Group filed a trademark to create a broad financial services platform Truth.Fi," the group observed. "The products and services they said they would perform included the creation of a 'downloadable computer software' that serves as a 'digital wallet' to store and trade cryptocurrencies as well as a digital payments processing platform for purchases made with cryptocurrencies."
That initiative and Musk's X Money would fall under the purview of the rule that congressional Republicans are poised to roll back.
In a CNNappearance on Monday, former CFPB Director Rohit Chopra said that Musk and other powerful corporate executives are "fixated" on the consumer bureau because it is "responsible for monitoring all of those tech companies for how they're moving our money to protect against privacy errors and fraud."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Vindictive': Trump USDA Freezes $100 Million for University of Maine Amid Trans Athlete Fight
"This administration is targeting our state for retribution," said Rep. Chellie Pingree, "all because our elected officials are standing up for the rule of law."
Mar 11, 2025
The Trump administration on Tuesday appeared to step up its clash with Maine's Democratic-led government over the state's support for transgender women who play on women's sports teams, as the University of Maine announced $100 million in its federal funding had been halted.
The university system said the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) funding was being temporarily paused while the Trump administration investigates whether the University of Maine System (UMS) is violating Title VI or Title IX of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin and sex, respectively.
The USDA began a review of UMS compliance with the Civil Rights Act in February, a day after Gov. Janet Mills told President Donald Trump at a White House event that she was prepared to defend Maine's decision to continue allowing transgender students to play on girl's and women's sports teams.
The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) updated its policies to comply with Trump's executive order requiring the Department of Education to notify school districts that allowing transgender students to compete on women's teams violates Title IX.
"If all of their funding was removed from USDA, that would have a really big impact on farmers on the ground here."
But Mills told Trump that she will "comply with state and federal law." In 2021, Maine's state laws were updated to allow student athletes to compete on teams that correspond to their identity as long as there are no safety concerns.
Since the USDA opened its review of UMS policies, the university system has confirmed to the department that its athletic programs are in compliance with state and federal laws and that its schools that are part of the NCAA are following the association's recently updated policies.
UMS said in a statement Tuesday that after notifying the USDA of its compliance on February 26, it did not hear from the department until the notice of the funding pause was sent on March 10, with the USDA accusing the university of "blatant disregard" for Trump's executive order.
The agency said last month that UMS "receives over $100 million in USDA funding."
UMS said Tuesday that it has received funding from federal agencies including the USDA since its founding in 1865, with the USDA awarding $29.78 million in 2024 for research benefiting the largely rural state.
UMS has used its current USDA funding to invest in numerous projects, including but not limited to:
- Research on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as forever chemicals, on Maine farms;
- The development of sustainable packaging materials derived from Maine's forests;
- Research on the health and sustainability of the state's lobster fishery;
- Support for 4-H youth leadership and STEM skill development programs serving tens of thousands of Maine youth annually; and
- Education and outreach to Maine livestock farmers on farm biosecurity and disease outbreak preparedness.
"If all of their funding was removed from USDA, that would have a really big impact on farmers on the ground here," Sarah Alexander, executive director of the Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association, toldReuters last month after the agency launched its review of UMS.
U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) denounced the USDA's "vindictive" funding pause, noting that the agency "shared no findings, and offered no opportunity for a hearing."
"It fails to provide any sort of timeline or opportunities for recourse," she said in a statement posted on social media. "Let's be clear about what this latest funding freeze will do: It will hurt farmers and rural Mainers, it will halt critically-needed research innovation, and it will slash educational opportunities for students throughout Maine. Once again, it appears as though this administration is targeting our state for retribution—all because our elected officials are standing up for the rule of law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Cabinet Minister: 'Only Solution for the Gaza Strip Is to Empty It of Gazans'
"God has sent us the U.S. administration, and it is clearly telling us—it's time to inherit the land," she said.
Mar 11, 2025
Israeli Environmental Protection Minister Idit Silman argued Tuesday for ethnically cleansing the Gaza Strip of its Palestinian population so that the Jewish people can "inherit the land" many of them believe their deity promised them in biblical times.
"The only solution for the Gaza Strip is to empty it of Gazans," Silman—a member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's ruling Likud party—said during an interview with Reshet Bet radio, according to a translation by Haaretz. "God has sent us the U.S. administration, and it is clearly telling us—it's time to inherit the land."
Last month, Republican U.S. President Donald Trumpproposed that the U.S. "take over" Gaza, remove it's approximately 2.1 million Palestinian inhabitants, and transform the coastal enclave into the "Riviera of the Middle East."
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich said Sunday that the so-called "Trump Plan" is currently "taking shape."
"It could be in single-family homes or Trump-style towers, but we will definitely go back there."
Silman said during Tuesday's interview that "Gush Katif will return, there's no question about it," referring to a former block of 17 Israeli apartheid settlements in southern Gaza that were abandoned 20 years ago. "It could be in single-family homes or Trump-style towers, but we will definitely go back there. I see no other solution to terrorism. The answer to terrorism is sovereignty."
While proponents of the plan insist that Palestinians will leave Gaza voluntarily, critics counter that this notion is utterly divorced from reality, as most Gazans are descendants of people who fled or were ethnically cleansed from other parts of Palestine during the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948, and are loath to be subjected to yet another expulsion. Many elderly Gazans are survivors of what Palestinians call the Nakba, or "catastrophe," of 1948.
This isn't the first time that Silman has called for the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. She made similar comments during a recent rally, and last September she also said that Israel is "on a path to inherit" the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Israel has illegally occupied the territory since 1967, and hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers have steadily usurped Palestinians by building and expanding apartheid colonies on their land.
"We will not 'conquer,'" Silman asserted last year. "Conquer is a progressive word that the progressives brought upon us. We inherit. Inheritance from the lord."
Silman rose to prominence after abandoning the previous Israeli coalition government, prompting a crisis leading to the 2022 election that gave rise to the current far-right administration.
Numerous Israeli politicians, military leaders, journalists, entertainers, and others have called for genocide in Gaza or the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from the territory. Statements from Netanyahu, members of his Cabinet, Knesset lawmakers, and others have been entered as evidence in the South Africa-led genocide case against Israel currently before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague.
More than 170,000 Palestinians are dead, maimed, or missing, and millions more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened following 15 months of Israeli bombardment and invasion and more than 17 months of "complete siege" of Gaza, according to local and international agencies.
Palestine defenders argue the mass slaughter and annihilation of Gaza meet the definition of genocide under Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. However, according to the United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, "To constitute genocide, there must be a proven intent on the part of perpetrators to physically destroy a national, ethnical, racial or religious group."
"The intent is the most difficult element to determine," the agency stressed. But critics say that comments like Silman's could make the ICJ's final decision much easier.
"Bolstered by the hubris of settler colonial power and the knowledge that it has killed, maimed, destroyed, expelled, humiliated, imprisoned, and dispossessed with more than seven decades of impunity and by the continued material and moral support of the United States, Israelis are explicit and unashamed about their genocidal intent because they have imagined and prosecuted a war against people who they see as colonized 'savages,'" Israeli Holocaust scholar and British law professor Penny Green wrote last year.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular