Beyond the Verdict: The Lumbala Trial and the Promise of Justice for International Crimes in the DRC

More than 20 years after atrocities committed during the Second Congo War, the French Cour d’assises de Paris delivered a landmark judgment against former minister and armed group leader Roger Lumbala. But beyond the verdict itself, the trial is also significant for how it underscored key elements of international justice, including the organisation of the proceedings, the participation of victims and witnesses, and the legal innovations that allowed the Court to address the full scope of harm inflicted in the north-east of the DRC. The Lumbala trial demonstrates that accountability is possible – even decades after the facts – and that it requires meticulous judicial, logistical, and humanitarian efforts.

A long-awaited moment of accountability

On 15 December 2025, the Cour d’assises de Paris delivered a verdict that may come to define a turning point in the fight against impunity for international crimes in the DRC. Roger Lumbala Tshitenga, a former Congolese minister and armed group leader, was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for complicity in crimes against humanity committed during the Second Congo War.

For many observers, the significance of this decision lies not only in the conviction itself, but in what it represents. For the first time, atrocities committed during the 1998-2003 conflict have been adjudicated by a national court – whether in the DRC or abroad. This is a remarkable development given the scale of violence that characterised the war and the decades of near-total impunity that followed.

Over the years, numerous reports have documented widespread and systematic abuses committed by a wide range of actors during the conflict. Yet accountability has remained limited, often constrained by political sensitivities, institutional weaknesses, and the sheer complexity of investigating crimes committed in unstable environments. In this context, the Lumbala trial stands out as a rare and significant breakthrough.

More broadly, it illustrates the essential role that courts outside the country where crimes occurred can play when domestic justice systems are unable or unwilling to act. It demonstrates that, even when time has passed and circumstances are challenging, justice can still be pursued through persistence, cooperation, and the use of appropriate legal tools.

A campaign designed to destroy

The case centres on events that took place in 2002 in eastern DRC, at a time when the region was engulfed in one of the deadliest conflicts since the Second World War. Multiple armed groups and foreign armies were involved, competing for territory, influence, and access to natural resources.

Roger Lumbala was at the time the leader of the armed group Congolese Rally for National Democracy (RCD-N), which operated in the north-eastern part of the country. During a military campaign known as “Erasing the Board,” his forces carried out a series of attacks that would later form the basis of the charges against him.

The name of the operation itself is revealing. It suggests not only a military objective, but a broader intent to eliminate opposition entirely, including civilian populations perceived as aligned with rival groups. In practice, this translated into a campaign of violence marked by its systematic and indiscriminate nature.

Villages were attacked and burned, civilians were killed, and entire communities were forced to flee. In just 17 days, United Nations investigators documented at least 173 killings. Survivors described scenes of extreme brutality, including acts of torture, widespread rape, forced labour, and the destruction of homes and infrastructure.

The violence disproportionately affected vulnerable groups, including the Nande population and Bambuti indigenous communities. These groups were not only targeted physically, but also stripped of their means of survival. Food supplies were looted, livestock seized, and tools destroyed, leaving communities unable to sustain themselves.

The impact of this campaign extended far beyond the immediate violence. It disrupted social structures, eroded trust within communities, and created conditions of long-term insecurity and poverty. For many survivors, the consequences of what happened in 2002 are still part of their daily reality.

The long road to justice

Despite the scale and gravity of these crimes, it would take many years before any form of accountability was pursued.

The proceedings in France began in 2016, following the rejection of Roger Lumbala’s asylum application. French authorities, acting under their legal obligation to report alleged crimes, referred the case to the public prosecutor. This marked the starting point of a judicial process that would unfold over nearly a decade.

Investigators faced considerable challenges from the outset. The crimes had taken place more than 20 years prior, in remote and conflict-affected areas of the DRC. Direct access to crime scenes was not possible, and cooperation with Congolese authorities was limited, particularly in the early stages of the investigation.

Despite these constraints, the investigation progressed through the careful collection and analysis of a wide range of evidence. This included testimonies from victims and witnesses, as well as documentation produced at the time by the United Nations, NGOs, and other actors. Internal records from the armed group, media reports, and expert analyses were also used to reconstruct the events.

Roger Lumbala was arrested in France at the end of 2020. A full-fledged investigation followed, leading to his indictment in 2023. After a series of procedural steps and appeals, the case finally went to trial in November 2025.

Over the course of five weeks, the Court heard from dozens of witnesses and experts. Some participants travelled from the DRC to testify in person, while others appeared via videolink due to security and logistical constraints. The proceedings brought together a wide range of perspectives, including survivors, former members of the armed group, journalists, and specialists in areas such as conflict-related sexual violence and indigenous rights.

Taken together, this body of evidence allowed the Court to reconstruct the events with a high degree of precision, despite the passage of time and the challenges of distance.

Organisation and participation in the trial

A crucial but often overlooked aspect of the Lumbala trial was the way it was organised to allow secure and meaningful participation of victims and witnesses from the DRC. The trial was not just a judicial process: it was a complex logistical and humanitarian undertaking.

French authorities, drawing on their prior experience with universal jurisdiction cases, anticipated months in advance the needs of witnesses and victims. They ensured travel, accommodation, and living expenses, while coordinating security with NGOs and Congolese authorities. Cooperation with MONUSCO enabled video testimony from Bunia and Kinshasa for those unable to travel to Paris, guaranteeing access to justice despite insecurity and distance.

The participation of victims was central not only logistically but substantively. Interpreters in Swahili and Lingala allowed witnesses to testify in their own languages, while psychosocial support organised by civil party NGOs helped survivors cope with trauma and engage meaningfully in the proceedings. This dimension demonstrates that international crimes trials involve more than legal scrutiny: they require careful organisation where the safety, dignity, and well-being of victims are integral to the process.

The accused’s choice not to participate in his trial

One of the most striking features of the Lumbala trial was the absence of the accused himself.

From the first day of hearings, Lumbala openly challenged the legitimacy of the proceedings. He raised objections to the Court’s jurisdiction and accused civil parties of manipulating evidence. At the end of the first day of trial, he decided to stop attending and fired his legal team.

This situation placed the Court in a complex position. The right of an accused person to be present at trial and to be represented by counsel is fundamental to a fair trial. At the same time, allowing proceedings to be halted by a defendant’s refusal to participate risks undermining the course of justice.

Faced with this dilemma, the Court chose to continue the proceedings while taking steps to safeguard fairness: Lumbala’s prior statements were presented in court, and he was informed of the progress of the trial on a daily basis. He retained the possibility to return and participate at any time.

In the end, the Court concluded that his absence was a deliberate and informed choice. This approach reflects a broader principle in international justice: while the rights of the accused must be protected, they cannot be used as a means to obstruct accountability.

The voices at the centre: victims and survivors

If the absence of the accused was one defining feature of the trial, the presence of victims and survivors was another.

More than twenty years after the events, individuals who had lived through the violence came forward to testify. Their participation was central to the proceedings, not only in providing evidence, but also in giving a human dimension to the case.

For many, the journey to testify was long and difficult. Some travelled from remote and volatile regions of the DRC, navigating logistical and security challenges to reach Paris. Others testified via video link. In all cases, their participation required courage, given the risks and the emotional burden of revisiting traumatic experiences.

Their testimonies were detailed and consistent, describing not only acts of violence, but also the broader impact on their lives. They spoke of the loss of family members, the destruction of their homes, and the lasting effects of these acts both on themselves and on their communities.

Particularly significant was the role of survivors of sexual violence. In many contexts, such crimes remain underreported due to stigma, fear, and lack of trust in institutions. In this case, several women came forward to share their experiences. Their testimonies played a crucial role in shaping the Court’s understanding of the crimes. The judges recognised rape as a form of torture and, in some cases, sexual slavery as a form of enslavement. This recognition is important not only for the victims involved, but also for the broader effort to ensure that such crimes are fully acknowledged and addressed.

Understanding the full scope of violence: recognising crimes against property

The Court’s reasoning highlights the comprehensive nature of harm inflicted during the campaign. While killings and physical violence are often central to charges in international criminal law, the 2002 campaign also involved acts that systematically devastated communities.

Traditionally, acts such as pillage or economic deprivation were prosecuted primarily as war crimes, and not automatically as crimes against humanity. Yet the Court recognised that deliberate looting and destruction of homes, food stocks, and essential assets were integral to a system of widespread and systematic attacks against a civilian population. These acts were thus classified as other inhumane acts as crimes against humanity, reflecting a significant legal innovation: harm that destroys social and economic structures can constitute a crime against humanity when committed as part of a broader campaign of persecution.

Civilians were often forced to carry looted goods, compounding their suffering and reinforcing the coercive nature of the campaign. The destruction of livelihoods and infrastructure pushed families into extreme poverty, undermining recovery. The Court held that the long-term impact on access to food, healthcare, education, and social cohesion were inseparable from the physical violence, making them legally relevant to criminal responsibility.

Looking forward: justice as a foundation for the future

The relevance of the Lumbala trial extends beyond the past. Many of the dynamics that characterised the conflict – armed violence, competition over resources, and limited accountability – continue to affect eastern DRC today.

In this context, the trial serves as both a reminder and a warning. It highlights the consequences of failing to address impunity and underscores the importance of integrating justice into broader efforts to build peace. As Denis Mukwege emphasised following the verdict, the case demonstrates that accountability is possible, even decades after the crimes. It also points to the need for comprehensive approaches that include truth-seeking, reparations, and institutional reform.

The Lumbala trial stands as a powerful example of what can be achieved through persistence, cooperation, and the commitment of those seeking justice. Despite the passage of time, the challenges of distance, and the obstacles encountered along the way, the Court was able to establish responsibility and deliver a verdict that acknowledges the suffering of victims.

Above all, it reaffirms a fundamental principle: justice matters. Not only for those who have suffered, but for societies as a whole, and for the possibility of a more just and accountable future.