Furaha Lugumire and Blaise Barhatulirwa v. Democratic Republic of the Congo

The authors of the communication are Furaha Lugumire, born on 28 January 1972, and her husband, Blaise Barhatulirwa, born on 16 November 1972, both nationals of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They both claim that the State party has violated their rights under articles 6 (1), 7 and 9 (1), read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and (3), 3 and 26 of the Covenant. They also claim that the State party has violated the rights of Furaha Lugumire under articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant and the rights of Blaise Barhatulirwa under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. The Optional Protocol entered into force for the State party on 1 February 1977. The authors are represented by counsel.

Furaha Lugumire had been a nurse at Panzi General Hospital in Bukavu since 1999. A nurse by training, Blaise Barhatulirwa had worked for the unit responsible for overseeing the nutrition department of the eighth Community of Pentecostal Churches of Central Africa, in Panzi Hospital, until 2011. Operational since 1999, Panzi Hospital is known for providing free care to victims of sexual violence in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The mission of the hospital and the associated Panzi Foundation is to combat sexual violence and to provide holistic support to victims of such violence. Since its establishment, the hospital has treated over 30,000 victims of sexual violence.

Furaha Lugumire was in charge of the department for the prevention of mothertochild transmission of HIV. Her duties included caring for women who had become pregnant as a result of rape, as well as women and children infected with HIV or who had developed AIDS as a result of sexual violence. She prepared the activity reports for her department and, as a result of this work, gradually built up a database of the cases it dealt with. These data were submitted monthly to the coordination service at Panzi Hospital, the government-run central office of the health district concerned, and the coordinator of a project led by a Canadian foundation. Furaha Lugumire thus regularly compiled statistics on the number of women who had become pregnant as a result of sexual violence, which included information on the likely perpetrators, based on the accounts of the victims themselves, whom she interviewed personally. As part of her duties, she also carried out onthe-ground awarenessraising activities on voluntary HIV testing and on reporting perpetrators of sexual violence.

In late April 2013, Furaha Lugumire was harassed and received threats against her person, including death threats via text messages and telephone calls. On 10 May 2013, the authors filed a complaint against X with the provincial police, the public prosecutor, the Governor of South Kivu Province and other political and judicial authorities. They reported the threats and provided the numbers from which the messages and calls had been received, requesting that the authorities provide them with protection and that steps be taken to identify the persons who had sent the threats from those numbers. At the time of the submission of the present communication, the authors had not received any response to their complaints and requests.

On 19 June 2013, Furaha Lugumire attended the wedding of one of her colleagues. Towards the end of the evening, her manager, who knew about the threats made against her, insisted that she be escorted home. She thus entered her manager’s car with three other colleagues. When they reached the square commonly known as “Maison Blanche”, on the road leading to her home in the Panzi neighbourhood, Furaha Lugumire exited the vehicle and began walking towards her house. Some 20 metres from her house, she passed three men in civilian clothing who were standing on the side of the road. She did not greet them as she passed. Then, about five metres from the entrance of her home, she encountered another group of three men in civilian clothing waiting on the corner. As she passed them, one of the three men suddenly approached her and grabbed her from behind, placing a handkerchief over her mouth and nose to prevent her from screaming. Furaha Lugumire then remembers trying to move her head to look behind her and seeing five other men surrounding her. Then, one of the men held a revolver-sized object against the back of her neck, telling her that he would not hesitate to kill her if she dared to scream. The men then picked Furaha Lugumire up and carried her to a car. From this moment on, she remembers very little, except that it was very dark, which had prevented her from getting a clear look at the faces of her attackers. Then everything went blurry; Furaha Lugumire lost consciousness and woke up three days later in hospital.

At around 10 p.m. the same day, Blaise Barhatulirwa started to worry that his wife had not yet returned home from the party and called one of her colleagues who was also in attendance. When he still did not hear from her, he began to roam the streets. The next day, he went to inform the chief of Panzi neighbourhood of his wife’s disappearance who, in turn, called the police to find out if they had arrested Furaha Lugumire or noticed anything untoward during the night. Blaise Barhatulirwa then sent a missing persons notice to Maendeleo community radio station and to the national radio and television station of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

On 21 June 2013, residents of Panzi neighbourhood, having still not heard from Furaha Lugumire, gathered as early as 4 a.m. to block highway No. 5 linking Bukavu to Uvira, between the Higher Institute of Education and Kamagema market. However, at around 1 p.m., the mayor of Ibanda commune went to the authors’ home to ask Blaise Barhatulirwa to put a stop to the demonstration and to ask the people who were blocking the road to disperse. He made no mention of any initiative undertaken by the authorities to find Furaha Lugumire. At around 3 p.m., police officers forced the demonstrators off the road.

On the night of 21 June 2013, Blaise Barhatulirwa received a call and was told by a male interlocutor to go and pick up his wife, without his giving any indication of the exact location. After this call, the chief of Panzi neighbourhood advised him not to leave his home for his own safety. The neighbourhood chief then alerted the mayor of the commune and the local police based near Panzi Hospital. Meanwhile, a doctor at the hospital had also received a series of messages from an unknown number indicating where Furaha Lugumire was to be picked up. The doctor passed these messages on to the authorities and, soon after, Furaha Lugumire was found outside the City of Joy centre, about 500 metres from Panzi Hospital, by officers of the Congolese National Police who were on patrol in Panzi, accompanied by police officers who were on duty at Panzi Hospital. When they arrived at the scene, they discovered Furaha Lugumire leaning against the wall of a house. She was unconscious and her hands were secured behind her back with handcuffs normally used by the Congolese National Police, which one of the police officers present was able to unlock with his keys. The police officers placed her on a stretcher and the ambulance in question then took her directly to Panzi Hospital. When she woke up, she could not remember anything.

According to the forensic report prepared on 22 June 2013, when she arrived at the hospital, Furaha Lugumire was in a “level 1 coma (and thus unresponsive) with temporalspatial disorientation and alcohol on her breath”. The clinical examination conducted revealed a recent sexual assault, with the presence of bruises on the inside of her thighs, on her legs and on one of her ankles, as well as on her genitals.

On 26 June 2013, a complaint was filed on behalf of Furaha Lugumire by the Panzi Hospital legal clinic for false imprisonment and rape, sexual slavery and assault and battery during false imprisonment. The complaint was submitted to the senior military prosecutor at Bukavu Military Court, and a copy was sent to the provincial department of the Congolese National Police, the public prosecutor at Bukavu tribunal de grande instance (court of major jurisdiction) and the prosecutor general at Bukavu Court of Appeal. This complaint led to the opening of an investigation.

During her time in hospital, Furaha Lugumire was interviewed by an officer of the criminal investigation police.³ From the outset of the interview, the officer was aggressive towards her and questioned her credibility. He concluded the interview by telling her that only she knew why she had been abducted and that she should stop spreading “lies about the Government”. He forbade her from continuing to spread the rumour that she had been abducted and threatened her with legal action for public order disturbance if she did not withdraw her complaint.

3. The officer was accompanied by a colleague; Furaha Lugumire was assisted by her lawyer and her husband. ↩

Furaha Lugumire left hospital on 3 July 2013 but had to be hospitalized again on 29 July 2013 for 20 days after her headaches worsened. The doctor told her to go for a brain scan, which she was unable to do for financial reasons.⁴

4. The scan was to be carried out in Kigali at a cost of US$ 425. ↩

On 4 July 2013, Furaha Lugumire received a summons to appear in connection with the complaint filed on her behalf on 26 June 2013. The next day, assisted by her lawyer, she was interviewed by a police inspector. The inspector also interviewed Blaise Barhatulirwa on the same day and, in the days that followed, the colleagues of Furaha Lugumire. On 13 July 2013, the garrison military prosecutor sent a request for information to a telephone company. No follow-up action was taken in relation to this request and the case was not investigated any further.

At the same time, the authors learned that the officer of the criminal investigation police who had interviewed Furaha Lugumire at the hospital had forwarded the notes of the interview to the public prosecutor’s office at Bukavu tribunal de grande instance. On the basis of this interview, the public prosecutor’s office initiated proceedings against Furaha Lugumire for spreading “false rumours” and “inciting rebellion” under article 199 bis and articles 133 and 135 of the Criminal Code, respectively. She was heard by a judge on 9 and 16 December 2013; her lawyer was then informed that the proceedings had been terminated for lack of evidence. Neither Furaha Lugumire nor her lawyer were granted access to the interview notes or the termination notice.

In early September 2013, Furaha Lugumire returned to work at Panzi Hospital. From that day onward and for one year, her husband accompanied her to the hospital entrance every morning and came to pick her up every evening. On 9 September 2014, Blaise Barhatulirwa went to pick up his wife from the hospital at around 5 p.m. A group of eight youths armed with sticks and iron bars were waiting for them a few metres from the hospital. As soon as they saw them, the youths set upon the authors and beat them up. It was only when passersby tried to come to their aid that the youths fled. The authors had to be admitted to hospital for emergency treatment. Five days later, the authors returned from church to discover that a red skull, a symbol of danger and death, had been graffitied on the door of their home. On 17 September 2014, Blaise Barhatulirwa filed a complaint against X with the commander of the local Panzi police and sent a copy to the senior prosecutor, the prosecutor general and the public prosecutor in order to bring to their attention the events that had taken place on 9 and 14 September 2014. No follow-up action was taken, except for the garrison military prosecutor’s sending two additional requests for information to two telephone companies on 24 and 29 September 2014. Furthermore, no protection measures have been applied in respect of the authors.

According to the authors, it was not easy for Furaha Lugumire to return to work after the several weeks it had taken her to recover after having been abducted and raped multiple times in June 2013. She experienced almost wholesale rejection by her relatives, colleagues and society in general. At work, her colleagues’ attitude towards her changed and they no longer dared to approach or talk to her. Whether she was in the street or at work, she felt people constantly staring at her, spying on her or pointing at her, and she heard people whispering and talking about what had happened to her. She left her home only to go to work. She no longer went to the market or to church and lost many of her friends and acquaintances. She felt demeaned, stigmatized, discriminated against and like she was to blame for what had happened to her.

Blaise Barhatulirwa and their children⁵ also suffered from this stigma. At first, their relatives strongly pressured them to distance themselves from Furaha Lugumire. All of Blaise Barhatulirwa’s friends told him that, in his position, they would not be able to bear or consider staying with their wives if they had been raped. They advised him to abandon his wife. One day, they even introduced him to a young woman they knew who was willing to marry him. For those close to him, his wife was now “tainted” after having been raped multiple times, and nothing could change that fact. Blaise Barhatulirwa’s family pushed him to abandon his wife by promising to contribute to the dowry for another marriage. All this pressure from their family and from society had a negative impact on the authors’ relationship. For several weeks, Blaise Barhatulirwa did not speak to his wife and refused to have intimate relations with her.⁶ For their part, the children experienced similar stigma at school. The other children talked constantly about what had happened to their mother, to the point that the three oldest sons refused to attend school. They felt ostracized by the other students, who excluded them from all activities during break time and made fun of their mother.

5. The authors have six children, born in 1998, 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 and 2010, respectively. ↩
6. One of the key factors that helped to bring the authors back together was the intervention of Dr. Denis Mukwege, founder and director of Panzi Hospital and the Panzi Foundation, who invited Blaise Barhatulirwa into his office on several occasions to share with him the experiences of many other women who were at Panzi Hospital and who had suffered the same fate. ↩

After these two attacks, the authors decided to leave their home with their six children and to seek refuge with relatives, sleeping in a different place each night. This precarious situation lasted for almost a month. In view of the authorities’ inertia and the fact that her family was in constant danger, Furaha Lugumire eventually resigned from Panzi Hospital. On 20 November 2014, the entire family left the country to seek asylum in Uganda, where they were granted refugee status in July 2015.

The family’s fleeing the country had an extremely negative effect on the authors’ socioeconomic situation. Since 20 November 2014, they have been unemployed and are surviving on the proceeds from the gradual sale of their possessions in Bukavu. The family of eight lives in a small one-bedroom house and, for financial reasons, none of the children attend school. Furaha Lugumire suffers from, among other things, particularly severe headaches, but does not have the financial means to undergo the scan recommended by the doctors. When she arrived in Kampala, she registered with the African Centre for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims, where she obtained a beneficiary card granting her access to the various services it offers.

On 23 February and on 9 and 10 March 2015, Furaha Lugumire went to the African Centre for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims to receive outpatient care. Following one of these visits, the doctors diagnosed a severe haemorrhoidal issue caused by the sexual abuse she had suffered that required extensive treatment, including surgery. She was then told to undergo laboratory tests, including a blood test, paid for with the help of the non-governmental organization HIAS-Uganda, which covers the cost of care for victims of sexual violence. The results of the test confirmed that Furaha Lugumire was in a critical condition, and she underwent surgery on 25 August 2015. This medical care cost around US$234, which the authors had to pay themselves and which exacerbated their already precarious financial situation in Kampala. In addition, in February 2015, due to severe anaemia − likely an after-effect of the sexual violence she suffered − Furaha Lugumire had to undergo an emergency abortion because her life and that of the fetus were in danger. Further medical examinations revealed that Furaha Lugumire suffered from heart palpitations and high blood pressure. She was unable to undergo appropriate treatment because she lacked the necessary financial means.

Despite their having fled the country, Furaha Lugumire, throughout 2015, and through her lawyer, followed up with the various judicial authorities that had been dealing with her case. On 3 April 2015, her lawyer was finally able to locate her case file, which had lain forgotten in the drawer of the inspector in charge of the investigation for almost two years, without a docket number having been assigned to it and without any changes or updates to report since the victim’s relatives and colleagues had been interviewed in July 2013. In May 2015, at the request of her lawyer, the garrison military prosecutor sent new requests for information to three telephone companies. He also sent, for the first time since 2013, a request to Panzi Hospital asking it to add the report and medical certificate concerning Furaha Lugumire to the file of the case under investigation. The lawyer followed up with the authorities on this matter several times in the weeks that followed but received no response. On 25 July 2015, the lawyer sent a letter bringing the situation to the attention of the National Human Rights Commission in Kinshasa, and sent a copy to the office of the Personal Representative of the Head of State for Combating Sexual Violence. On 28 August 2015, he also sent a letter to the senior military prosecutor’s office in South Kivu, which exercises oversight over lower-ranking authorities, complaining about the status quo and the impasse in the garrison military prosecutor’s office. The lawyer received only acknowledgements of receipt for all the correspondence sent, and confirmation from the senior military prosecutor in South Kivu that the telephone companies had not responded. Since then, nothing has been done to provide the authors with an effective remedy.

Lastly, the authors state that: (a) all available measures have been taken to exhaust domestic remedies; (b) these remedies have been unreasonably prolonged, since the complaint for abduction and multiple instances of rape lay forgotten in the drawer of the inspector in charge of the investigation for almost two years, without its even being added to the court register and without any action being taken to follow up on efforts to restart the proceedings, and since no action was taken to follow up on the other two complaints filed in May 2013 and September 2014 to report the threats and assault, respectively; (c) the remedies have proved to be ineffective, since no action has been taken in response to the three criminal complaints or the numerous attempts to contact the different national institutions to move the case forward; and (d) it is dangerous for the authors to make use of domestic remedies in view of the acts of intimidation and threats that prompted the authors and their children to flee the country in November 2014 and to seek refuge in Uganda.

The authors claim that the State party has violated their rights under articles 6 (1), 7 and 9 (1), read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and (3), 3 and 26 of the Covenant, the rights of Furaha Lugumire under articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant, and the rights of Blaise Barhatulirwa under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.

The authors claim a violation of their right to protection from torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant. They recall that the Committee concluded that rape was a form of extreme gender-based violence and constituted a violation of article 7 of the Covenant,⁷ and consider that the State party’s responsibility is based on the authorities’ failure to protect them, despite the numerous threats received by Furaha Lugumire and the filing of a criminal complaint with these authorities several weeks before her abduction. This is compounded by the unwillingness and inability of the State party’s authorities to conduct an effective investigation in response to the three criminal complaints filed by the authors, which is part of a widespread context of impunity for perpetrators of sexual violence and of stigmatization of victims in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The authors therefore request the Committee to find a violation by the State party of article 7 of the Covenant in respect of Furaha Lugumire owing to the non-fulfilment by the State party of its positive obligation to prevent acts of torture and other forms of ill-treatment.

7. Mehalli et al. v. Algeria (CCPR/C/110/D/1900/2009), para. 7.10. ↩

As for Blaise Barhatulirwa, the anguish and distress he experienced due to the abduction of his wife for three days, as well as the trauma he suffered upon learning about the violence to which she had been subjected, which was exacerbated by the general tendency in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to stigmatize victims of sexual violence and their relatives, the failure to investigate, the direct attacks against his person in September 2014, and the stress and precariousness brought on by his forced exile, also constitute a violation of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.

The authors allege that the State party violated Furaha Lugumire’s rights to life and to security of person by failing in its duty to provide her with adequate protection in the circumstances of the present case. Despite her having reported the death threats she had received from the end of April 2013 and her having requested protection from the authorities to prevent future attacks, no measures to guarantee her safety were taken and no investigation was opened with a view to identifying those responsible for the threats or to providing her with redress for the harm she had suffered. The authors therefore request the Committee to find a breach by the State party of its positive obligation to ensure and protect Furaha Lugumire’s right to life and to conduct effective investigations in response to her complaints, in accordance with article 6 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3).

The authors also claim a violation of Furaha Lugumire’s right to security of person under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, since the authors filed a criminal complaint as soon as the first threats had been made in order to bring them to the authorities’ attention and to have them investigated with a view to identifying those responsible. However, no action was taken to follow up on this complaint and no measures were taken to guarantee Furaha Lugumire’s safety, which led to her being abducted and raped multiple times over the course of three days. The authors filed a second complaint in the aftermath of these events, but again, no effective investigation was conducted, and no measures were taken to protect Furaha Lugumire, which led to further attacks being carried out in September 2014. Lastly, Furaha Lugumire’s right to obtain redress under article 2 (3) of the Covenant has not been respected and a full investigation aimed at identifying and punishing those responsible has not been initiated. Therefore, the authors also claim that the State party has violated article 9 (1), read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant.

Furthermore, articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant, which protect Furaha Lugumire’s right to not be subjected to any form of torture, her right to security of person and her right to life, must be read in conjunction with articles 2 (1), 3 and 26, taking into account her situation, which called for the application of specific protection measures, since she was a member of a very vulnerable group, being a woman involved in defending victims of sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who fell victim to such violence herself. The Committee recalls that the obligation to ensure to all individuals the rights recognized in the Covenant requires the removal of obstacles to the equal enjoyment of such rights.⁸ The application of the principle of equality sometimes requires States parties to take affirmative action in respect of vulnerable or disadvantaged groups.⁹

8. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 28 (2000), para. 3. ↩
9. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 18 (1989), para. 10. ↩

Several United Nations experts have noted the particularly alarming situation with regard to the systematization of violence against women and the stigmatization of victims of sexual violence in Congolese culture.¹⁰ In addition to general violence against women, the experts deplored the specific discrimination suffered by women working in human rights advocacy, especially those who deal with cases of sexual violence in rural communities.¹¹ Furaha Lugumire has been directly affected by several forms of discrimination: she is a woman in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, she works to defend victims of sexual violence and she herself is a victim of such violence following the assault carried out on 19 June 2013. The indifference and discriminatory attitude of the authorities towards her were borne out in the opening of criminal proceedings against her for spreading false accusations regarding the sexual abuse she had suffered, as well as in the authorities’ failure to take measures to protect her and in the failure to launch an effective investigation to identify and punish those responsible. Thus, the authors consider that the State party has violated their rights under articles 2 (1), 3 and 26, read in conjunction with articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant.

10. See, for example, A/HRC/13/63, para. 26. ↩
11. Ibid., para. 33. ↩

Lastly, the authors state that the threats and crimes against Furaha Lugumire constitute a serious violation of her privacy and her right to family life. Following the events of June 2013, her private, family, social, and professional life was disrupted, and her physical and mental health were severely affected. Her husband’s family pressured him to abandon her and was actively involved in that process. The stigmatization of Furaha Lugumire by society and her relatives caused physical and psychological damage, which is only getting worse. Moreover, the authors’ being forced to move had an extremely negative impact on their socioeconomic situation. Lastly, after the sexual violence she suffered in June 2013, Furaha Lugumire’s health greatly deteriorated and is growing steadily worse. The stress caused by the most recent attacks in September 2014 and her insecure and precarious situation in Kampala are the source of many physiological and psychological problems. The authors therefore consider that the State party has violated Furaha Lugumire’s rights under articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant.

The authors call for a prompt, thorough and effective investigation to be opened into the intimidation, abduction, false imprisonment and rape, on multiple occasions, of Furaha Lugumire, and for appropriate redress to be granted to them, including financial compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, free medical care and psychological rehabilitation, social and economic reintegration measures and guarantees of non-repetition accompanied by a public apology and a strong message condemning such acts and the impunity surrounding them.

On 20 July 2016, 30 May 2017, 9 February 2018 and 18 March 2022, the Committee requested the State party to submit its observations on the admissibility and merits of the communication. The Committee regrets that the State party has failed to respond to any of these requests and to provide any information with regard to the admissibility or the merits of the authors’ allegations. It recalls that article 4 (2) of the Optional Protocol obliges States parties to examine in good faith all allegations brought against them and to make available to the Committee all the information at their disposal. In the absence of a reply from the State party, due weight must be given to the authors’ allegations, to the extent that they are sufficiently substantiated.

Before considering any claim contained in a communication, the Committee must decide, in accordance with rule 97 of its rules of procedure, whether the communication is admissible under the Optional Protocol.

The Committee has ascertained, as required under article 5 (2) (a) of the Optional Protocol, that the same matter is not being examined under another procedure of international investigation or settlement.

Regarding the exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that, for the purposes of article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol, the author of a communication must make use of all administrative or judicial avenues that offer a reasonable prospect of redress.¹² The Committee notes that the State party has not contested the admissibility of any of the claims submitted. It also notes that almost 10 years have passed since the authors’ first complaint dated 26 June 2013, filed in response to the abduction and sexual assault of Furaha Lugumire, without an investigation having taken place and without the perpetrators of these acts having been identified, tried and punished. Therefore, since domestic remedies have been unreasonably prolonged, the Committee considers that these remedies are not effective or efficient and that it is not precluded from examining the present communication under article 5 (2) (b) of the Optional Protocol.

12. Colamarco Patiño v. Panama (CCPR/C/52/D/437/1990), para. 5.2. ↩

The Committee considers that the authors have sufficiently substantiated their allegations for the purposes of admissibility, and proceeds to consider the merits of the claims under articles 6 (1), 7 and 9 (1), read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and (3), 3 and 26 of the Covenant, in respect of the authors, articles 17 and 23 of the Covenant, in respect of Furaha Lugumire, and article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, in respect of Blaise Barhatulirwa.

The Committee has considered the present communication in the light of all the information submitted to it by the parties, in accordance with article 5 (1) of the Optional Protocol.

The Committee notes that the State party has not responded to the authors’ allegations and recalls its jurisprudence to the effect that the burden of proof should not rest solely on the author of a communication, especially given that the author and the State party do not always have the same degree of access to evidence and that often only the State party is in possession of the necessary information.¹³

13. See, inter alia, Berzig v. Algeria (CCPR/C/103/D/1781/2008), para. 8.3; and El Abani v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/99/D/1640/2007), para. 7.4. ↩

The authors claim that Furaha Lugumire’s right to life, which is protected by article 6 (1) of the Covenant, and right to security of person, which is protected by article 9 (1), were violated when the State party failed in its duty to provide her with adequate protection against the death threats that she had received and reported. In this connection, the Committee refers to its general comment No. 36 (2018) on the right to life, where it clarified that States parties may be in violation of article 6 even if such threats and situations do not result in loss of life.¹⁴ The obligation to protect the right to life requires States parties to take special measures of protection towards persons in vulnerable situations whose lives have been placed at particular risk because of specific threats or pre-existing patterns of violence.¹⁵ In the present case, Furaha Lugumire was caring for victims of sexual violence and conducting on-the-ground outreach activities on reporting perpetrators of sexual violence. In addition, she received specific threats, including death threats, which she promptly reported. The State party was therefore obliged to respond promptly and effectively to protect her from the specific threats made against her by adopting special measures.¹⁶ However, the State party did not apply any protection measures following the death threats received by Furaha Lugumire, nor did it initiate an investigation to examine the complaint made in this connection by Furaha Lugumire on 10 May 2013.

14. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 36 (2018), para. 7. ↩
15. Ibid., para. 23. On the situation of women human rights defenders, who are particularly vulnerable to attack and violence as a result of their work, see A/HRC/40/60. ↩
16. Idem. ↩

As for the claim under article 9 (1) of the Covenant, the Committee recalls its general comment No. 35 (2014), in which it stated that the right to security of person protects individuals against intentional infliction of bodily or mental injury, regardless of whether the victim is detained or non-detained. The right to personal security also obliges States parties to take appropriate measures in response to death threats against persons in the public sphere, and more generally to protect individuals from foreseeable threats to life or bodily integrity proceeding from any governmental or private actors. States parties must respond appropriately to patterns of violence against categories of victims, such as intimidation of human rights defenders and violence against women.¹⁷ In the present case, the Committee notes that Furaha Lugumire – who was a nurse in a private hospital known for providing free care to victims of sexual violence and who, in this capacity, had access to the details of alleged perpetrators of sexual violence – had been threatened because of her advocacy work on behalf of victims of sexual violence, which suggests that there was an objective need for the State to apply protection measures to ensure her safety. However, there is no evidence to suggest that such protection was ever provided. Instead, Furaha Lugumire was falsely imprisoned and raped, and was attacked again in September 2014, when she was with her husband. The Committee is of the opinion that the failure to conduct an investigation with a view to identifying those responsible for the death threats, abduction, multiple instances of rape and subsequent attack constitutes a denial of justice. Under these circumstances, the Committee concludes that the State party failed to take adequate measures to protect Furaha Lugumire’s right to security of person. In the absence of any information from the State party refuting these allegations, the Committee concludes that the State party failed in its duty to protect the right to life and to security of person of Furaha Lugumire, in violation of articles 6 (1) and 9 (1) of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3).

17. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 35 (2014), para. 9. ↩

The Committee notes the authors’ claims that the State party violated article 7 of the Covenant in respect of Furaha Lugumire by failing to comply with its positive obligation to prevent the sexual violence that she allegedly suffered during her three-day abduction, and that the authorities failed to provide her with protection, despite her having reported numerous threats in a criminal complaint submitted to the authorities several weeks before she was abducted and raped multiple times, and despite her having helped to identify potential suspects by providing the telephone numbers from which the threats against her had been made. The Committee notes that the marks left as a result of the sexual assault she suffered are corroborated by a forensic report. It recalls that, in its general comment No. 20 (1992), it stated that it is the duty of the State party to afford everyone protection through legislative and other measures as may be necessary against the acts prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant, whether inflicted by people acting in their official capacity, outside their official capacity or in a private capacity.¹⁸ The Committee notes that, in the present case, the threats made against Furaha Lugumire subsequently took the form of the sexual violence to which she was subjected during her abduction. It considers that, following the authors’ complaint, the State party’s authorities were aware of the specific danger facing Furaha Lugumire. In addition, the authorities were aware of the endemic sexual violence in the region and the systemic risk it posed to any girl or woman. This risk was particularly serious for a woman with the profile of Furaha Lugumire, who worked with victims of sexual violence and assisted them in identifying and prosecuting their rapists and attackers. The Committee concludes that, despite the State party’s obligation to protect against ill-treatment, which is triggered when the authorities knew or should have known of the risk of such treatment occurring, the State party’s authorities failed to exercise their special duty of care.

18. Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 20 (1992), para. 2. ↩

Regarding the State party’s obligation to properly investigate the authors’ allegations of torture, the Committee recalls its jurisprudence according to which criminal investigation and consequential prosecution are necessary remedies for violations of human rights such as those protected by article 7 of the Covenant.¹⁹ The Committee notes that, according to the documents on file, the investigation opened into the torture allegations in July 2013 was never concluded, despite the authors’ having made several attempts to restart the proceedings after the file had lain forgotten in the drawer of the inspector in charge of the investigation for almost two years, without it having been assigned a docket number and without any followup action having been taken. Instead of conducting a prompt and impartial investigation, the authorities brought criminal proceedings against Furaha Lugumire for spreading false accusations/rumours and inciting rebellion, which were eventually terminated for lack of evidence. In the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that the State party not only failed to discharge its obligation to protect Furaha Lugumire against the acts prohibited by article 7 of the Covenant, but also actively carried out acts of deterrence, threats and reprisals by bringing libel proceedings against her. Furthermore, the State party failed to comply with its obligation to effectively investigate the authors’ allegations of torture with a view to providing Furaha Lugumire with the opportunity to obtain redress for the harm she had suffered, including the financial means to obtain the necessary medical care. In the absence of any information to the contrary from the State party, the Committee concludes that the facts before it disclose a violation of Furaha Lugumire’s rights under article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3).

19. Ibid., para. 14; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 31 (2004), para. 18. ↩

The Committee also notes the authors’ allegation that Furaha Lugumire was discriminated against because she is a woman in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, because of her professional activities as an advocate for victims of sexual violence and because she herself is a victim of sexual violence. They argue that the indifference and discriminatory attitude of the authorities towards Furaha Lugumire were borne out not only in their failure to take measures to protect her and to launch an effective investigation in order to identify and punish those responsible for abducting her and raping her multiple times by using the telephone numbers of the persons who had threatened her and who could thus be identified as potential suspects, but also in the bringing of criminal proceedings against her for spreading false accusations of sexual abuse, in violation of her rights under articles 2 (1), 3 and 26, read in conjunction with articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant. The Committee recalls that, by its nature, sexual violence affects women in particular,²⁰ that women are particularly vulnerable in times of internal or international armed conflict and that, in such situations, States must take all measures necessary to protect women from rape, abduction and all other forms of gender-based violence.²¹ Among these measures, States must ensure that victims of sexual violence have effective access to justice, including adequate measures of reparation.²² These measures are all the more important,²³ as they help to prevent the revictimization of victims of sexual violence.²⁴ In view of the failure to apply protection measures and to launch an effective investigation, as well as the bringing of criminal proceedings against Furaha Lugumire, the Committee considers that the State party has contributed to the vulnerability, stigmatization, marginalization and revictimization of Furaha Lugumire as a victim of sexual violence.²⁵ In addition, the failure by a State to offer reparation to women victims of violence may constitute tacit permission or encouragement not to do so, thereby exacerbating their vulnerability.²⁶ The Committee therefore considers that the State party failed to discharge its obligation to protect Furaha Lugumire from discrimination on the basis of her gender and professional activities, in violation of articles 2 (1), 3 and 26, read in conjunction with articles 6, 7 and 9 of the Covenant.²⁷

20. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 35 (2017), para. 6. ↩
21. Nyaya v. Nepal (CCPR/C/125/D/2556/2015), para. 7.3; and Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 28 (2000), para. 8. ↩
22. Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 35 (2017), paras. 26 (c), 32 and 33. ↩
23. See Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, general recommendation No. 30 (2013). ↩
24. See, among others, A/HRC/13/63; United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Progress and Obstacles in the Fight against Impunity for Sexual Violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (April 2014); and Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Report of the Panel on Remedies and Reparations for Victims of Sexual Violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the High Commissioner for Human Rights (March 2011). ↩
25. Nyaya v. Nepal, para. 7.3. ↩
26. X. v. Timor-Leste (CEDAW/C/69/D/88/2015), para. 6.7. ↩
27. Chakupewa et al. v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/131/D/2835/2016), para. 6.4. ↩

Lastly, the Committee notes that, as a result of the sexual violence inflicted on her, Furaha Lugumire suffered an invasion of her privacy and family life and was stigmatized by society and her relatives, and that, after her abduction, she and her family have continued to be the target of attacks and attempts at intimidation in the street and by telephone. The Committee notes the undeniable impact of the stigma suffered by Furaha Lugumire on her marriage, her private life, her children and her family life in general. It recalls that Blaise Barhatulirwa’s family urged him to abandon his wife by promising to contribute to the dowry for another marriage. The Committee also notes that it was because of these attempts at intimidation and threats that the authors were forced to change their place of residence in November 2014 and to flee the country, which cost Furaha Lugumire her job. This has had a negative effect on the socioeconomic situation of the authors, who are being forced to live in a small house with their six children, with limited income and without the financial means to allow their children to attend school. In this regard, the Committee notes that the authors had to abandon their home in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and sell all their possessions to survive in Uganda. The Committee recalls that the detrimental effect on the authors’ family life raises questions under article 17 of the Covenant, read in conjunction with article 23 (1). In the absence of observations from the State party and taking into account all the circumstances of the present case, the Committee considers that these facts constitute arbitrary and unlawful interference with Furaha Lugumire’s privacy, home and family. Accordingly, the Committee concludes that the State party has violated Furaha Lugumire’s rights under article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 23 of the Covenant.²⁸

28. Muhirhi v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/131/D/2772/2016), para. 6.9; and Lumbala Tshidika v. Democratic Republic of the Congo (CCPR/C/115/D/2214/2012), para. 6.7. ↩

The Committee also notes the anguish and distress caused to Blaise Barhatulirwa by the abduction of his wife and the sexual violence that she suffered over a period of three days, which was exacerbated by the stigma attached to victims of sexual violence and their relatives by society and within the family in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, by the authorities’ failure to launch an investigation and to provide protection, which led to a direct attack against his person in September 2014, and by the stress and precariousness brought on by his forced exile. The Committee considers that the facts before it disclose a violation of article 7 of the Covenant, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3), in respect of Blaise Barhatulirwa.²⁹

29. See, mutatis mutandis, Mezine v. Algeria (CCPR/C/106/D/1779/2008/Rev.1), para. 8.6; and El Hassy v. Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (CCPR/C/91/D/1422/2005), para. 6.11. See also, mutatis mutandis, InterAmerican Court of Human Rights, Bedoya Lima et al. v. Colombia, Judgment of 26 August 2021, Series C, No. 431, para. 158 et seq. ↩

The Committee, acting under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, is of the view that the facts before it disclose a violation by the State party of articles 6 (1), 7 and 9 (1), read alone and in conjunction with articles 2 (1) and (3), 3 and 26 of the Covenant, in respect of the authors, of article 17, read alone and in conjunction with article 23 of the Covenant, in respect of Furaha Lugumire, and of article 7, read alone and in conjunction with article 2 (3) of the Covenant, in respect of Blaise Barhatulirwa.

Pursuant to article 2 (3) (a) of the Covenant, the State party is under an obligation to provide the author with an effective remedy. This requires it to make full reparation to individuals whose Covenant rights have been violated. Accordingly, the State party is required, inter alia, to take appropriate measures to: (a) continue in a prompt, effective, thorough, independent, impartial and transparent manner the investigation of the facts alleged by the authors in their three criminal complaints; (b) prosecute and try those responsible for the alleged violations and punish them in a manner that is commensurate with the gravity of the violations; (c) provide the authors with detailed information about the results of the investigations; and (d) provide the authors with adequate compensation, including the means necessary to cover the cost of medical care and psychological rehabilitation, and social and economic reintegration measures. The State party is also under an obligation to take steps to prevent similar violations in the future. In particular, it should ensure that its legislation forbids and offers protection against the stigmatization of victims of sexual violence and their relatives by society and by members of their family. Domestic legislation should also define rape and other forms of sexual violence in a manner consistent with international standards, ensure that cases of rape and other forms of sexual violence are promptly, impartially and effectively investigated, and enable the criminal prosecution of the perpetrators of such acts.

Bearing in mind that, by becoming a party to the Optional Protocol, the State party has recognized the competence of the Committee to determine whether there has been a violation of the Covenant and that, pursuant to article 2 of the Covenant, the State party has undertaken to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the Covenant and to provide an effective and enforceable remedy when it has been determined that a violation has occurred, the Committee wishes to receive from the State party, within 180 days, information about the measures taken to give effect to the present Views. The State party is also requested to publish the present Views and to have them widely disseminated in the official language of the State party.