INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING
ARMED ACTIVITIES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
v.
UGANDA
UGANDA’s COMMENTS ON THE DRC’s RESPONSES TO THE
QUESTIONS FROM THE COURT DATED 11 JUNE 2018
7 JANUARY 2019
i
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1
....................................................................................................... 9
..................................................................................................... 53
..................................................................................................... 71
..................................................................................................... 83
................................................................................................... 103
................................................................................................... 115
................................................................................................... 117
................................................................................................... 123
................................................................................................... 131
................................................................................................. 135
................................................................................................. 139
................................................................................................. 149
................................................................................................. 153
................................................................................................. 163
................................................................................................. 169
................................................................................................. 177
................................................................................................. 179
LIST OF APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 185
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the Court’s letter dated 4 December 2018 (no. 151390), Uganda
respectfully submits these comments on the DRC’s responses to the Court’s
questions to the Parties under Article 62 of its Rules.
Uganda is grateful to the Court for the opportunity to submit these
comments. It also appreciates the Court’s flexibility in adjusting the time-limit for
this submission in light of the difficulties the DRC experienced in submitting its
responses, particularly the annexes thereto, in a timely and orderly fashion.
Uganda’s specific comments on each of the DRC’s responses to the Court’s 17
questions are set forth in the pages that follow this Introduction. Uganda here offers
comments of a general nature that relate to the content of the DRC’s responses as a
whole.
Uganda observes first that despite having been given an opportunity to
address the concerns raised by the Court, the DRC’s responses generally do not
answer the questions the Court actually asked. Instead, they largely recapitulate the
same arguments made in, based on the same evidence presented with, the DRC
Memorial.
Where the Court requested further evidence, the DRC largely fails to
comply. Instead, it presents many of the same materials previously submitted with
its Memorial, only repackaged with new annex numbers. Yet, as Uganda explained
in its Counter-Memorial, these materials lack probative value and are wholly devoid
of the specificity the Court previously indicated would be required to sustain the
DRC’s reparation claims.1
1 See Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda),
Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2005 (hereinafter “Armed Activities (2005)”), para. 259 (stating that the
2
Of the new evidence the DRC submits with its responses, most are the
“victim identification forms” the Court solicited in Question 1. As Uganda will
explain in its comments to Question 1, these forms, viewed individually and
collectively, do not constitute reliable evidence on which an award of compensation
can be based. A majority do not even identify the victims of the harm alleged,
referring to them instead only as “non signalé”. In addition, not a single victim
identification form is connected to corroborating documentation of any kind. Other
problems include—but are not limited to—the facts that many of the forms are
illegible, state that the alleged perpetrators (“auteurs présumés”) was someone other
than Uganda and/or fail to indicate a valuation for the injury alleged.
Quite apart from the flaws that are evident on the face of the DRC’s victim
identification forms, there are also broader, systemic reasons to doubt their
reliability. According to the DRC Memorial, sometime after 2005 the DRC created
a “Commission of Experts” that engaged in “extensive data collection” and
dispatched “teams” to various locations to gather signed “claims forms” from
victims setting out the injury they allegedly suffered.2 In other words, the victim
identification forms were prepared years after the events in question by a selfinterested
party specially for purposes of this case. Indeed, the DRC itself admits
that the “work of gathering information from the victims was conducted several
years after the end of the war and proved to be particularly difficult and delicate”
DRC “would thus be given the opportunity to demonstrate and prove the exact injury that was
suffered as a result of specific actions of Uganda constituting internationally wrongful acts for which
it is responsible”).
2 Memorial of the Democratic Republic of Congo on Reparation (Sept. 2016) (hereinafter “DRCM”),
paras. 1.30-1.35.
3
because victims had “difficulty… in recalling specific circumstances” and “finding
official documents”.3
Aside from the very brief “explanation” just quoted, the DRC has also failed
to provide a detailed description of its methodology for collecting its victim
identification forms. This failure gives rise to obvious concerns: when a government
official approaches someone and indicates that an international court may render
compensation in his/her favour provided that he/she fills out a form, there are
reasonable doubts as to whether objective information is actually being gathered.
These concerns are only heightened in the absence of corroborating evidence,
especially in circumstances where such evidence should exist, whether in the form
of photographs, invoices, medical records, reconstruction estimates, police reports
and so on.
The DRC tries to excuse its failure to produce better evidence with the
assertions that “Uganda had an interest in eliminating the traces of the evidence that
could be used against it”4 and “the Ugandan occupation had not allowed the
Government of the DRC to conduct an exhaustive count of the persons who suffered
injuries as a result of the war of aggression”.5 Uganda categorically rejects the first
3 DRCM, para. 1.33 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “Ce travail de collecte des
informations auprès des victimes elles-mêmes, réalisé plusieurs années après la fin de la guerre, s’est
révélé particulièrement difficile et délicat. Plusieurs éléments ont rendu complexe la récolte de
preuves sur le terrain, comme:- le faible niveau d’instruction de la majorité des victimes;- la
difficulté pour ces dernières de se remémorer les circonstances précises d’événements à la fois
profondément traumatisants et parfois déjà anciens;- les difficultés de retrouver les documents
officiels comme les pièces d’identités, certificats de décès, etc. pour toute la période de guerre qui
s’est caractérisée par une désorganisation profonde de tous les services administratifs et publics”).
4 Response to the Court’s Questions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (26 Nov. 2018)
(hereinafter “DRCRQ”) p. 2 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “l’Ouganda avait intérêt à
effacer les traces des preuves qui pouvaient être utilisées en sa défaveur”).
5 DRCRQ para. 1.2 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “l’occupation ougandaise n’avait
pas permis au gouvernement de la RDC de faire un recensement exhaustif des personnes ayant subi
un préjudice du fait de la guerre d’agression”).
4
allegation. The DRC does not point to any evidence of such Ugandan conduct and
there were no findings in that regard in the Court’s 2005 judgment. The DRC’s
assertion is just that: a bald and baseless assertion. There is, moreover, no precedent
in international law for any such presumption.
With respect to the DRC’s second excuse, Uganda observes that nothing
stopped the DRC from gathering evidence—if it existed—as of the date of
Uganda’s final departure from the DRC (June 2003). Photographs could have been
taken. Detailed and signed declarations contemporaneous with, or at least close to,
the events in question could have been obtained. Medical records reconstruction
estimates or invoices and other documents could have been collected. Yet the DRC
appears to have waited years before doing anything, despite the fact that this case
was already pending before the Court.
The DRC’s behaviour in this case stands in stark contrast with claimants’
actions following the 1900-91 Gulf War and the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict. Unlike
the DRC, claimants before both the UN Compensation Committee (“UNCC”) and
Ethiopia-Eritrea Claims Commission (“EECC”) were able to gather detailed,
reliable evidence of the kind indicated above.
Even more telling, the DRC failure to come forward with evidence in this
case compares unfavourably with the efforts of DRC victims in the Lubanga and
Katanga cases before the International Criminal Court (“ICC”), who suffered harm
in the same overall time and place. In those cases, both of which related to conduct
in the context of the conflict in Ituri, private Congolese individuals were able to
come forward with reliable documentary evidence to prove their claims. Here, in
contrast, the DRC has effectively presented the Court with an evidentiary void
despite having all the resources of a government available to it. In Uganda’s view,
this is more likely because the evident does not support the DRC’s excessive claims,
not for either of the reasons it states.
5
In addition to requesting further evidence, the Court also asked the DRC to
explain its methodologies in certain critical respects. Here again, rather than provide
the requested explanations, the DRC largely repeats the arguments from its
Memorial that Uganda already refuted in its Counter-Memorial.
Indeed, the explanations the DRC offers only confirm that its compensation
claims are not grounded in evidence showing the specific injury caused by specific
wrongful acts attributable to Uganda. Rather, as illustrated by the DRC’s responses
to Questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15, its claims are driven by
arbitrary “percentages”, “distribution keys”, “multipliers”, “estimations”,
“generalizations”, “approximations” and “lump sum amounts”, the combination of
which leads to wildly exorbitant compensation claims that have no basis in fact.
The DRC’s “methodologies” appear designed to circumvent the evidentiary
showings traditionally required in inter-State proceedings, which, as Uganda
showed in its Counter-Memorial, entail coming forward with clear, reliable and
direct evidence of specific harms, a causal nexus between those harms and
internationally wrongful actions of Uganda, and the valuation of those the harms.6
The DRC’s approach, such as it is, more closely resembles the specialised
techniques characteristic of a mass claims proceeding, such as those that were used
by the UNCC. Under that approach, two or more States may agree (or the Security
Council may decide) to set aside the traditional international law rules on reparation,
in favour of a process involving lump-sum awards to each member of an entire class
of claimants, without differentiating among them based on the harm that they
actually suffered. These lump-sum amounts may be designed to vary by category
of harm, and may entail minimal evidentiary showings for lower lump-sum amounts
6 Counter-Memorial of Uganda on Reparation (6 Feb. 2018) (hereinafter “UCM”), paras. 4.6-4.44.
6
but with the possibility of higher lump-sum amounts for higher evidentiary
showings.
That said, the DRC’s approach in this case lacks the safeguards associated
with mass claims techniques, which are very sophisticated and typically involve the
production by each claimant of at least minimal evidence. That evidence is then
well-organized into a database and tested through highly-specialised techniques of
data-matching, statistical sampling and regression analysis. One important feature
of these specialized techniques is that if the random sampling of the evidence for a
category of claims reveals that a percentage of the sampled evidence is inadequate
to establish the sampled claims, then compensation for all claims in that category is
automatically reduced by that percentage.
Even as it appears to want to utilize a mass claims-type approach (albeit
without any of the actual steps and safeguards associated with that approach), the
DRC does not identify any legal basis for its use in the context of a proceeding
before this Court (—because there is none).
Viewed as a whole, it is clear that the DRC’s request is not grounded in law.
It amounts instead to a request that the Court impermissibly decide this matter ex
aequo et bono or impose punitive damages on Uganda that have nothing to do with
the harm actually suffered. The DRC’s request is therefore inconsistent with the
traditional rules of State responsibility, with the Statute of the Court, and with the
express terms of the 2005 Judgment.
Uganda reiterates that it is mindful of the seriousness of the Court’s
determinations in the 2005 Judgment. It does not in any way seek to question those
findings. At the same time, the very seriousness of those findings underscores the
fact that the Court has, in effect, already awarded the DRC significant reparation in
the form of satisfaction. And while the Court did rule that Uganda is under an
7
obligation to make reparation for the injury caused, that obligation is specifically
conditioned on the Court’s instruction to the DRC to prove the exact injury it
suffered as a result of specific wrongful acts by Uganda.
Despite having had more than 12 years to do that, and despite having been
afforded an opportunity to rehabilitate its case, the DRC still has not provided the
Court the evidence or the explanations necessary to support the inordinate amount
of compensation that it claims.
8
9
Could the Democratic Republic of Congo (hereinafter DRC) provide
the “victim identification forms” that were prepared and collected
by the DRC’s Expert Commission, as well as any additional evidence
it might have regarding individual victims?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response
1.1 The DRC’s Response to Question 1 is accompanied by 45 annexes, six of
which contain, among other things, the “victim identification forms” that were
prepared and collected by the DRC’s Expert Commission.7 None of those 45
annexes, however, contains evidence supporting the reparations the DRC claims.
1.2 The first two annexes (Annexes 1.0.1 and 1.0.2) are UN General Assembly
resolutions cited in the text of the DRC’s response to Question 1. The next 41
annexes (Annexes 1.1 to 1.10.F) contain either the victim identification forms or
lists and tables nominally summarizing the contents of those forms. The last two
annexes consist of a video relating to hostilities in Kisangani (Annex 1.11) and a
report prepared by the DRC (Annex 1.12).
1.3 Section I of these comments explains why the DRC’s victim identification
forms and related materials do not constitute reliable evidence supporting the
DRC’s reparation claims. Section II shows briefly why the video and report the
DRC submits do not do so either.
7 These annexes are DRCRQ Annexes 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, and 1.5.1.
10
The Victim Identification Forms Fail to Provide the Evidence
Necessary to Justify the Reparation Claimed by the DRC
A. THE DRC’S ANNEXES
1.4 As stated, the DRC’s response to Question 1 is accompanied by 41 annexes
(Annexes 1.1 to 1.10.F) relating to the victim identification forms. The DRC does
not explain how to navigate those annexes, however.8 Uganda will therefore do so.
1.5 The first six annexes (Annexes 1.1 to 1.5.1) are electronic file folders9
containing the victim identification forms. These six folders are organized by
region:
• Annex 1.1 for Beni;
• Annex 1.2 for Butembo;
• Annex 1.3 for Gemena;
• Annex 1.4 for Ituri;
• Annex 1.5 for Kisangani; and
• Annex 1.5.1 for additional Kisangani files obtained from victims’
associations.10
8 In its Response, the DRC merely states that the victim identification forms may be found in
Annexes 1.1 to 1.5. DRCRQ, para. 1.8. The DRC fails to mention that there are also forms in Annex
1.5.1, and the DRC fails to make any reference to any of the other 35 annexes.
9 For purposes of this analysis, Uganda only examined in detail the electronic files the DRC
submitted. The DRC’s electronic files were better organized and easier to navigate than the bound
volumes of documents the DRC also submitted to the Court.
10 DRCRQ, para. 1.11.
11
1.6 In its Memorial, the DRC asserted that “nearly 10,000 forms (two- to fourpage
documents) were completed”.11 The number of victim identification forms
presented with the DRC’s response to Question 1 is much less than that, however.
Annexes 1.1 to 1.5.1 contain only 4,645 such forms.12 Moreover, the large majority
of them are only one page, not two to four pages, as the DRC stated in its Memorial.
1.7 An example of a typical victim identification form from Annex 1.1 is
reproduced below:
11 DRCM, para. 1.35.
12 These 4,645 victim identification forms are contained across 6,295 files. There is a greater number
of files than forms because some forms are multiple pages long, with each page constituting a
separate file. Annex 1.1 contains 1,003 victim identification forms (across 1,027 files); Annex 1.2
contains 301 victim identification forms (across 445 files); Annex 1.3 contains 24 victim
identification forms (across 40 files); Annex 1.4 contains 1,808 victim identification forms (across
1,808 files); Annex 1.5 contains 1,499 victim identification forms (across 2,610 files); Annex 1.5.1
contains 10 victim identification forms (across 64 files).
12
Annex 1.1 (Fiches d’identification de BENI)
File “BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_002”
1.8 Annexes 1.1 to 1.5.1 contain more than just victim identification forms. An
additional 1,120 single-page files are interspersed (apparently at random)
throughout the relevant folders.13 Among these 1,120 files, 230 are handwritten
13 Annexes 1.1 to 1.5.1 contain a total of 7,415 files (Annex 1.1 contains 1,141 files; Annex 1.2
contains 672 files; Annex 1.3 contains 41 files; Annex 1.4 contains 2,442 files; Annex 1.5 contains
13
claims tables14 that the DRC appears also to rely on in making its reparation
claim,15 even though the DRC made no mention of such tables in its Memorial or
its response Question 1. An example of one such handwritten claims table appears
below:
Annex 1.5 (Fiches d’identification de KISANGANI)
File “Copie (2) de KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_056”
3,045 files; Annex 1.5.1 contains 74 files). 6,295 files are pages of victim identification forms; 230
files are handwritten claims tables; the remaining 890 files are stray files.
14 Annex 1.2 contains 135 handwritten claims tables; Annex 1.5 contains 85 handwritten claims
tables; Annex 1.5.1 contains 10 handwritten claims tables.
15 Some entries on the valuation lists, as introduced below, refer to claims recorded in handwritten
claims tables.
14
1.9 The remaining 890 files contained in Annexes 1.1 to 1.5.1 are a hodgepodge
of seemingly stray files with no evident connection to any victim
identification form. These include completely blank files, handwritten lists and
other miscellaneous files. Examples are shown below:
Annex 1.1 (Fiches d’identification de BENI)
File “BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0006_001 – Copie”
15
Annex 1.2 (Fiches d’identification de BUTEMBO)
File “CCF22082016_0032_006”
16
Annex 1.3 (Fiches d’identification de GEMENA)
File “GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_005”
17
Annex 1.4 (Fiches d’identification de ITURI)
File “ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_053”
1.10 The remaining 35 annexes relating to the victim identification forms
(Annexes 1.6 to 1.10.F) are lists and tables allegedly summarizing the contents of
the victim identification forms and handwritten claims tables. These lists and tables
were previously submitted with the DRC Memorial, only with different annex
numbers. There are seven annexes for each of five regions. Annexes 1.6 to 1.6.F,
for example, concern Beni.
• Annex 1.6 (“Evaluation décès Beni”) is a valuation list relating to
claimed deaths;
18
• Annex 1.6.A (“Evaluation fuite Beni”) is a valuation list relating to
claimed displacements;
• Annex 1.6.B (“Evaluation lésions Beni”) is a valuation list relating to
claimed personal injuries;
• Annex 1.6.C (“Evaluation pertes biens Beni”) is a valuation list relating
to claimed property loss or damage;
• Annex 1.6.D (“Tableau synthèse des évaluation pertes des biens Beni”)
is a synthesizing table relating to the valuation of property allegedly lost
or damaged;
• Annex 1.6.E (“Liste des biens perdus Beni”) is a list of property
allegedly lost or damaged; and
• Annex 1.6.F (“Tableau synthèse des effectifs pertes des biens Beni”) is
a synthesizing table relating to the total numbers of property items
allegedly lost or damaged.
Annexes 1.7 to 1.10.F are organized in the same way but for the other regions:
Annexes 1.7 to 1.7.F relate to Butembo; Annexes 1.8 to 1.8.F relate to Gemena;
Annexes 1.9 to 1.9.F relate to Ituri; and Annexes 1.10 to 1.10.F relate to Kisangani.
1.11 The most important of these annexes are the valuation lists, which purport
to aggregate the valuations derived from the victim identification forms to
determine the amount of reparation the DRC claims, at least for some of its
claims.16
16 See, e.g., DRCM, paras. 7.45-7.46.
19
1.12 The valuation lists contain a total of 8,930 entries. Each entry ostensibly
captures the valuation of the harm reflected in a victim identification form17 or an
entry in a handwritten claims table. (There are more entries in the valuation lists
than there are victim identification forms largely because some forms claim more
than one type of harm, such as personal injury and property damage.)
1.13 The electronic file name of the victim identification form (or handwritten
claims table18) is listed in the top-right corner of each entry on the valuation lists.
For example, the first entry of the valuation list for deaths in Beni, Annex 1.6, is
as follows:
Annex 1.6 (Evaluation décès Beni)
Entry 1 (Page 1)
1.14 The file name of the victim identification form corresponding to this entry
is: “BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_027”. In this case, the form may be found in Annex
1.1 (Fiches d’identification de BENI).
17 A single victim identification form may be summarized on different valuation lists if, for example,
there are multiple types of harm (death, personal injury, displacement, property loss or damage)
alleged on a single victim identification form.
18 For simplicity, and since the large majority of entries are based on a victim identification form
rather than a handwritten claims table, the remainder of these Comments on the DRC’s Response to
Question 1 will refer only to “victim identification forms” to encompass both such forms and
handwritten claims tables.
20
B. UGANDA’S METHODOLOGY IN ANALYSING THE ANNEXES
1.15 Uganda has undertaken to determine whether or not the DRC’s victim
identification forms “demonstrate and prove the exact injury that was suffered as
a result of specific actions of Uganda constituting internationally wrongful acts for
which it is responsible”.19 Specifically, Uganda sought to verify whether the entries
on the valuation lists are supported by the underlying victim identification forms.
1.16 In light of the limited time available to it, Uganda decided to sample every
tenth entry on each valuation list (i.e., entries 1, 11, 21, 31, etc.) and examine the
underlying victim identification form.20 All of these sampled entries, along with
the corresponding file names of the underlying victim identification forms, are
listed in Appendix 1 (for deaths), Appendix 2 (for displacements), Appendix 3 (for
personal injuries) and Appendix 4 (for property loss or damage). In the end,
Uganda examined 904 out of the 8,930 total entries on the DRC’s valuation lists.
Below are the number of entries sampled for each of the DRC’s 20 valuation lists:
Deaths Displacements
Personal
Injuries
Property
Loss or
Damage
Total
Beni 30 of 292 45 of 446 14 of 133 84 of 836
173 of
1,707
19 Armed Activities (2005), para. 260 (emphasis added).
20 Uganda based its sample on the valuation lists, not on the victim identification forms, because, as
the DRC itself admitted, the victim identification forms in Annexes 1.1 to 1.5.1 are not all relevant
to the present proceedings, and thus were not all included in the valuation lists. DRCRQ, para. 1.9.
Moreover, as mentioned above, Annexes 1.1 to 1.5.1 contain many stray documents, so it would
have been very difficult to create appropriate samples on the basis of the files in those annexes.
21
Butembo 3 of 28 9 of 90 8 of 72 23 of 221
43 of
411
Gemena 1 of 2 2 of 12 1 of 6 2 of 18 6 of 38
Ituri 75 of 747 104 of 1,040 15 of 143
132 of
1,311
326 of
3,241
Kisangani 40 of 391 32 of 313 43 of 427
241 of
2,402
356 of
3,533
Total
149 of
1,460
192 of 1,901 81 of 781
482 of
4,788
904 of
8,930
Number of Entries Examined in Sample
1.17 Uganda’s examination of these 904 entries and underlying victim
identification forms revealed three main problems: (1) many of the victim
identification forms are missing (Section I(C)); (2) the forms fail to provide any
supporting evidence (Section I(D)); (3) the forms do not contain essential
information (Section I(E)).
C. MANY VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS ARE MISSING
1.18 The first problem is that many of the victim identification forms referenced
in the DRC’s valuation lists are not included among the annexes it has produced.
Among the 904 entries that Uganda examined, the victim identification forms for
166 of them (18.4%) are missing. This happened in five types of situations.
22
1.19 First, the entries on one of the valuation lists, Annex 1.6.B (“Evaluation
lésions Beni”), did not indicate the associated file names for its entries. Uganda
was nevertheless able to determine the corresponding victim identification forms
for all the entries sampled from Annex 1.6.B except one.21 That one form remains
missing.
1.20 Second, Uganda discovered that there are many entries that list file names
that do not correspond to any file in the relevant annex. Uganda found this to be
the case for 119 (13.2%) of the 904 entries sampled.22 For example, the 91st entry
in Annex 1.9 (“Evaluation décès Ituri”) lists the file name
“ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_144 - COPIE”, but no file with this name
can be found in Annex 1.4 (“Fiches d’identification de ITURI”) (or anywhere else).
1.21 Third, Uganda discovered three entries that list file names that correspond
to blank files.23 For example, the 141st entry in Annex 1.9 (“Evaluation décès
Ituri”) lists the file name “ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0008_012”, but this is
the file with that name from Annex 1.4 (“Fiches d’identification de ITURI”):
21 Uganda determined the corresponding victim identification forms for these entries by searching
the names of the declarants in the valuation lists for other types of injuries, as these declarants had
claimed more than just personal injury harms.
22 The file names for these entries are listed in Appendix 5.
23 The file names listed for these entries are (from DRCRQ Annex 1.4):
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0008_012; ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_245;
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_209.
23
Annex 1.4
File “ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0008_012”
1.22 Fourth, there were 19 entries that list file names corresponding to the wrong
victim identification form.24 For example, the 261st entry in Annex 1.10.A
24 The file names listed for these entries are: BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_137 (DRCRQ Annex
1.1); ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_176 (DRCRQ Annex 1.4);
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0012_010 (DRCRQ Annex 1.4); CCF22082016_0057_004
(DRCRQ Annex 1.2); CCF22082016_0038_004 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2); CCF22082016_0015_004
(DRCRQ Annex 1.2); CCF22082016_0051_006 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2);
ITURI_SUITE7_CCF08032016_004 (DRCRQ Annex 1.4); OUGANDA 34 (DRCRQ Annex
1.5.1); KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_044 (DRCRQ Annex 1.5);
CCF22082016_0057_004 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2); CCF22082016_0034_002 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2);
CCF22082016_0007_002 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2); CCF22082016_0013_008 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2);
24
(“Evaluation fuite Kisangani”) states that the declarant’s name is Mbunga Raphael
and that he was a victim of displacement. The entry lists the corresponding file
name as “KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_044”. Yet the victim
identification form in that file states that the declarant’s name is Kisubi Luz
Nguluma and does not allege any displacement. Screenshots of the entry on the
valuation list and the victim identification form are reproduced below.
Annex 1.10.A (Evaluation fuite Kisangani)
Entry 261 (Page 21)
CCF22082016_0021_002 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2); CCF22082016_0007_008 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2);
CCF22082016_0054_008 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2); CCF22082016_0057_004 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2);
CCF22082016_0058_003 (DRCRQ Annex 1.2).
25
Annex 1.5 (Fiches d’identification de KISANGANI)
File “KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_044”
1.23 Fifth, 24 of the surveyed entries list file names that correspond to a page
other than the first page of what appears to be a multi-page victim identification
26
form.25 This makes it impossible to verify whether the form genuinely corresponds
to the entry in question. For example, the 1421st entry in Annex 1.10.C
(“Evaluation pertes des biens Kisangani”) claims US$ 11,010 in reparations. Yet
the corresponding victim identification form (if that’s what it is) is the blank
bottom half of a page bearing the number “3”:
Annex 1.10.C (Evaluation pertes des biens Kisangani)
Entry 1421 (Page 7)
25 The file names listed for these entries are (from DRCRQ Annex 1.2): CCF22082016_0051_004;
CCF22082016_0054_002; CCF22082016_0036_002; CCF22082016_0006_004;
CCF22082016_0016_002; CCF22082016_0016_004; CCF22082016_0008_004;
CCF22082016_0054_006; CCF22082016_0045_002; CCF22082016_0034_002;
CCF22082016_0041_004; CCF22082016_0045_002; CCF22082016_0056_002;
CCF22082016_0051_002; CCF22082016_0016_006; CCF22082016_0017_002;
CCF22082016_0032_004; CCF22082016_0007_006; CCF22082016_0051_026;
CCF22082016_0041_004; CCF22082016_0005_004; CCF22082016_0050_002;
CCF22082016_0010_002; CCF22082016_0044_002.
27
Annex 1.5 (Fiches d’identification de KISANGANI)
File “CCF22082016_0032_004”
1.24 With respect to entries affected by one of these five defects, Uganda was
unable to verify whether or not the entry on the valuation list was supported by the
underlying victim identification form. As a result, Uganda was only able to
examine the underlying victim identification form for the other 738 entries
sampled.26
D. THE VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FAIL TO PROVIDE
ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
1.25 Among these 738 victim identification forms sampled, none provide any
supporting documentation for the assertions stated. As stated, Annexes 1.1 to 1.5.1
26 This figure includes 135 (of 149) sample entries for deaths, 187 (of 192) sample entries for
displacements, 62 (of 81) sample entries for personal injuries, and 354 (of 482) sample entries for
property loss or damage.
28
do contain some stray files, some of which could potentially have been submitted
as evidence. But those files are not connected to any victim identification form,
thus rendering them useless as evidence.
1.26 For example, a file in Annex 1.1 (“Fiches d’identification de BENI”)
contains the vehicle registration card shown below:
Annex 1.1 (Fiches d’identification de BENI)
File “BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_057”
1.27 If presented with appropriate context, this could potentially constitute an
element of proof. It is not clear, however, whether the file corresponds to a victim
identification form and, if so, which one.
1.28 Even if one could identify which stray document goes with which form, the
fact that there are only 890 stray files for 4,645 victim identification forms and 230
handwritten claims tables only underscores the extent to which the claims are
unsupported by corroborating evidence.
29
E. THE VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS DO NOT CONTAIN
THE NECESSARY INFORMATION
1.29 The victim identification forms not only fail to prove the information
necessary to support a claim for reparation, they do not even allege the necessary
information.
1. Many Victim Identification Forms Are Not Legible
1.30 In some cases, this is because the forms are not legible. This is the case in
particular for forms that are physically damaged. Take the file below for example:
Annex 1.5.1 (Fiches Complémentaires des victimes de KISANGANI)
File “OUGANDA 19”
30
1.31 This file appears to be the second page of a multi-page victim identification
form. However, the physical damage makes it impossible to make out the
allegations stated. Nor is it possible to know to what form it might be related.
2. Many Victim Identification Forms Fail to Allege a Specific Wrongful
Action Attributable to Uganda that Caused the Alleged Injury
1.32 In addition, many victim identification forms also fail to allege a specific
wrongful action attributable to Uganda that caused the injury claimed. This is
largely due to the design of the victim identification form. As seen below, it asks
for the “damages incurred” (“dommages subis”), the “nature” (“nature”) of the
injury, the relevant “date” (“date”), and the “presumed perpetrator” (“auteurs
présumés”), but it does not ask the declarant to specify the action that caused the
injury in question.
31
Annex 1.1 (Fiches d’identification de BENI)
File “BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_024”
32
1.33 The result is that, as seen in the example above, the people filling out the
form tended not to specify the action of which they are complaining. Among the
738 victim identification forms sampled, Uganda found that only 62 (8.4%)
specified the action in question.27
1.34 Another prevalent flaw concerns attribution. Among the 738 forms sampled,
246 (33.3%) of them do not even allege that the “auteurs présumés” is Uganda or
Ugandan soldiers.28 These forms instead allege that the perpetrators were Rwanda,
an irregular force, or another actor. Take, for example, the 1871st entry on the
valuation list in Annex 1.10.C (“Evaluation pertes des biens Kisangani”). That
entry points to the file “KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028”,
reproduced below:
27 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 6.
28 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 7.
33
Annex 1.4 (Fiches d’identification de KISANGANI)
File “KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028”
1.35 The person filling out the form indicates that the “auteurs présumés” is
“militaires Rwandais”. In its response to Question 1, the DRC acknowledges that
34
Annexes 1.1 and 1.5 contain some forms that allege Rwanda was the perpetrator,
but says that they “were not taken into account in the evaluation submitted by the
DRC in this case”.29 This example shows the contrary, however. The entry in the
valuation list corresponding to this victim identification form indicates that the
DRC is seeking US$ 5,580 from Uganda for the actions of Rwanda.
1.36 Another example is the 71st entry on the valuation list in Annex 1.9
(“Evaluation décès Ituri”). The entry refers to the file
“ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_156”, seen below:
29 DRCRQ, para. 1.9 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “n’ont pas été pris en compte dans
l’évaluation présentée par la RDC dans cette cause”).
35
Annex 1.4 (Fiches d’identification de ITURI)
File “ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_156”
1.37 The person filling out this form indicates that the “auteurs présumés” is
simply “SALUM-SALE”, without any indication of who that is.
1.38 Many other forms allege that the “auteurs présumés” is an irregular force.
However, in its 2005 Judgment, the Court did not find the conduct of any irregular
36
forces attributable to Uganda.30 And although the Court found Uganda responsible
for failing to ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law
in Ituri,31 none of the forms complaining of the actions of irregular forces in Ituri
allege that the actions were the result of Uganda’s failure in this regard.
1.39 In its response to Question 8, the DRC lists the irregular forces for whose
acts the DRC is claiming compensation from Uganda.32 Yet many of the forms
allege that the “auteurs présumés” is an irregular force not included in the DRC’s
list. For example, some forms complain of the actions of Ngiti combatants, such
as the one below:
30 See UCM, para. 1.6.
31 Armed Activities (2005), para. 345(3); see UCM, para. 1.6.
32 DRCRQ, para. 8.5.
37
Annex 1.4 (Fiches d’identification de ITURI)
File “ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_058”
1.40 Other forms allege that the “auteurs présumés” are the “APC” and/or the
“EFRP” like the one below:
38
Annex 1.4 (Fiches d’identification de ITURI)
File “ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_027”
1.41 None of the Ngiti combatants, the APC or the EFRP are included in the
DRC’s response to Question 8 as among the irregular forces for whose conduct the
DRC is claiming compensation in this case.
39
3. Many Victim Identification Forms Fail to Allege the Appropriate
Valuation for the Alleged Injury in Question
1.42 Still further, none of the sample victim identification forms contain
information concerning, let alone proving, the elements necessary to properly
value deaths, personal injuries, displacement, or property loss or damage.
a. Death (Décès)
1.43 None of the sampled victim identification forms for deaths provide the
information necessary to properly value a death, i.e., (1) the identity of the victim;
(2) the location and date of death; (3) whether the victim was gainfully employed;
(4) the victim’s earnings; and (5) the loss of the victim’s earnings based on his or
her life expectancy.33
1.44 Most notably, an examination of all the entries on the valuation lists relating
to deaths (not merely the entries selected for sampling) shows that 4,644 of the
5,440 alleged victims (85.4%) are unidentified. The DRC simply labels them as
“non-signalé”. Among the many problems associated with these entries is that it is
entirely possible that two claimants could be referring to the same decedent. Yet
one cannot check this in in the absence of the full name of the victim.
1.45 Moreover, 134 of the 135 sampled forms for deaths (99.3%) do not contain
any information about the victim’s employment,34 and 122 (90.4%) do not contain
information about the victim’s age.35
33 UCM, para. 5.9.
34 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 8.
35 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 9.
40
1.46 The DRC Memorial claimed lump sums of US$ 34,000 for deaths from
deliberate acts of violence (based on alleged Congolese court decisions)36 and US$
18,913 for all other deaths (based on a mathematical formula that used age and
income as inputs).37 Yet, of the forms Uganda sampled, all but one (99.3%) do not
specify whether the death resulted from deliberate acts of violence or not.38
1.47 Moreover, the DRC’s valuation lists do not reflect either of the
methodologies the DRC claimed to have used in it Memorial. Instead, it assigns
what appear to be completely random values to the alleged deaths. Take, for
example, the screenshot below from the second page of Annex 1.6:
36 DRCM, paras. 7.12-7.13.
37 DRCM, paras. 7.09, 7.14.
38 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 10.
41
Annex 1.6 (Evaluation décès Beni)
Screenshot of Page 2
1.48 The first, third, and fourth entries value the death in question at the same
lump sum amount: US$ 19,845. It is not clear where this figure comes from; the
underlying victim identification forms provide no indication.
42
1.49 The second entry values the death at a much lower amount: US$ 5,205. An
examination of the underlying victim identification form shows nothing that would
suggest a lower value: it simply says “1 frère tué”.
1.50 The fifth, sixth, and seventh forms then value the deaths in question at much
higher amounts: US$ 122,890, US$ 141,922 and US$ 122,890, all of which are
notably higher than the largest amount of compensation the DRC claimed had been
awarded by Congolese courts for deaths.39 Once again, nothing in the underlying
victim identification form explains these higher amounts.
1.51 It also bears note that the second, fourth and sixth entries all refer to victims
who are “non signalé”, yet the valuations for the three victims are very different.
1.52 All of this points to only one conclusion: the DRC selected the numbers
reflected on its valuation lists at random.
b. Personal Injury (Lésions)
1.53 Similarly, none of the victim identification forms for personal injuries
provide the information necessary to properly value those injuries; i.e., (1) the
identity of the victim; (2) the location and date of injury; (3) the nature of the
injury; (4) whether the victim was gainfully employed; (5) the victim’s earnings;
39 DRCM, para. 7.12 (Translation by Counsel: “The amount of compensation granted by the
Congolese courts to the families of the persons killed in the context of the perpetration of serious
crimes against international law ranged from US$ 5,000 to US$ 100,000; the average sum was US$
34,000”, original in French: “Les montants des indemnisations octroyées par les juridictions
congolaises aux familles des personnes tuées dans le contexte de la perpétration de crimes graves de
droit international s’échelonnent entre 5.000 et 100.000 dollars des Etats-Unis, la somme moyenne
étant de 34.000 dollars des Etats-Unis”).
43
(6) the extent to which the injury resulted in a loss of earnings; and (7) the costs of
care and other expenses stemming from the injury.40
1.54 The victim identification forms for personal injuries identify the victim
more frequently than the forms for death do but many still do not. Of all the alleged
victims reflected on the valuation lists, 282 of 1,062 victims (26.6%) are
unidentified and once again labelled simply as “non signalé”. And of the 62 forms
sampled for personal injuries, 41 (66.1%) do not allege the extent, nature, and/or
type of the victim’s injury,41 and none allege any information about the victim’s
earnings.
1.55 In its Memorial, the DRC claimed US$ 3,500 for “serious injuries” resulting
from deliberate violence, US$ 150 for “minor injuries” resulting from deliberate
violence,42 US$ 100 for injuries resulting from non-deliberate violence, US$
12,600 for “simple rape”, US$ 23,300 for “aggravated rape”43 and US$ 12,000 for
the recruitment of a child soldier.44
1.56 Like the forms sampled relating to deaths, 37 (59.7%) of the sampled forms
relating to personal injuries do not specify whether the injuries alleged resulted
from acts of deliberate violence or not.45 The forms also often do not make clear
40 UCM, para. 6.5.
41 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 11.
42 DRCM, para. 7.17 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “blessures lourdes”, “blessures
légères”).
43 DRCM, paras. 7.23-7.24 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “viols simples”, “viols
aggravés”).
44 DRCM, para. 7.27.
45 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 12.
44
what is a “serious” versus a “minor” injury, or a “simple” versus an “aggravated”
rape.
1.57 Furthermore, as with the valuation lists relating to deaths, the valuation lists
relating to personal injuries show substantial deviations from the amounts the DRC
claimed in its Memorial. Take, for example, the screenshot below from the fifth
page of Annex 1.7.B (“Evaluation lésions Butembo”):
Annex 1.7.B (Evaluation lésions Butembo)
Screenshot of Page 5
45
1.58 The first five entries value the injury at a lump sum of US$ 13,500, a number
that differs from all the aforementioned figures. The underlying victim
identification form for the first entry simply states under the injury category:
“extorsion coup et blessure”. There is no indication of what type of “extorsion”,
“coup”, or “blessure” occurred, let alone any evidence of such an injury.
Nevertheless, the DRC purports to value the injury at an amount greater than that
for recruitment of a child soldier and “simple rape”.
1.59 The form underlying the second entry similarly only states under the injury
category: “torture corporelles”. Again, there is no detail. Even so, the DRC values
this “torture corporelles” at the same US$ 13,500. It is also unclear why an
“extorsion coup et blessure” is valued at the same amount as “torture corporelles”.
Similar observations apply equally to the remaining entries shown above.
c. Displacement (Fuite)
1.60 As for displacement, once again none of the sampled forms allege sufficient
information to properly value the displacements nominally recorded: (1) the
identity of the victim; (2) the location and dates of displacement; (3) whether the
victim was gainfully employed; (4) the victim’s earnings; (5) the extent to which
the displacement resulted in a loss of earnings.46
1.61 A search of the valuation lists relating to displacements reveals that 409 of
the 1,146 victims (35.7%) are unidentified; the DRC once again labels them merely
as “non-signalé”. In addition, 66 of the 187 sampled forms for displacements
(35.3%) do not allege the specific location of displacement47 181 (96.8%) do not
46 In its Counter-Memorial, Uganda categorized displacement cases under the broader category of
personal injury cases. UCM, para. 6.109-6.111. Therefore, the information that must be proven is
the same.
47 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 13.
46
allege the specific dates of displacement,48 and not one form contains any
information about the victim’s earnings.
1.62 The DRC Memorial claimed lump sums of US$ 300 for some displacements
and $100 for others.49 As discussed in Uganda’s Comments to the DRC’s response
to Question 3, the DRC provides no basis for those valuations. Moreover, the
numbers stated in its valuation lists are inconsistent with both claimed amounts.
Indeed, they too appear to have been picked at random. Nearly every entry for
displacement in Ituri (Annex 1.9.A) is valued at exactly the same US$ 2,065. And
for all other locations—as seen in the screenshot of Annex 1.8.A (“Evaluation fuite
Kisangani”) below—the DRC tends to use a figure slightly above US$ 2,000.
48 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 14.
49 DRCM, paras. 7.30-7.31.
47
Annex 1.10.A (Evaluation fuite Kisangani)
Screenshot of Page 30
d. Property Loss or Damage (Pertes des biens)
1.63 Finally, none of the sampled victim identification forms for property loss or
damage provides the information necessary to properly value the property
allegedly lost or damaged: (1) identification of the property; (2) the location and
date of loss or damage; (3) the extent and nature of the loss or damage; and (4) a
48
valuation of the loss or damage, such as the fair market value, replacement value
or liquidation value.50 Specifically, 346 of the 354 sampled forms for property loss
or damage (97.7%) do not state the extent and/or nature of the loss or damage,51
173 (48.9%) do not claim any particular valuation;52 and 64 (18.1%) do not even
indicate the specific type of property lost or damaged.53
1.64 On its valuation lists, the DRC employs lump sum amounts for specific
types of property, the basis of which is unknown. Take, for example, the following
screenshot of Annex 1.6.C (“Evaluation pertes biens Beni”):
50 UCM, para. 7.5.
51 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 15.
52 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 16.
53 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 17.
49
Annex 1.6.C (Evaluation pertes biens Beni)
Screenshot of Page 30
1.65 The first and fourth entries nominally distinguish between a “habitation
moyenne” and a “habitation légère”. For the first entry, however, the underlying
victim identification form simply states under “Perte des biens”: “Tous”. There is
no indication that the victim had a “habitation”, let alone a “habitation moyenne”.
As for the second and fifth entries, the valuation list only labels the property lost
as “meuble” without further specification, and values them both at US$ 5,000, five
times greater than the “habitation moyenne”. What is more, the underlying victim
identification form for the second entry actually claims a value for the “Perte des
biens” of US$ 500, yet the DRC chose to place a value on it of US$ 5,000 in the
valuation list.
50
*
1.66 In conclusion, the DRC’s “victim identification forms” fail to provide the
evidence necessary to support its reparation claims. Many of the forms are missing
and those that are provided are deficient on multiple grounds. Moreover, in many
cases, the valuation lists depart significantly from the victim identification forms
and assign arbitrary lump sum amounts that have no evident basis. Even without
these flaws, the methodology employed by the DRC for collecting and preparing
the forms seriously undermine their probative value. As a result, the victim
identification forms are of assistance to the DRC.
Annexes 1.11 and 1.12 Do Not Add Anything to the DRC’s Claims
1.67 Annex 1.11 is a video about some of the Ugandan army’s actions in
Kisangani. It, however, falls far short of providing the evidence necessary to
support the DRC’s claims for reparation. Like the victim identification forms, it
does not contain any specific evidence proving Uganda’s responsibility for causing
harm to individuals. The probative value of the video is also questionable. First,
the DRC does not explain who produced the video; it very well could have been
prepared by the DRC for the purposes of this litigation. Second, the individuals
interviewed are not making their statements under oath. Third, the video appears
to have been made years after the events in question, thereby further undermining
its probative value. On the whole, the video thus suffers from the same basic flaws
as the DRC’s victim identification forms.
1.68 Annex 1.12 is similarly of no assistance to the DRC. As clearly indicated on
the cover, the report was prepared by the DRC itself. Unsurprisingly, the report
cites only to sources favourable to the DRC’s position. Uganda in its Counter-
Memorial already rebutted the sources cited therein, so this newly produced report
summarizing those sources has no additional value. Furthermore, the sources cited
51
must be viewed in light of the UN Mapping Report, which must be considered
more objective and authoritative than the sources cited by the DRC.54
1.69 Annexes 1.11 and 1.12 therefore do not add anything to the DRC’s
reparation claims .
54 See, e.g., UCM, paras. 2.53-2.54, 2.56.
52
53
Could the DRC produce evidence to support its estimates for the
number of persons killed in direct attacks on civilians, the number
of victims of personal injury, and the number of rape victims, in Ituri
district, during the period of Uganda’s occupation?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
2.1 The DRC’s response to Question 2 produces no evidence supporting its
estimates for (1) the number of persons killed in direct attacks on civilians; (2) the
number of victims of personal injury; or (3) the number of rape victims, in Ituri
district, during the period of Uganda’s occupation. The DRC’s response merely
repeats the assertions stated its Memorial based on the same materials already
refuted in Uganda’s Counter-Memorial. The DRC leaves Question 2 effectively
unanswered.
The DRC Produces No Evidence Supporting the Number of Persons
Killed in Direct Attacks on Civilians
2.2 The DRC continues to claim that the number of persons killed in direct
attacks on civilians in Ituri during the period of Uganda’s occupation was 40,000.
Yet the DRC produces no evidence to support this number. Indeed, the DRC
admits that it arrived at this number not by relying on any specific evidence but by
making the twin assumptions that 60,000 people were killed in Ituri during
Uganda’s occupation, and two thirds of this number (i.e. 40,000) were victims of
“deliberate violence against civilian populations”.55 Uganda showed in its
55 UCM paras. 5.96-5.115; DRCM paras. 3.23, 3.49, 7.13.
54
Counter-Memorial why neither of these two assumptions is warranted (or, indeed,
even credible).56
2.3 All of the sources the DRC cites in its response to Question 2 were also cited
in its Memorial. Those sources therefore offer nothing new and only underscore
the arbitrariness of the DRC’s claim. They either do not mention any numbers or,
if they do, they mention significantly lower numbers.57
2.4 The DRC’s arbitrary numbers are also starkly refuted by its “victim
identification forms”. As Uganda explained in its comments on Question 1, the
DRC produces several thousand forms in hard and electronic copies, organized by
region. While the hard copies are not organized by type of injury, the electronic
copies are grouped in folders corresponding to deaths, injuries, displacement, and
property loss or damage. The DRC also produces tables and lists purporting to
summarize the data in different ways. Many of the problems between the forms
and the summary tables have been set out in Uganda’s comments to Question 1.
56 UCM paras. 5.96-5.115.
57 The DRC cites the UN Mapping Report (DRCRQ Annex 2.1; DRCM Annex 1.4); the Report of
the Special Rapporteur Roberto Garreton (DRCRQ Annex 2.2; DRCM Annex 1.5); the September
2002 Special Report of the Secretary General on MONUC (DRCRQ Annex 2.3.A; DRCM Annex
3.2); the second special report of the Secretary General on MONUC (Annex 2.3.B; DRCM Annex
3.6); the Sixth Report of the UN Secretary-General on MONUC (DRCRQ Annex 2.3.C; DRCM
Annex 3.4); the Special Report on Events in Ituri (Jan. 2002-Dec. 2003) (DRCRQ Annex 2.4.B); an
IRIN Special Report (DRCRQ Annex 2.4.A; DRCM Annex 3.7); and a Human Rights Watch Report
(DRCRQ Annex 2.4.C; DRCM Annex 3.5). None of these reports even purports to state that 40,000
people were killed in direct attacks. They either provide no estimates at all or much lower estimates
of the total number of deaths that range from several hundred to the DRC’s own contemporaneous
unverified estimate of 20,000 total deaths. See U.N. Security Council, Special Report on Events in
Ituri (Jan. 2002-Dec. 2003), U.N. Doc. S/2004/573 (16 July 2004), paras. 1, 40 (DRCRQ Annex
2.4.B). And even when estimates are given, the reports do not indicate the sources on which they are
based. In this respect, Uganda notes that the UN Mapping Report reviewed all of these other sources
and, applying a comparatively lax “reasonable suspicion” standard, concluded that the total number
of deaths that may have resulted from conduct in which Uganda was involved was approximately
2,300. See UCM, paras. 5.72-5.76.
55
2.5 In Annex 1.9, captioned “Evaluation décès Ituri”, a list purporting to
summarize the victim identification forms alleging loss of life in Ituri, 4,164
persons are listed as having been killed. There is, however, nothing in the forms
that distinguishes between those allegedly killed as a result of direct violence and
those who were not, further confirming the unfounded nature of the DRC’s “two
thirds” assumption. It is also striking that the total number of alleged deaths in Ituri
reflected in the DRC’s victim identification forms is more than an order of
magnitude less than the 60,000 the DRC claims. Moreover, of these 4,164 alleged
deaths, 3,827 of the victims are not even identified. The DRC refers to them only
as “non signalé.” In other words, 92% of the allegedly killed persons are
unidentified. As the EECC held, however: “There can be no such assessment in a
claim involving huge numbers of hypothetical victims”.58
2.6 Reproduced below are pages 5-13 of Annex 1.9, the DRC’s summary table
of the information contained in the victim identification forms:
58 Ethiopia’s Damages Claims, Final Award, Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Decision of 17
August 2009, reprinted in 26 U.N.R.I.A.A. 631 (2009), para. 64.
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
2.7 As for the 337 individuals who are nominally identified, the DRC does not
offer any supporting evidence confirming that they were killed or, if so, by whom.
Among the DRC’s victim identification forms, there are only two supporting
documents relating to alleged losses of life in Ituri. One is a death certificate
concerning a death in Bunia on 12 May 2003.59 The other is a document signed in
Butembo on 10 October 2004 stating that a family decided to divide a decedent’s
belongings. The latter does not provide information about the date and place of
death (whether in Ituri or elsewhere), the age or profession of the victim or any
other circumstances of his or her death, including who, if anyone, was allegedly
responsible.60
2.8 The DRC’s wholesale failure to come forward with supporting evidence
cannot be excused by its claim that “the difficulties encountered in the process of
collecting the evidence were immense”.61 The DRC’s production in this case
stands in stark contrast to what victims in the Katanga case were able to produce
before the ICC.62 Even though they lacked the resources available to a government,
they nonetheless came to the court with the types of evidence that must be expected
to prove damages related to death, including: (1) death certificates signed by a civil
status registrar in the DRC; (2) certificates of family relationship (to establish the
familial connection between the claimant and the decedent); and (3) in cases where
certificates of family relationship were not available, other information sufficient
to establish the existence of a familial relationship (e.g., showing that the surnames
59 Evaluation décès Ituri, ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0052_030 (DRCRQ Annex 1.4).
60 Evaluation décès Ituri, ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0052_028 (DRCRQ Annex 1.4). The
name of the deceased person listed on the document does not appear in the DRC’s table synthetizing
the alleged losses of life, in DRCRQ Annex 1.9.
61 DRCRQ, para. 2.10 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “les difficultés ayant été
immenses sur la voie de la collecte des preuves”).
62 UCM, para. 5.11.
66
on claimants’ voter cards matched those on a death certificate).63 Neither in its
Memorial nor its response to Question 2 does the DRC offer any comparable
evidence.
2.9 The DRC’s assertion that 40,000 persons were killed in direct attacks
against civilians in Ituri during the period of Uganda’s occupation is therefore
entirely unsupported.
The DRC Produces No Evidence Supporting the Number of Victims of
Personal Injury
2.10 The DRC continues to claim that there were 30,000 victims of personal
injury in Ituri during the Ugandan occupation. This claim, too, is based on
speculation built atop speculation. As with its estimate of the number of deaths
resulting from direct attacks against civilians, the DRC bases this number on two
flawed assumptions: (1) that 60,000 people were killed in Ituri during Uganda’s
occupation, and (2) that half of this number (i.e., 30,000) were injured.64 Both the
starting number and the ratio are unfounded and arbitrary.65
2.11 In response to the Court’s request that it “produce evidence” supporting its
estimate, the DRC’s response to Question 2 refers only to Annex 2.3.B, the UN
Secretary-General’s Second Report on MONUC. That report, however, provides
no support for the number the DRC claims. It states only that “countless [victims]
have been left maimed or severely mutilated” since violence began in June 1999.66
63 UCM, para. 5.11.
64 DRCM para. 3.28; UCM paras. 6.19-6.25.
65 DRCM para. 3.28; UCM paras. 6.19-6.25.
66 U.N. Security Council, Second special report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations
Organizations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC), U.N. Doc. S/2003/566
(27 May 2003), para. 10 (DRCRQ Annex 2.3.B).
67
2.12 The DRC’s number is also contradicted by its victim identification forms.
According to Annex 1.9.B. (“Evaluation lésions Ituri”), which purports to be a
summary of the victim identification forms, there were 454 victims of physical
injuries in Ituri. Here again, the vast majority (326 or 71%) are “non signalé”. And
like the victim identification forms relating to deaths, none of the forms ostensibly
reporting physical injuries in Ituri have supporting documentation of any kind.
2.13 The DRC’s number is further contradicted by Annex 1.3 to its Memorial:
“Liste Type Lésion et leur fréquence ITURI: Rapport Fréquence Type Lésions de
1998 à 2003” (which it chose not to reproduce with its response to the Court’s
questions). This list nominally records 513 cases of physical injuries, including
316 cases of rape. To avoid overlap with the number of alleged rape victims
(discussed below), one must subtract the latter number from the total: 513 - 316 =
197. This is just 0.6% of the number of physical injuries (excluding rape) for which
the DRC claims compensation in Ituri.
2.14 The evidence presented by victims in the Katanga case yet again highlights
the deficiencies in DRC’s evidence. Most of the 341 applicants there presented
medical reports, and some presented a medical certificate from a nongovernmental
organization in Uganda, a hospital record and a forensic report.67
Even with this evidence, when the applications “[did] not specify that the wounds
were sustained in the attack on Bogoro”, the Court concluded that “the causal
nexus [was] not established”.68
67 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-3728,
Order for Reparations pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute (ICC Trial Chamber II, 24 Mar. 2017),
para. 111.
68 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-3728,
Order for Reparations pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute (ICC Trial Chamber II, 24 Mar. 2017),
para. 111.
68
2.15 The DRC’s assertion that 30,000 persons were injured in Ituri during the
period of Uganda’s occupation is thus entirely unsupported.
The DRC Produces No Evidence Supporting the Number of Rape
Victims
2.16 The DRC continues to claim that there were 1,710 instances of rape in Ituri
during the period of Uganda’s occupation. But it also continues to provide no
evidence proving this number.
2.17 The DRC’s response to Question 2 states that its number is based on two
UN reports, the evidence gathered by the DRC National Commission and the
victim identification forms provided in Annex 1.1 to 1.10B. Apart from the newlyprovided
victim identification forms, all of these sources were cited in the DRC’s
Memorial.69 None of them support the DRC’s claim.
2.18 The first UN report is the Special Report on Events in Ituri (Annex 2.4.B),
which expressly states that “[t]he exact number of female victims of rape or sexual
slavery is impossible to estimate at this time”.70 The second is the UN Mapping
Report (Annex 2.1.), which provides only one specific number when discussing
rape (at paragraph 414). That paragraph states that UPC militiamen raped “at least
50 women” between 15 and 16 October 2002 in Zumbe. It provides no other
specific numbers or estimates when describing other incidents of rape, much less
instances of rape involving Uganda.
69 DRCM, paras. 3.30-3.32.
70 U.N. Organization Mission in the DRC, Special Report on the Events in Ituri, January 2002-
December 2003, U.N. Doc. S/2004/573 (16 July 2004), para. 1 (DRCM Annex 1.6).
69
2.19 As for the evidence gathered by the DRC’s National Commission, the
DRC’s response does not cite any specific source or annex.71 Uganda has explained
the numerous flaws with this evidence in its Counter-Memorial, including the lack
of detail and supporting evidence.72
2.20 Lastly, the DRC refers to its victim identification forms but here, too, does
not cite to any specific form(s).73 While the DRC does provide tables purporting
to list victims of loss of life, displacements, physical injuries, and property loss,
there is no table that separately lists alleged rape victims. Moreover, since the
victim identification forms are not organized by the type of injury (or really any
other manner that Uganda can discern), it is impossible to count the alleged number
of rapes without sifting through each and every one of the 1,808 victim
identification forms nominally relating to Ituri (which has not been possible in the
limited time available). Uganda has, however, surveyed all the victim
identification forms to see whether they are connected to any supporting evidence,
including, for example, health records. None are.
2.21 This complete failure of evidence can be contrasted with the proceedings
before the EECC, which demonstrate that it is possible to collect documentation
regarding sexual violence even in places affected by war and violence. To support
their allegations of rape, both Eritrea and Ethiopia presented detailed eyewitness
accounts and corroborating testimony of doctors who had personally treated
victims.74 Even then, the EECC dismissed claims of sexual violence that were
71 DRCRQ, para. 2.13.
72 UCM, para. 6.64.
73 DRCRQ, para. 2.13.
74 Eritrea’s Central Front Claims, Partial Award, Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Eritrea’s
Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 & 22 (28 Apr. 2004), para. 80; Ethiopia Western-Eastern Front Claims, Partial
Award, Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Ethiopia’s Claims 1 & 3 (19 Dec. 2005), para. 55.
70
“spare in their mention of or allusion to rape”.75 The DRC, in contrast, does not
meet even this standard of proof.
2.22 In any event, there is good reason to doubt that the DRC’s victim
identification forms, even taken at face value, support the number of rapes claimed
in Ituri. In its Memorial, the DRC stated that the “Congolese investigators were
able to list only 342 cases of rape” in Ituri, just 20% of the 1,710 claimed.76
2.23 Moreover, in Annex 1.3 of its Memorial (“Liste Type Lésion et leur
fréquence ITURI: Rapport Fréquence Type Lésions de 1998 à 2003”), the DRC
listed rape as a subset of “physical injuries”. There, the DRC alleged that there
were 201 cases of “aggravated rape” and 115 cases of “simple rape”, for a total of
316 rapes in Ituri.77
*
2.24 Despite having been afforded a second chance, the DRC still does not
provide any evidence to support its estimates for (1) the number of persons killed
in direct attacks on civilians; (2) the number of victims of personal injury; and (3)
the number of rape victims in Ituri during the period of Uganda’s occupation. It
therefore continues to fail to give the Court any reliable evidentiary basis on which
to award compensation relating to personal injuries in Ituri.
75 Ethiopia Western-Eastern Front Claims, Partial Award, Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission,
Ethiopia’s Claims 1 & 3 (19 Dec. 2005), para. 55.
76 DRCM, para. 3.32.
77 Liste Type Lésion et leur fréquence ITURI: Rapport Fréquence Type Lésions de 1998 à 2003
(DRCM Annex 1.3).
71
Could the DRC provide to the Court the evidence on which it bases
its claims of US$300 for each person who fled his or her home to
escape deliberate acts of violence against civilian populations, and
US$100 for each person who was driven from his or her home by the
fighting?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
3.1 The DRC’s response to Question 3 does not answer to the Court’s question.
It does not provide any evidence supporting its claims for US$ 300 for each person
who fled his or her home to escape deliberate acts of violence against civilian
populations, or its claims for US$ 100 for each person who was driven from his or
her home by the fighting. Instead, it confirms what Uganda demonstrated in its
Counter-Memorial: these are lump sum amounts arbitrarily selected for these
proceedings that have no basis in the actual harm incurred by individuals, let alone
harm for which Uganda is responsible.78 Indeed, the DRC itself admits that the two
amounts are “lump sums”.79
3.2 According to the DRC, US$ 300 represents reparation for the moral harm
due to displacement as a result of deliberate violence. The DRC describes this
moral harm as “the suspension of professional activities” of the victims; the
“trauma for the displaced resulting from the atrocities committed by the
combatants”; “the anxiety due to repeated events”; “distress due to the lack of
78 UCM, para. 6.115.
79 DRCRQ, para. 3.11 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “forfaitaires”).
72
humanitarian assistance”; “the lack of accountability for the perpetrators”; and “the
worry due to the uncertainty about the future”.80
3.3 One hundred US dollars, the DRC says, represents the moral harm suffered
by individuals who took flight as a collateral consequence of violence. According
to the DRC, “this scenario involves mainly the populations that fled their homes
for the shortest periods of time”.81 The DRC claims that the “moral harm results
from the worry related to the abandonment of one’s house, the fear of returning to
find the residence destroyed, the suffering resulting from the separation imposed
by the hostilities on the members of a single family, and the fear of losing one’s
property”.82
3.4 These are pure assertions. The DRC does not point to any evidence that
actually supports the various elements indicated above.83 Although the DRC does
refer generally to its summary “victim identification forms” produced in Annexes
1.1 to 1.5.1 in another part of its answer, it does not cite any particular form(s).
Uganda carefully examined the forms and corresponding “valuation lists” in these
annexes in an effort to see if they in fact contain evidence supporting the DRC’s
displacement claims. They do not. Although some of the forms purport to record
instances of displacement, none provides any details as to why the displacement
80 DRCRQ, para. 3.13 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “la suspension des activités
professionnelles”; “traumatisme découlant pour les déplacés des atrocités commises par les
belligérants” ; “l’angoisse des faits qui se reproduisent” ; “la détresse due au manque d’assistance
humanitaire” ; “l’absence des poursuites des auteurs responsables de ces faits” ; “l’inquiétude due à
l’incertitude du lendemain”).
81 DRCRQ, para. 3.15 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “ce cas de figure concerne
essentiellement les populations qui ont fui leurs domiciles pour les périodes plus brèves”).
82 DRCRQ, para. 3.15 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “Ce préjudice moral résulte de:
l’inquiétude liée à l’abandon de son domicile, la crainte de retrouver son domicile détruit, la
souffrance née de la séparation imposée par les hostilités aux membres d’une même famille, la
crainte de perdre ses biens”).
83 DRCRQ, paras. 3.11-3.25.
73
occurred, whether family members were separated, whether humanitarian
assistance was available and so on. None alleges loss of earnings. None even
alleges trauma, anxiety, fear or distress. And none of these forms indicates that the
displacement was caused either by direct violence against civilians or as a
collateral consequence of fighting, thereby allowing them to be grouped into the
categories advanced by the DRC.
3.5 The DRC’s Response to Question 3 also mentions (at paras. 3.3 and 3.4)
three UN reports. But these reports do not support the DRC’s claims either. The
Special Report on Events in Ituri (Annex 2.4.B) mentions several incidents of
displacement but does not specify whether these displacements were caused by
direct violence against civilians or were a collateral consequence of fighting, how
long they lasted, whether they involved a loss of earnings and what harm they
caused, including the trauma, anxiety, fear or distress described by the DRC.84
Moreover, some of the incidents occurred after Uganda’s withdrawal from the
DRC on 2 June 2003.85 The UN Mapping Report (Annex 2.1) similarly mentions
incidents of displacement, without providing the details described by the DRC.86
The excerpt of the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human
Rights in the DRC (Annex 2.2) does not mention displacement at all.87 Despite the
Court’s request that it do so, the DRC has therefore failed to provide evidence
supporting the lump sums it claims.
84 U.N. Security Council, Special Report on Events in Ituri (Jan. 2002-Dec. 2003), U.N. Doc.
S/2004/573 (16 July 2004), paras. 1, 12, 26, 40, 42, 49, 52-54, 82 (DRCRQ Annex 2.4.B).
85 See, e.g., U.N. Security Council, Special Report on Events in Ituri (Jan. 2002-Dec. 2003), U.N.
Doc. S/2004/573 (16 July 2004), para. 90 (DRCRQ Annex 2.4.B).
86 U.N. Mapping Report, paras. 362, 366, 413 (DRCRQ Annex 2.1).
87 U.N. Economic and Social Council, Report on the situation of human rights in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, submitted by the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Roberto Garretón, in accordance
with Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/56, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/2000/42 (18 Jan. 2000)
(DRCRQ Annex 2.2).
74
3.6 What the DRC does introduce, for the first time, are two new elements of
its claims relating to displacements. According to the DRC, the “lump sums” of
US$ 300 or US$ 100, as the case may be, should be added to its “valuation” for
displacements, which “takes into account the number of days spent in the forest,
multiplied by the per capita GDP per day (equivalent of the daily expenses per
capita in the Congo)”.88 Thus, the DRC claims now that the total valuation for
displacement should equal:
([duration of displacement] x [daily cost of living]) + [lump sum of
US$ 100 or US$ 300]
3.7 This formula is new. It was not mentioned in the DRC’s Memorial, which
did not discuss the elements of duration or daily cost of living as additional parts
of its claim for damages for displacement.89 And even in its response to Question
3, the DRC appears to continue valuing instances of displacement at US$ 300 or
US$ 100 (as the case may be) by reference only to the lump sums discussed above.
In other words, it is unclear what practical purpose the DRC’s new formula is
intended to serve. Be that as it may, one thing is clear: the variables in the formula
are unfounded.
3.8 As regards the duration of displacement, the DRC presents a table with the
alleged “minimum” duration of displacement per location.90 For example, the
minimum duration for people displaced from Kisangani is listed as six days. The
88 DRCRQ, para. 3.17 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “prend en compte le nombre de
jours passé (sic) en forêt, multiplié par le PIB par habitant par jour (équivalent de la dépense
journalière par individu au Congo)”).
89 DRCM, Chapters 2, 3, 4, 7.
90 DRCRQ, para. 3.7.
75
DRC claims that this and the other numbers stated are based on the victim
identification forms and the UN Mapping Report.
3.9 According to the DRC, the victim identification forms “provide sufficient
information regarding the time spent” in displacement.91 But it does not point to
even a single form that indicates the duration of displacement. In the limited time
available to it, Uganda reviewed a sample of 187 victim identification forms
relating to displacement.92 Only 10.7% contained any information about the
duration of the alleged displacements.93 And among these, many suggest that the
individuals involved were displaced for shorter periods of time than the DRC’s
claimed “minimum” duration.94
3.10 The DRC also gets no support from its reference to the UN Mapping Report
because that report does not contain any specific information relating to the
duration of any displacements other than one statement that attacks by elements of
91 DRCRQ, para. 3.7 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “renseignent suffisamment sur le
temps passé en forêt”).
92 The 192 file names relating to displacement that formed part of the sample considered by Uganda
are listed in Appendix 2. However, as explained in Uganda’s comments to Question 1, five of the
listed files were missing from the electronic copies of the victim identification forms produced by
the DRC. Uganda thus reviewed 187 victim identification forms relating to displacement.
93 The file names of these forms are listed in Appendix 18.
94 See, e.g., in contrast to the DRC’s claim that the minimum duration of displacement in Beni was
30 days, BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0006_035 (claiming displacement for 3 days),
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_083 (claiming displacement for two weeks),
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_006 (claiming displacement for two weeks) (DRCRQ Annex
1.1); and in contrast to the DRC’s claim that the minimum duration of displacement in Kisangani
was 6 days, KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_060 (claiming displacement for 3 days);
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_212 (claiming displacement for 4 days);
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_124 (claiming displacement for 2 days) (DRCRQ
Annex 1.5).
76
the FRPI on 13 September 2002 led to the displacement of thousands of people
“for several years”.95
3.11 As regards the daily cost of living, the DRC uses what it claims was its 2015
per capita GDP (allegedly US$ 753.20) as a proxy96 (presumably intending that it
should be divided by 365 to calculate GDP/day). The DRC’s reliance on this
number is misplaced for at least two reasons.
3.12 First, the DRC uses the wrong number for the reasons Uganda explained in
its Counter-Memorial. According to World Bank data not cited by the DRC, its
GDP per capita per year in 2015 was actually US$ 475 (expressed in current US
dollars), nearly 37% less.97 And its 2015 GDP is not relevant to the 1998-2003
time-period. According to the World Bank, the DRC’s GDP per capita per year
was US$ 139 in 1998 and US$ 174 in 2003 (both figures are expressed in current
US dollars).98
3.13 Second, and more importantly, GDP per capita cannot be used as a proxy
for a person’s daily cost of living. As Uganda pointed out in its Counter-Memorial,
a country’s GDP is “all of the output generated within the borders of a country”,
including the value generated, and income earned, by business entities and even
by the government.99 It is therefore much higher than the average daily cost of
living of a Congolese citizen.
95 U.N. Mapping Report Extracts, para. 413 (DRCRQ Annex 2.1).
96 DRCRQ, paras. 3.8-3.9.
97 UCM para. 5.162
98 UCM para. 5.163.
99 UCM para. 5.166.
77
3.14 The DRC’s numbers are therefore unfounded. But even if they were founded
(quod non), the DRC’s use of a uniform average daily cost of living for all victims
combined with an alleged minimum duration of displacement that varies by
location does not meet the standard traditionally required by the Court. If the DRC
is to use duration and daily cost of living as multipliers, the DRC must prove
reliable numbers for each alleged victim. It cannot use the same number for a large
group of hypothetical victims. As explained in the Introduction to these comments
and further elaborated in Uganda’s comments to Question 11, this is not a massclaims
proceeding but rather an inter-State adjudication where damages must be
proved through competent evidence showing the exact injury caused by a specific
wrongful act attributable to Uganda.
3.15 In support of its lump sum approach, the DRC refers to the Diallo case,
several European Court of Human Rights Cases, and the UN Compensation
Commission (“UNCC”). These references are of no help to it.
3.16 The Diallo and ECHR cases are inapposite because the amounts awarded in
those cases were based on clear evidence of (1) specific harm, (2) caused by the
State, (3) at a particular time, (4) in a particular place and (5) to an identified
person. In Diallo, for example, the Court was presented with extensive direct
evidence that Mr Diallo was mistreated and detained for a total of 72 days before
being expelled by the DRC, and that such harm was the result of the DRC’s
violation of international law.100 The Court’s approach in Diallo does not work
here because there is no specific evidence with respect to any specific victim.
3.17 The sums awarded in the ECHR cases the DRC cites were similarly based
on reliable evidence proving specific harm caused by the respondent States at a
100 UCM, para. 3.44. Although Guinea sought US$ 250,000 for these harms, the Court awarded US$
85,000 based on the specific evidence regarding a specific victim before it.
78
particular time, in a particular place, to an identified person. The Selmouni case,
for example, involved assault, battery and rape by the French police against an
individual while he was in police custody. Mr Selmouni produced detailed medical
evaluations from five different doctors showing that he had sustained multiple
injuries during the time he was in custody.101
3.18 Similarly, the Ostrovar, Labzov, and Nazarenko cases all involved the
inhuman and degrading treatment of specific, identified individuals while in
detention. In Ostrovar, for instance, the applicant was detained in a small,
overcrowded cell infected with bed bugs, lice and ants, with no heat, ventilation,
or daylight and only six hours of electricity a day.102 The applicant suffered from
asthma, and his attacks increased because the other inmates were allowed to smoke
in the cell.103 He was refused medical assistance.104 Moreover, the fact that the
proven harm to the applicants in the Ostrovar, Labzov and Nazarenko cases was
caused by the respondent States was not disputed.
3.19 Here, in contrast, the DRC has provided no evidence of specific harm to
specific persons as a result of Uganda’s internationally wrongful acts.
3.20 The DRC also refers to the UNCC, in which “it was not necessary to produce
evidence of the actual losses suffered”.105 As stated, however, the UNCC followed
a mass claims approach, which is not appropriate in the context of a traditional
inter-State proceeding like this one. Mass claims proceedings typically require a
101 Selmouni v. France, Case No. 25803/94, Judgment (ECtHR 28 July 1999).
102 Ostrovar v. Moldova, Case No. 35207/03, Judgment (ECtHR 13 Sept. 2005), paras. 14, 17-21.
103 Ibid., para. 15.
104 Ibid., para. 16.
105 DRCRQ, para. 3.24.
79
very extensive and sophisticated administrative structure to process the claims,106
involving the production by each claimant of at least minimal evidence, which is
then organized into a database, and can then be tested through data-matching,
statistical sampling and regression analysis.
3.21 In any event, even if it were appropriate to adopt a mass claims approach
before the Court (quod non), the DRC has failed to meet even the more limited
evidentiary burden applicable in the mass claims context. The DRC itself admits
that for “category A” departure claimants to receive compensation at the UNCC,
“it was necessary that the flight” for each individual from Iraq or Kuwait “take
place during a specific period of time”.107 As such, individual named victims
needed to submit to the UNCC, through their government or an international
organization, at least “simple documentation of the fact and date of departure from
Iraq or Kuwait” in order to qualify for compensation.108 If such documentation was
not provided, then the claim either was not submitted by the
government/international organization, or was not accepted by the UNCC.
3.22 All told, documentation was submitted for approximately 923,000 “category
A” departure claims by 77 governments and 13 offices of three international
organizations. Submission of such documentation was, of course, a challenge for
many governments, including developing States such as Bangladesh, Sudan and
Yemen. They nevertheless were able to do so. After statistical analysis of the
106 UCM, para. 3.54.
107 DRCRQ, para. 3.24.
108 U.N. Compensation Commission, First Session of the Governing Council of the United Nations
Compensation Commission, U.N. Doc. S/AC.26/1991/1 (2 Aug. 1991), para. 11.
80
evidence supporting the claims, the UNCC deemed 850,000 of them to be
meritorious and 73,000 to be unsupported.109
3.23 Here, however, the DRC has provided no such documentation detailing the
names, location or dates of displacement. Uganda’s examination of the victim
identification forms the DRC produces reveals that none are connected to
corroborating documents showing the dates and circumstances of the
displacements allegedly recorded. Had the DRC’s claims for displacement been
submitted to the UNCC on its evidentiary standards, the claims would have been
deemed unsupported and no compensation would have been awarded.
3.24 These evidentiary failures compare unfavourably with the Katanga case
before the ICC, in which individual victims of displacement provided much more
detailed information and supporting evidence. Those who were displaced provided
a “refugee card” or refugee family certificate.110 They also individually “allege[d]
psychological harm connected to the experience of the attack on Bogoro” and some
“tendered mental health certificates”.111 Even then, absent further information, the
Chamber was not “in a position to connect that material and/or psychological harm
to the attack on Bogoro”,112 and did not award reparation.
*
109 See U.N. Compensation Commission, The Claims, Category A, available at
https://uncc.ch/category (last accessed: 3 Jan. 2019).
110 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-3728,
Order for Reparations pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute (ICC Trial Chamber II, 24 Mar. 2017),
para. 138.
111 Ibid., para. 123.
112 Ibid., para. 138.
81
3.25 The DRC’s response to Question 3 thus does little more than confirm that
the lump sum amounts it claims in respect of displacements are unfounded and, as
a result, arbitrary. The amounts it claims, and the mass claims approach they
reflect, have no place in an inter-State reparation case. In the 2005 Judgment, the
Court instructed the DRC that it would be required to prove the specific injury
caused by specific wrongful acts attributable to Uganda. The DRC’s failure to do
so means that it still has not provided the Court an evidentiary basis for the award
of compensation relating to displacement.
82
83
Could the DRC provide the Court with evidence and explain its
methodology regarding the value of damaged educational
establishments, healthcare establishments, and administrative
buildings, in Ituri district, due to wrongful acts attributable to
Uganda?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
4.1 The DRC’s response to Question 4 provides neither evidence nor an
explanation concerning its methodology regarding the value of damaged
educational establishments, healthcare establishments, and administrative
buildings, in Ituri district, due to wrongful acts attributable to Uganda. The DRC
thus effectively leaves the Court’s question unanswered.
4.2 Before addressing what the DRC does say, it is helpful to recall that in its
Memorial the DRC alleged that the “average cost” of those public facilities “may
be estimated” at:
• US$ 75,000 for an educational establishment; 113
• US$ 75,000 for a healthcare establishment; 114 and
113 DRCM, para. 7.39. As regards schools, the DRC claimed that “overall, the average cost of an
educational facility may be estimated at US$ 75,000” (Translation by Counsel, original in French:
“Globalement, la valeur moyenne d’une infrastructure d’enseignement peut être estimée à 75.000
dollars des Etats-Unis”). The total amount of compensation claimed by the DRC for this item “is
thus 200 x US$ 75,000; that is, US$ 15,000,000 (fifteen million United States dollars)” (Translation
by Counsel, original in French: “est donc de 200 x 75.000 dollars, soit 15.000.000 (quinze millions)
dollars des Etats-Unis”).
114 DRCM, para. 7.40. In regards to health facilities, the DRC claimed that “the average cost of a
health facility may be estimated at US$ 75,000” (Translation by Counsel, original in French:
“Globalement, la valeur moyenne d’une infrastructure de santé peut être estimée à 75.000 dollars
des Etats-Unis”). The total amount of compensation claimed by the DRC for this item “is thus 50 x
84
• US$ 50,000 for an administrative building.115
4.3 As was equally true of its Memorial, the DRC’s response to Question 4
offers no explanation, much less evidence, for these alleged “average costs”. They
appear to be lump sum amounts selected at random for purposes of this litigation.
The DRC does not even make an effort to ground the amounts claimed in any
actual repair or reconstruction costs. This failure is all the more remarkable given
that such information is entirely within the DRC’s control. If any repairs or
reconstruction had actually been undertaken, as the DRC claims, the DRC should
possess—and should be expected to have provided to the Court—supporting
documents evidencing the costs incurred.116 No such evidence is offered, however.
US$ 75,000; that is, US$ 3,750,000 (three million seven hundred fifty thousand United States
dollars)” (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “est donc de 50 x 75.000 dollars, soit
3.750.000 (trois millions sept cent cinquante mille) dollars des Etats-Unis”).
115 DRCM, para. 7.41. In regards to office buildings, the DRC claimed that “overall, the average
cost of an office building may be estimated at US$ 50,000”. (Translation by Counsel, original in
French: “Globalement, la valeur moyenne d’une infrastructure administrative peut être estimée à
50.000 dollars des Etats-Unis”). The total amount of compensation claimed by the DRC for this
item “is thus 50 x US$ 50,000; that is, US$ 2,500,000 (two million five hundred thousand United
States dollars)” (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “est donc de 50 x 50.000 dollars, soit
2.500.000 (deux millions cinq cent mille) dollars des Etats-Unis”).
116 The only two materials purporting to show the reconstruction costs of schools and hospitals are
presented in DRCRQ Annex 4.2 and DRCRQ Annex 4.3. Yet the purpose of these materials, as the
DRC admits, is not to prove the reconstruction costs that the DRC actually claims; rather, the DRC
mentions them to show that the assessments set out in those Annexes reflect “significantly higher
figures than those put forward by the DRC in its valuation”. (DRCRQ, para. 4.8.) (Translation by
Counsel, original in French: “ces évaluations aboutissent à des chiffres largement supérieurs à ceux
avancés par la RDC dans la présente évaluation”). Three observations are in order. First, this
confirms once again that the DRC has no evidence supporting the values of reconstruction costs it
claims in this case, thus reaffirming the conclusion that the DRC’s claim is arbitrary and unfounded.
Second, the values alleged in the materials presented in DRCRQ Annex 4.2 and DRCRQ Annex
4.3 are also unfounded. For example, DRCRQ Annex 4.2 merely contains a summary table,
prepared on 17 October 2018, with alleged reconstruction or rehabilitation costs without any
underlying evidence. DRCRQ Annex 4.3 contains exactly the same material that the DRC presented
in its Memorial to claim damages for places of worship in Kisangani, but Uganda has already
demonstrated at paras. 7.92-7.97 of its Counter-Memorial all evidentiary and methodological flaws
rendering that material incapable of proving any damages it alleged. Finally, the DRC strains
credulity by arguing that the “higher” numbers stated in DRCRQ Annex 4.2 and DRCRQ Annex
85
4.4 Rather than come forward with specific evidence and an explanation for its
valuation methodology, the DRC’s response is limited to making a general
reference to annexes that contain “valuation lists” and “victim identification
forms”.117 The valuation list for all property damages in Ituri can be found in
Annex 1.9.C entitled “Evaluation pertes des biens Ituri”. This 193-page list
supposedly has been created from victim identification forms that prove damages
and their valuation. Each entry on the valuation list is purportedly linked to a
specific victim identification form included in an electronic file.
4.5 Yet the DRC’s valuation list makes no effort to organize information
systematically based on the type of property at issue, such as educational
establishments, healthcare establishments or administrative buildings. Rather, the
list is essentially an unorganized, almost incomprehensible hodgepodge of entries
that often cannot be traced to any such property. Nevertheless, Uganda has
carefully examined all 193 pages of the valuation list and managed to associate 33
scattered references on the list to underlying victim identification forms that allege
damage to public institutions in Ituri. Analysis of this very limited set of matching
information reveals that neither the valuation list nor the victim identification
forms support the claimed amounts (or any other amount) for the reasons
explained below.118
4.3 somehow prove that the DRC’s “lower” numbers are reasonable: the DRC cannot use unproven
reconstruction/rehabilitation costs as a justification for its equally unproven and arbitrary
reconstruction/rehabilitation costs.
117 DRCRQ, paras. 4.2, 4.3.
118 Importantly, the DRC does not even rely on “victim identification forms” to support its damages.
As shown in Uganda’s Counter-Memorial, the DRC simply presents unsupported numbers of
allegedly damaged public institutions and multiplies those numbers by the arbitrary lump sum
amounts. See UCM, paras. 7.35-7.48
86
4.6 As regards educational establishments, Uganda has identified 19 entries
on the valuation list that summarize damages associated with victim identification
forms, which in turn relate to 25 educational establishments.119 One such entry
can be found on page 47, which lists the following alleged damages to a primary
school and institute in Kabona:
4.7 The damages valued at US$ 860,000 are nominally based on the victim
identification form in the file “ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_018”. That
file contains the following form:
119 Compare this to the alleged 200 educational establishments with respect to which the DRC
claims compensation in its Memorial (DRCM, para. 7.39.). See also UCM, paras. 7.36-7.38
(showing that the DRC’s allegation that Uganda is responsible for the destruction of 200 schools in
Ituri is unfounded).
87
88
4.8 This victim identification form appears to have no connection to the DRC’s
assertion that it is entitled to a lump-sum amount of US$ 75,000 for damage to an
educational establishment. In addition, it contains nothing more than summary
assertions; no supporting documentation of any kind is offered, whether in the
form of a detailed affidavit, photographs, or invoices for reconstruction or repair
costs.
4.9 As the Court recently made clear in another case, such conclusory
assertions standing alone cannot support a claim for damages;120 this is especially
so in the context of very large amounts sought for property damage where
evidence of harm should be readily available. In its Judgment on compensation in
Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, the Court refused to award compensation for damages
alleged where the claimant failed to clarify and support the nature, extent and
valuation of damages with documentary evidence.121 By contrast, the Court found
that evidence in the form of numbered and dated invoices, with cost breakdowns
and confirmations of payment has probative value and can prove claimed
amounts.122 The DRC presents no such evidence with the above victim
identification form—or, indeed, any other form alleging damages to public
institutions in Ituri.
4.10 Another entry on page 51 of the valuation list that purports to summarize
the damages to an educational facility illustrates recurring flaws in this list and the
120 Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area (Costa Rica v. Nicaragua),
Compensation Judgment, I.C.J. (2 Feb. 2018), para. 103.
121 Ibid., para. 143.
122 Ibid., paras. 99, 124.
89
underlying forms, which undermine this element of the DRC’s claims. The entry
reads:
4.11 For ostensible support, reference is made to a victim identification form in
the file “ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_016”, reproduced below:
90
4.12 The form does not contain the “valuation” numbers (or, indeed, any
numbers) “summarized” in the “valuation list”. Rather, the “valuation” numbers
91
that appear on the list appear to have been invented by whoever prepared the list,
presumably for purposes of this case.
4.13 The Court will note also that the form reproduced above does not even
purport to ascribe responsibility for the alleged damages to Uganda. The “alleged
perpetrators” are identified as the “F.R.P.I.” and “U.P.C.”. Nor does it hint at any
information showing that the damages alleged were caused as a result of Uganda’s
failure to exercise its duty of due diligence as an occupying power in Ituri. Such
flaws afflict all of the remaining 17 forms related to educational establishments.
As a result, none of them can justify an award of compensation.123
4.14 Similar shortcomings permeate the entries on the “valuation list” in Annex
1.9.C linked to three victim identification forms that Uganda has identified
concerning damages to healthcare facilities. These three forms refer to two
123See the “victim identification forms” mentioned in DRCRQ Annex 1.9.C:
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0053_002, p. 42; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_001, p. 46;
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_021, p. 46; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_010, p. 46;
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0059_008, p. 46; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_018, p. 47;
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0056_016, p. 47; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_005, p. 47;
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_012, p. 47; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_014, p. 47;
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_019, p. 47; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_008, p. 47;
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_006, p. 47 (this form has no specific date when the alleged
damages occurred to verify whether they even fall within the ratione temporis scope of the 2005
Judgment; nor does it list, let alone prove, any valuations, which shows that the valuations
“summarized” in the “valuation list” are thus unfounded and arbitrary.);
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_003, p. 48; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0059_002, p. 48
(this form does not state any valuations, which shows that valuations “summarized” in the
“valuation list” are thus unfounded and arbitrary.); ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_007, p. 50
(in addition to other flaws, this form does not state a date necessary to verify whether the alleged
damages fall within the ratione temporis scope of the 2005 Judgment);
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_002, p. 61 (DRCRQ Annex 1.9.C).
92
hospitals and one dispensary.124 For example, page 47 of the valuation list contains
the following entry:
4.15 The damages alleged are nominally based on a victim identification form
in the file “ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0056_018”. This file contains the
following form:
124 Compare this to the alleged 50 medical institutions with respect to which the DRC claims
compensation in its Memorial (DRCM, para. 7.40.). See also UCM, paras. 7.41-7.42 (showing that
the DRC’s allegation that Uganda is responsible for the destruction of 50 medical institutions in
Ituri is unfounded).
93
94
4.16 This victim identification form appears to have no connection to the DRC’s
assertion that it is entitled to a lump-sum amount of US$ 75,000 for damage to a
healthcare facility. Further, although this form, unlike the previous one, does
contain a reference to the UPDF as an “alleged” (présumés) perpetrator, other
possible perpetrators are also indicated. It is unclear whether this is intended to
mean that Uganda is a possible perpetrator, that it acted in conjunction with other
parties or some other possibility. Uganda and the Court are left to guess.
4.17 Moreover, like all the other victim identification forms, this conclusory
form is untethered to any supporting documentation or other evidence proving the
claimed valuation or the identity of the alleged perpetrator(s). It therefore provides
no support for the damages claimed. The same is true of the remaining two victim
identification forms that refer to one other hospital and a dispensary.125
4.18 As regards administrative buildings, Uganda determined that the
valuation list in Annex 1.9.C refers to eleven victim identification forms alleging
damage to administrative buildings, one administrative complex, three prisons and
about elven unspecified buildings or offices.126
4.19 For example, page 21 of the valuation list contains the following entry
relating to an administrative building:
125 See the “victim identification forms” mentioned in DRCRQ Annex 1.9.C:
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0053_006, p. 42; ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_005, p.
58.
126 Compare this to the alleged 50 administrative buildings with respect to which the DRC claims
compensation in its Memorial (DRCM, para. 7.41). See also UCM, paras. 7.43-7.44 (showing that
the DRC’s allegation that Uganda is responsible for the destruction of 50 medical institutions in
Ituri is unfounded).
95
4.20 The alleged damages valued at US$ 900,000 are linked to the form in the
file “ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0053_015”, reproduced below:
96
97
4.21 This victim identification form appears to have no connection to the DRC’s
assertion that it is entitled to a lump-sum amount of US$ 50,000 for damage to an
administrative building. As was the case with the victim identification forms
associated with education establishments and healthcare facilities, this form is also
entirely conclusory. It contains no information let alone underlying evidence, that
might prove the extent of the damages or who caused them. Nor does it state, let
alone prove, the value allegedly “summarized” in the valuation list. The alleged
claim for US$ 900,000 is thus wholly unfounded.127
4.22 Page 35 of the valuation list has the following entry for an “administrative
complex”:
4.23 The alleged damages in the amount of US$ 18,000 are linked to the form
in the file “ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_033” appearing below:
127 See also other examples in DRCRQ Annex 1.9.C: ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0059_024, p.
32, (this victim identification form has neither underlying evidence for the alleged damages nor
valuation numbers, but the “valuation list” arbitrarily assigns the value of US$ 55,800);
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_010, p. 5 (this victim identification form has no evidence or
valuations are stated in the form, yet the “valuation list” alleged damages amounting to US$
10,150).
98
99
4.24 Again, this victim identification form appears to have no connection to the
DRC’s assertion that it is entitled to a lump-sum amount of US$ 50,000 for
damage to an administrative building. It is also as unsupported by evidence,
whether as to the extent of the claimed damages, their valuation or the identity of
the alleged perpetrator, as all the others. If the alleged “rehabilitation costs” were
actually incurred, the DRC should be expected to provide actual evidence, but it
has not done so.
4.25 Importantly, the form also states that the alleged damages occurred on 13
August 2008, five years after UPDF troops withdrew from Ituri. Such a basic error
(attributing to Uganda conduct that allegedly occurred when it was not even in the
DRC) not only undermines the credibility of this particular form, it raises serious
questions about the DRC’s entire process in collecting its “victim identification
forms”.
4.26 Another illustrative entry comes from page 57 of the valuation list, which
contains the following summary of damages allegedly caused to a “building”,
“office” and “prison”:
4.27 The alleged damages assessed at US$ 5,000 for each of these administrative
buildings are nominally based on a victim identification form contained in the file
“ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_020”. Here is what this form actually says:
100
101
4.28 This bare form does nothing to help the DRC. In addition to not ascribing
the alleged damages to Uganda (or anyone else), it does not even mention the
“valuation” numbers stated in the “valuation list”. These numbers appear to have
been plucked from out of a hat.128 Indeed, for all three prisons and about eleven
unspecified offices or buildings listed in the valuation list, the same price—US$
5000—is claimed.129 It is facially implausible that precisely the same quantum of
damage was caused to different buildings. Moreover, such numbers undermine
the arbitrarily claimed lump-sum amount of US$ 50,000 for all administrative
buildings.
*
4.29 In conclusion, the DRC’s response to Question 4 provides no explanation,
much less evidence, to support the alleged “average costs” for the damages
claimed (US$ 75,000 for an educational establishment, US$ 75,000 for a
healthcare establishment and US$ 50,000 for an administrative building).
128 See also other “victim identification forms” in DRCRQ Annex 1.9.C:
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_026, p. 35 (the form does not state any values for any
category of the alleged damages, but the “valuation list” assigns the valuation of US $ 15000);
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_022, p. 57 (the form does not state values for prison or office
but only alleged unspecified costs of US$ 20,000 for some structures.)
129 See DRCRQ Annex 1.9.C: ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_033, p. 35,;
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_015, p. 48, ibid; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_008,
p. 56; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_020, p. 57; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_035,
p. 57 (this victim identification form ascribes damages to “UPC-APC-FRPI”; the form also claims
US $ 3000 as a lump sum amount alleged at the end of a general property list, but the “valuation
list” “summarizes” damages in the amount of US $ 3500, broken down among three categories of
buildings not specified in the victim identification form.);
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_029, p. 158 (the victim identification form alleges without
any evidence the damages in the amount of US$ 8300, but the “valuation list” “summarizes” the
alleged damages as amounting to US$ 10,000).
102
103
Could the DRC provide the Court with evidence regarding the
locations, ownership, average production, and concessions or
licenses for each mine and forest for which it claims compensation
for illegal exploitation by Uganda?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
5.1 Question 5 asks the DRC to present the kinds of evidence normally required
in inter-State proceedings to prove the existence and valuation of damages for
illegal exploitation of natural resources.130 The DRC’s response does not do that.
It does not provide any specific evidence as to the (1) location, (2) ownership, (3)
average production, or (4) concessions or licenses for any mine or forest, let alone
for each mine of forest for which it claims compensation.
The DRC Fails to Provide the Requested Evidence Concerning Mines
5.2 The DRC’s response to Question 5 provides no evidence showing the
location, ownership, average production, or concessions or licenses for any gold
mine, coltan mine or diamond mine where exploitation was carried out as a result
of wrongful acts attributable to Uganda.
5.3 As regards the location of each mine, the DRC should have presented, at
the very least, documentary evidence identifying the mines where it alleges that
illegal exploitation for which Uganda is responsible occurred. This could have
been done based on maps or surveys developed by the government or mining
companies indicating the exact location of the mines, which typically would exist
130 For the discussion of requirements under international law to prove damages for illegal
exploitation of natural resources, see UCM, paras. 8.4-8.7.
104
for purposes of purchase/sale, transport of minerals or logistical support. In
addition, the DRC might also have submitted contemporaneous accounts by
persons with direct knowledge proving the seizure of each mine, such as the
owner, the operator or chief engineer.
5.4 Rather than do that, the DRC refers to two unauthenticated maps prepared
by third parties based on unverifiable data. “Map No.1” (at page 17 of the DRC
response) is an untitled and undated map that appears to have been prepared by
the International Peace Information Service (“IPIS”).131 The DRC also presents
“Map No.2A” (at page 19 of the DRC response), which is also untitled and appears
to have been prepared in 2005.132
5.5 The DRC does not present either map to prove the location of the mines for
which it seeks compensation, but merely as evidence of “the various kinds of
mineral ore … that are present in the area that was under the control of or under
occupation by Uganda”.133 Even if the two maps could be relied upon, they do no
more than generally indicate the areas where ores of various types may be found,
not the location of specific mines, let alone mines exploited by or on behalf of
Uganda. They therefore do nothing to answer the Court’s question.
5.6 Nor do these two maps even broadly compare the general locations of
mineral deposits with the locations of Ugandan soldiers, as the DRC incorrectly
131 DRCRQ, para. 5.3.
132 DRCRQ, para. 5.3. The author of the map is illegible due to the poor quality of the image that
the DRC produced.
133 DRCRQ, para. 5.4 (Translation by Counsel, original in French : “La carte n°1 présente les
différents minerais que l’on rencontre à la partie Est de la RDC et surtout, ceux qui sont présents
dans la zone qui était sous contrôle ou simplement sous occupation ougandaise. La légende énumère
et vous ramène sur les zones précises où l’on peut rencontrer ces minerais. Ceci est la preuve que
les militaires ougandais occupaient des zones riches en minerais”).
105
claims.134 And even if the DRC had presented such a map, that by itself would not
constitute proof that Uganda illegally exploited Congolese mineral resources. Just
because UPDF soldiers may have been present in a given location at a given time,
it does not follow that Uganda necessarily is responsible for any and all losses in
that location. Much more is required to establish proximate cause.135
5.7 As regards the ownership of each mine, the DRC should have come
forward with documentary evidence showing whether each mine was State-owned
or privately owned and, if the latter, by whom. This could easily be established
through contemporaneous government reports, title documents, licenses or tax
records. Here again, the DRC presents no such evidence. Indeed, its response to
Question 5 does not even bother to address the issue of ownership in any way.
5.8 Uganda considers it critical to know whether a mine is privately owned or
owned by the State to determine how to measure damages. The measure of any
loss to the DRC from the illegal exploitation of mineral resources is not the
commercial value of the minerals, as the DRC erroneously claims.136 Rather, it is
the net loss in value to the State from the exploitation of those resources. If the
State owned the mine, the loss to the DRC would be the value of extracted
minerals less the costs incurred in extracting and transporting those minerals for
sale.137 If a private party owned the mine, the DRC’s loss would be limited to
foregone tax income, royalties or other fees payable to the State.
134 DRCRQ, para. 5.4.
135 UCM, Chapter 8.I.B-C.
136 DRCM, para. 5.58.
137 If the gold mine is owned and operated by a Congolese private company, the DRC must also
establish that the company has been continuously of its nationality from the date of the injury until
at least the presentation of the State’s claim.
106
5.9 As regards the average production of each mine, the DRC should have
submitted, for example, business records and/or other documentary materials
generated in the regular course of operations evidencing annual production figures
of each mine during the years leading up to its seizure and, where possible, during
the seizure. Such materials are critical because valuation of the harm from lost
resources can be proven based on prior years of extraction of the resource from
each mine, discounted by the costs of extraction and taking into account any
changed circumstances (such as damage to the mine from the conflict).
5.10 Instead of coming forward with the requested evidence, the DRC makes a
haphazard allegation relating solely to production of three gold mines (it says
nothing about production of coltan or diamonds). In particular, the DRC alleges—
without specifying the time period—that “the average production” of gold was
“on the order of 5,112 kg of gold per year distributed as follows: 3,600 kg per year
for the Gorumbwa Mine, 432 Kg per year for the Durba and 1,080 kg per year for
the Adidi mines”.138
5.11 For support, the DRC cites to the French version of a Human Rights Watch
report.139 But that report does not state the propositions for which it is cited; it
provides none of the production figures the DRC asserts. (Uganda also checked
the English version of the report but it, too, contains nothing to support the DRC’s
allegations.) Notably, this is the only place in the DRC’s response to the Court’s
question where it even mentions the Gorumbwa, Durba and Adidi Mines.
Nowhere does it make any serious effort to adduce any evidence demonstrating
the location, ownership, and related concessions or licenses of these mines.
138 DRCRQ, para. 5.18 (citing Human Rights Watch, The Curse of Gold (DRCRQ Annex 5.5)).
139 Human Rights Watch, The Curse of Gold (DRCRQ Annex 5.5).
107
5.12 The DRC also turns to unrelated statistical data concerning Uganda’s
alleged export of gold (again, it says nothing about coltan or diamonds).140 In the
first instance, Uganda observes that the new data put forward in the DRC’s
Response is as incorrect as the data mentioned in the DRC’s Memorial. Uganda
presented the correct data on its production and export of gold in its Counter-
Memorial.141 Secondly, Uganda also explained in its Counter-Memorial why the
DRC’s misguided attempt to use Uganda’s export of gold and other minerals to
prove the injury the DRC allegedly suffered should be rejected.142 The DRC’s
response to Question 5 makes no effort to rebut those explanations. Uganda will
therefore not burden the Court by repeating them here.
5.13 Finally, as regards the concessions or licenses for each mine, the DRC
equally fails to produce any evidence. No copies of actual concessions or licences
for any mine, much less each of them, is presented. This omission is all the more
conspicuous given the DRC’s express admission in its response to Question 5 that
it gave authorizations to different entities to exploit mineral resources.143 Uganda
also regards the issue of concessions or licenses as of extreme importance, for if
the mines at issue were operated non-State owned entities, then the harm to the
DRC can only be measured by lost taxes, royalties or fees, not by the commercial
value of the minerals extracted.
5.14 Rather than come forward with documentary evidence of the concessions
or licenses relating to each of the mines, the DRC instead presents a mishmash of
completely irrelevant maps or other materials. Thus, in Annex 5.1, the DRC
140 DRCRQ, para. 5.10.
141 UCM, paras. 8.59-8-95.
142 UCM, paras. 8.59-8-95.
143 DRCRQ, para. 5.17.
108
presents an incomplete map entitled “Carte des concessions minières du Congo et
du Rwanda-Burundi”.144 This map purports to show mineral concessions of the
Belgian Congo and Rwanda-Burundi as of June 1960. It goes without saying that
this nearly 60-year old map is irrelevant to the issue at hand.
5.15 The DRC also refers to Map 7A (at page 27 of its responses), which
purports to show the location of three putative concessions of KILO-MOTO.145
This map has no date, no name, no source, no supporting materials underlying the
information on that map, no connection to any concession and no information
about the average production of mineral resources. It even does not show which
mineral resources are covered within the areas of the alleged concessions. It
therefore adds nothing to the DRC’s claim.
5.16 The same is true about materials the DRC includes in Annex 5.9, which are
grouped there as Annex 3, Annex 4, Annex 5 and Annex 6. Nothing in those
annexes answers the Court’s question either.
5.17 In Annex 3, the DRC includes two undated maps that appear to have been
prepared by the mining company Barrick Gold Corporation. One map, entitled
“Localisation des Zones Exclusives de Recherches et des Concessions”, purports
to show the areas of Barrick’s “concessions”, Barrick’s “exclusive zones”,
“retroceded concessions” and “Kimin’s concession”. The other map, entitled
“Détails des Limites Sud-Est des Concessions et des Zones Exclusives de
Recherches”, purports to show the areas of Barrick’s “concessions”, Barrick’s
“exclusive zones”, “retroceded concessions” and “retroceded exclusive zones”.
The DRC does not explain the relevance of these maps or the terms contained
144 Carte des concessions minières du Congo et du Rwanda-Burundi (DRCRQ Annex 5.1).
145 DRCRQ, para. 5.18.
109
within them. Neither is map is paired with corresponding concession documents,
identifies any mine or indicates any production of minerals.
5.18 Nor can any answer be found in Annex 4, which contains a map purporting
to show “Localisation des Zones Rétrocédées à l’OKIMO Région Doko Durba”.
Even assuming that this undated map prepared by Barrick correctly depicts the
zones at some point “retroceded” to OKIMO, a Congolese State-owned mining
company, the DRC offers no information about the locations of actual mines
within such zones, their average production, or actual concessions or licenses
related to them. Divorced from any actual evidence, this bare map cannot support
any aspect of the DRC’s claim.
5.19 Annexes 5 and 6 are equally of no help. Annex 5 contains a five-year “Work
Plan with Projected Exploration Costs” assessed at US$ 23 million and Annex 6
contains a list of experts without dates and signatures. It is not clear who prepared
the Work Plan or when, or which area(s) and mineral(s) it covers. What is clear,
however, is that the Work Plan states only projected exploration costs. It shows
nothing about actual concessions or licenses, let alone the location, ownership or
average production of a specific mine.
5.20 In conclusion, the DRC has failed to present any of the evidence the Court
requested concerning the exploitation of minerals.
The DRC Fails to Provide the Requested Evidence Concerning
Forests
5.21 The DRC equally fails to come forward with any evidence showing the
locations, ownership, average production and concessions or licenses for each
forest that was allegedly illegally exploited as a result of wrongful acts attributable
to Uganda.
110
5.22 The DRC only alleges broadly that:
“With regard to the locations of the forest
concessions that were subject to the illegal
exploitation, the DRC reports that the forests that
most suffered from the effects of the deforestation
resulting from the war conducted by Uganda are in
the following areas: Djugu, Mambassa, Beni,
Komanda, Luna, Mount Moyo, and Aboro”.146
5.23 But this assertion not only fails to identify the specific location of specific
forests, instead mentioning only general geographic “areas”, it is also unsupported
by evidence linking each such forest to specific owners, average timber production
and concessions or licenses. Indeed, no supporting documentation of any kind is
offered.
5.24 Rather than do what the Court asked, the DRC takes exactly the same
approach that it did in its Memorial: it misleadingly cites the Porter Commission
Report and UN Panel of Experts’ reports in a vain effort to support its
allegations.147
5.25 In particular, the DRC continues to focus on DARA-Forest:
“Among the concessionaires who benefited from the
illegal exploitation of Congolese woods, it is worth
mentioning DARA-Forest, identified as a Ugandan
and Thai company, established in Ituri at the end of
1998, which purchased the exploitation permit from
146 DRCRQ, para. 5.24 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “S’agissant de l’emplacement
des concessions forestières objet d’exploitation illicite, la RDC renseigne que les forêts qui ont le
plus subi les effets de la déforestation suite à la guerre menée par l’Ouganda se trouvent dans les
zones ci-après: Djugu, Mambassa, Beni, Komanda, Luna, Mont Moyo et Aboro”) (emphasis
omitted).
147 DRCRQ, paras. 5.19-5.25.
111
a private armed group, the RCD-KML, after the
Government of the DRC had denied it such a permit
a year before the outbreak of the war, and whose
activities during the period of Ugandan occupation
and control were reported in particular by the
Porter Commission (Annex 5.8), by the Addendum
to the report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and other Wealth
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Annex
5.2, paragraph 48, pp. 12-13), by the Interim report
of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of
Natural Resources and other Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (Annex 5.3) and
by the Final report of the Panel of Experts on the
Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and other
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(Annex 5.4 pages 21 to 27)”.148
148 DRCRQ, para. 5.25. (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “Au nombre des
concessionnaires ayant bénéficié de l’exploitation illégale des bois congolaises, il y a lieu de citer
DARA-Forest, identifiée société ougando-Thaillandaise, installée en Ituri à la fin de l’année 1998,
ayant acheté le permis d’exploitation au près d’un groupe armé privé, le RCD-KML, après que le
Gouvernement de la RDC le lui ait refusé une année avant le déclenchement de la guerre, et dont
les activités pendant la période de l’occupation et du contrôle ougandais sont rapportées notamment
par la commission Porter (Annexe 5.8), par l’Additif au Rapport du Groupe d’Experts sur
l’Exploitation illégale des ressources naturelles et autres richesses de la RDC (Annexe 5.2 ,
paragraphe 48, pp. 12-13), par le rapport intérimaire du Groupe d’Experts sur l’Exploitation illégale
des ressources naturelles et autres richesses de la RDC (Annexe 5.3) et par le Rapport final du
Groupe d’Experts sur l’Exploitation illégale des ressources naturelles et autres richesses de la RDC
(Annexe 5.4 pages 21 à 27)”) (emphasis added and ommitted). The DRC’s also alleges that timber
processed in North Kivu transited through Uganda to Mombassa, and was transported by a freight
company TMK. (DRCRQ, para. 5.24 (“Bien plus, le bois d’oeuvre traité à Mangina (Nord-Kivu),
transitait par l’Ouganda, en direction de Mombassa, et était transporté par la société de fret TMK.”)
There is nothing the DRC’s materials showing that any timber in North Kivu was illegally exploited
as a result of wrongful acts attributable to Uganda. Nor is there anything showing that TMK had
any connection to Uganda or Ugandan nationals. Finally, the mere transit of goods from the DRC
through Uganda does not demonstrate any form of illegal exploitation by Uganda. Entities operating
in the eastern DRC were unable to import or export goods through Kinshasa due to the lack of
transportation infrastructure. Transit continued to be possible through Uganda, as has long been the
case. Prohibiting such transit would have had an adverse impact on the people of eastern Congo.
This was confirmed in the UN Panel’s report of 16 October 2002, which advised against closing the
border between the DRC and Uganda and imposing an embargo on cross-border trade. (U.N.
Security Council, Final report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
112
5.26 These are exactly the same allegations that Uganda already showed to be
without foundation in its Counter-Memorial.149 Even as it turns again to DARAForest,
the DRC’s response to Question 5 does not mention, let alone address,
Uganda’s previous arguments. Uganda will therefore largely limit itself now to
referring the Court to the details of its rebuttal of the DARA-Forest allegations in
the Counter-Memorial.150 Uganda will only summarize the key points here.
5.27 As regards the specific allegation that DARA-Forest was a “Ugandan-Thai”
company that exploited and exported timber, the Porter Commission refuted it as
wholly unfounded.151
5.28 In addition to being refuted by the Porter Commission, the allegation about
the illegal exploitation and export of the Congolese timber by a putative
“Ugandan-Thai” company was subsequently retracted by the UN Panel itself, after
it “[took] a closer look at the legal status of DARA-Forest” and its operation in
the DRC.152 The UN Panel’s revised position on this matter is set out in the
Addendum to the report of 12 April 2001, which the DRC itself included with its
Memorial (as Annex 1.8) and quoted extensively in the chapter concerning
damages to plant life.153
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, U.N. Doc.
S/2002/1146 (16 Oct. 2002), p. 29, para. 155 (UCM Annex 15).
149 UCM, Chapter 8.C.
150 See UCM, para. 8.151-8.165.
151 Republic of Uganda, Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations into Illegal Exploitation
of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth in the Democratic Republic of the Congo 2001,
Final Report (Nov. 2002), p. 62 (UCM Annex 52).
152 U.N. Panel of Experts, Addendum to the first report of 12 April 2001, para. 72 (UCM Annex
13).
153 DRCM, para. 5.176.
113
5.29 The DRC reattaches the Addendum as Annex 5.2 of its response to
Question 5 but does not appear to have actually read it. Had the DRC done so, it
would have realized that it is fatal to the DRC’s claims because it shows:
• DARA-Forest was not a “Ugandan-Thai” company and did not have
Ugandans, whether officials or private citizens, among its shareholders
or in its management.154
• DARA-Forest harvested timber pursuant to concessions granted by the
Congolese authorities and all of its lumber was exported to countries
other than Uganda.155
• After obtaining concessions in June 1998, DARA-Forest continued to
exploit timber during the conflict pursuant to additional concessions
granted by local Congolese authorities, which verified and confirmed
that the company complied with the terms of the concessions.
Moreover, contrary to the DRC’s allegations, the Congolese central
government granted the company a certificate of registration, accepted
the company’s operation in the zones held by rebels, and received
payments the company made under the concession.156
5.30 The DRC’s own evidence thus refutes the DRC’s claims.
5.31 The striking aspect of this portion of the DRC’s response to Question 5 is
not just that it is unresponsive to the Court’s question. What is truly striking is that
the DRC repeats arguments for the second time knowing that they are based on
154 DRCM, para. 5.176 (emphasis added); U.N. Panel of Experts, Addendum to the first report of
12 April 2001, para. 72 (UCM Annex 13).
155 DRCM, para. 5.176 (emphasis added); U.N. Panel of Experts, Addendum to the first report of
12 April 2001, paras. 71-73 (UCM Annex 13).
156 Ibid.
114
allegations that are erroneous, refuted and retracted by the very authorities on
which the DRC relies.
*
5.32 Question 5 afforded the DRC an opportunity to ground its compensation
claims relating to natural resources on good evidence of the sort traditionally
expected in inter-State proceedings. The DRC failed to seize that opportunity. By
providing no evidence showing the locations, ownership, average production, or
concessions or licenses for any mine or for any forest, the DRC has not done what
the Court asked of it. As such, it has not given the Court the evidentiary basis on
which an award of compensation can be made.
115
Could Uganda explain if there were any procedures in place
between 1998 and 2003 in Uganda to determine the origin of gold,
diamonds, timber, or coltan dealt with in Uganda or exported from
Uganda?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response
6.1 Uganda responded to this question on 1 November 2018.157 As it showed
there, Uganda did have mechanisms in place to determine the origin of gold and
diamonds imported into and exported from Uganda during the period 1998-
2003.158
6.2 Uganda does not consider further comment necessary or appropriate at this
stage except to note that in its own response to Question 6, the DRC invokes a
legal principle—specifically, the principle of prevention159—that has no
application in the circumstances of this case. Tellingly, the DRC has never
previously made an argument based on the principle of prevention. And for good
reason: this is not a case in which activities on Uganda’s territory are alleged to
be causing harm to the environment of the DRC.160
157 Response to the Court’s Questions of Uganda (1 Nov. 2018) (hereinafter “URQ”), Question 6,
pp. 1-5.
158 URQ, Question 6, paras. 1-8.
159 According to the DRC, “each State, pursuant to general international law, has the obligation to
exercise effective control over its territory, so that the activities that are conducted there do not
cause harm to the other States”. DRCRQ, para. 6.1 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “il
pèse sur chaque Etat, en vertu du droit international général, l’obligation d’exercer un contrôle
effectif sur son territoire, de manière que les activités qui s’y exercent ne causent pas préjudice aux
autres Etats”).
160 See Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay (Argentina v. Uruguay), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2010,
para. 101 (a State is “obliged to use all the means at its disposal in order to avoid activities which
116
take place in its territory, or in any area under its jurisdiction, causing significant damage to the
environment of another State”).
117
Has either Party so far investigated or prosecuted any individuals
in relation to violations of international humanitarian law in the
DRC in the period 1998-2003?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
7.1 In its response to Question 7, the DRC identifies five cases in its courts in
which individuals were investigated or prosecuted for violations of international
humanitarian law in the DRC during the period 1998-2003.161 The DRC does not
explain the exact nature of these few cases, but some appear to be related to
individuals who were sought by the ICC (for example, Germain Katanga, who the
DRC surrendered to the ICC in 2007, was convicted in 2014, and is now serving
out his sentence in the DRC),162 or who were implicated in a 2005 attack on UN
peacekeepers in the DRC that drew significant attention from the UN Security
Council (for example, Goda Sukpa).163
7.2 In attempting to explain the limited number of cases, the DRC asserts that
“the Congolese courts have, in all likelihood, still not initiated investigations of
these crimes, since foreign military personnel have returned to their respective
countries.”164 Uganda does not consider credible this speculation (“in all
161 DRCRQ, para. 7.3.
162 See International Criminal Court, The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga ICC-01/04-01/07,
available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc/katanga (last accessed: 1 Jan. 2019).
163 See U.N. Security Council, Statement by the President of the Security Council, U.N. Doc.
S/PRST/2005/10 (17 Feb. 2006).
164 DRCRQ, para. 7.3 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “les juridictions congolaises
n’ont pas encore, vraisemblablement ouvert des enquêtes sur ces crimes, les militaires étrangers
ayant regagnés (sic) leurs pays respectifs.”) (emphasis added).
118
likelihood”) as to the reason that DRC courts have not pursued any additional
investigations.
7.3 Uganda is unaware of, and the DRC does not point to, any DRC law that
precludes investigation of crimes that have occurred in the DRC’s territory or the
issuance of indictments simply because the alleged offender is located in another
country. Rather, DRC law appears to allow for the investigation of crimes
occurring in its territory, as well as the exercise of jurisdiction over persons who
have committed such crimes, whether or not those persons are located in the DRC.
Moreover, the DRC has concluded numerous extradition treaties with other States
that allow it to pursue extradition of persons located outside the DRC.165
7.4 There are more plausible explanations for the lack of cases in DRC courts
in relation to violations of international humanitarian law committed in the DRC
during 1998-2003. First, by Presidential Decree issued in April 2003166, the DRC
granted a general amnesty, which was adopted by the DRC Parliament in
September 2004.167 Uganda understands that the amnesty applied to all DRC
165 For the DRC’s national law on extradition, see République Démocratique du Congo, Décret du
12 avril 1886 relatif à l’extradition, available at
http://www.droitcongolais.info/files/360_decret_du_12_avril_1886_extrad… (last accessed:
1 Jan. 2019).
166 République Démocratique du Congo, Décret-Loi No. 03-001 portant amnistie pour faits de
guerre, infractions politiques et d’opinion, available at
https://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce528c,50ffbce5304,47305aae2,0,NATL…
(15 Apr. 2003). The degree granted amnesty by temporary executive order in accordance with the
2002 Global and All-Inclusive Agreement. This amnesty covered acts of war, political breaches of
the law, and crimes of opinion for the period of August 2, 1998 to April 4, 2003, but excluded
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
167 République Démocratique du Congo, Loi No. 05/023 du 2005 portant amnistie pour faits de
guerre, infractions politiques et d’opinion, available at
https://www.refworld.org/topic,50ffbce528c,50ffbce5304,47305d032,0,NATL…
TION,COD.html (19 Dec. 2005). This law was passed by the Congolese transitional parliament
and it abrogated the 2003 Presidential Decree. While the law codified an amnesty over the crimes
enumerated in the 2003, it altered the temporal scope to include acts committed from August 20,
119
nationals, whether living in the DRC or abroad, who engaged in military
operations between 1998 and 2003. At the same time, exempt from the amnesty
were those who allegedly killed or attempted to kill the Head of State, or who
allegedly committed war crimes, acts of genocide or crimes against humanity.168
Despite this latter exemption, the existence of this amnesty may help explain why
DRC authorities did not pursue investigations or prosecutions for violations that
allegedly occurred in the DRC during the time period in question.
7.5 Second, had the DRC fully investigated the circumstances surrounding
atrocities that occurred during that time period, those investigations would likely
have implicated the DRC’s own armed forces. The DRC’s response to Question 7
notably does not identify any such prosecutions, despite widespread reports that
DRC armed forces committed violations of international humanitarian law during
the period from 1998 to 2003.
7.6 Third, in the aftermath of the conflict, the DRC integrated into its armed
forces many of the rebel groups and their leaders who likely committed such
violations of international humanitarian law. Again, if the DRC had conducted
investigations, they likely would have implicated officers and soldiers who had
become part of the DRC’s own armed forces.
7.7 For example, of the five cases the DRC identifies, one concerns Jérôme
Kakwavu Bukande.169 Uganda understands that Kakwavu and his rebel group (the
1996 to June 20, 2003. Further, the law allowed for the retroactive pardons and for the commutation
of prior convictions for acts falling within the law’s scope.
168 See IRIN, Amnesty law passed without MPs from Kabila’s party, available at
http://www.irinnews.org/report/57408/drc-amnesty-law-passed-without-mps… (30
Nov. 2005).
169 DRCRQ, para. 7.3.
120
People’s Armed Forces of Congo) were integrated into the DRC’s armed forces
in 2004, and Kakwavu promoted to the rank of general.170 Only after he was listed
by the UN Security Council Committee established pursuant to Resolution 1533
(2004) and under pressure from representatives of Security Council members, was
Kakwavu taken into custody for trial.171 In November 2014, the DRC military high
court in Kinshasa found Kakwavu guilty of crimes committed in 2004.172
7.8 Another case the DRC identifies concerns Justin Matata Banaloki (also
known as “Cobra Matata”), a former leader of the Front for Patriotic Resistance
in Ituri, who was integrated into the DRC’s armed forces in 2007. Only after he
deserted and reconstituted a rebel group in 2010, was Banaloki arrested by the
DRC in 2015 and charged with acts dating back to 2002.173
7.9 Although not responsive to the Court’s question, the DRC devotes about
half of its answer to the case of Thomas Lubanga—the former leader of Union of
Congolese Patriots (“UPC”)/Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo
(“FPLC”)—before the ICC. The DRC’s argument here is not clear,174 but it
ultimately leads to the assertion that “there is a direct relationship between the acts
170 See Trial International, Jerome Kakwavu, available at https://trialinternational.org/latestpost/
jerome-kakwavu/ (last modified: 27 Sept. 2016).
171 See U.N. Security Council, Jerome Kakwavu Bukande, available at
https://www.un.org/securitycouncil/sanctions/1533/materials/summaries/i…-
bukande (last accessed: 1 Jan. 2019).
172 Radio France Internationale Afrique, Crimes de guerre en RDC: 10 ans de prison pour le général
Kakwavu, available at http://www.rfi.fr/afrique/20141108-crimes-guerre-rdc-10-ans-prison-lege…-
kakwavu (8 Nov. 2014).
173 U.N. Security Council, Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization
Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, U.N. Doc. S/2015/172 (10 Mar.
2015), para. 19; Daily Mail, DR Congo rebel chief Cobra Matata transfered to Kinshasa, available
at https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/afp/article-2897707/DR-Congo-rebel-ch…-
Kinshasa.html (5 Jan. 2015).
174 DRCRQ, paras. 7.6-7.12.
121
blamed on Mr. Thomas Lubanga and the Ugandan occupation that incited the
conflict between the Héma and Lendu ethnic groups”.175 This assertion is
unsustainable. The DRC provides no citations to support it because no such
sources exist.176 Indeed, none of the ICC’s judgments concerning Mr. Lubanga,
whether at the trial or appellate levels, indicate that there was any relationship
between Mr. Lubanga’s criminal acts and Uganda’s conduct. To the contrary, the
ICC Trial Chamber concluded that: “The Chamber has not heard any evidence
that Uganda had a role in organising, coordinating or planning UPC/FPLC
military operations”.177
175 DRCRQ, para. 7.12. (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “il y a lieu d’affirmer qu’il y a
un lien direct entre les faits reprochés à M. Thomas Lubanga et l’occupation ougandaise qui a attisé
le conflit entre les ethnies Héma et Lendu”.)
176 See UCM, para. 6.72.
177 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment pursuant to Article
74 of the Statute (ICC Trial Chamber I, 14 Mar. 2012), para. 561 (emphasis added).
122
123
In relation to unlawful acts of which irregular forces does the DRC
claim compensation from Uganda?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
8.1 The DRC’s response to Question 8 states that the DRC claims
compensation from Uganda in relation to unlawful acts of the following nine
irregular forces:
• Union des Patriotes Congolais (“UPC”) ;
• Maï-Maï Simba militia;
• “Chui Mobil Force” militia;
• Front de Résistance Patriotique en Ituri (“FRPI”);
• Rassemblement des Congolais pour la Démocratie/Mouvement de
Libération (“RCD/KML”);
• Union des Démocrates Congolais (“UDC”);
• RCD/N;
• Forces Armées du Peuple Congolais (“FAPC”); and
• PUSIC.
8.2 Uganda observes first that the DRC does not identify the Mouvement de
Libération du Congo (MLC), led by Jean-Pierre Bemba, as one of the irregular
124
forces in respect of the acts of which it claims compensation from Uganda.178
Uganda considers the DRC’s Response to Question 8 to be its final word on its
claims in relation to unlawful acts of irregular forces. It must therefore be
concluded that it has waived any compensation claim relating to the alleged acts
of the MLC.
8.3 Of the nine irregular forces the DRC does list in its response, six are not
mentioned anywhere in the 2005 Judgment; namely:
• Maï-Maï militia;
• “Chui Mobil Force” militia;179
• FRPI;180
• UDC;
• FAPC; and
178 During the merits proceedings, the DRC argued that Uganda created the MLC. The Court
rejected that argument (Armed Activities (2005), paras. 158-160). The Court held that the illegal
acts of the MLC, or of any other militia, were not attributable to Uganda and that those groups were
not “under the control” of Uganda (ibid., para. 177).
179 The Chui Mobil Force is neither mentioned by the UN Mapping Report of 2010. “Chui” means
leopard in Kiswahili. That militia appears to have been an informal rebel group created by Bosco
Ntaganda who became one of the leaders of the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC) and later
prosecuted by the ICC. See International Criminal Court, The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda ICC-
01/04-02/06, available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc/ntaganda (last accessed: 1 Jan. 2019).
180 The real name of the Front de Résistance Patriotique en Ituri (FRPI) is Force de résistance
patriotique d’Ituri, translated into English as Patriotic Resistance Front in Ituri. See U.N. Human
Rights Council, Report of the Independent Expert on the Situation of Human Rights in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Titinga Frédéric Pacéré, U.N. Doc. A/HRC/7/25 (29 Feb.
2008), p. 7, available at available at https://documents-ddsny.
un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G08/115/58/PDF/G0811558.pdf?OpenElement (last accessed: 4
Jan. 2019). It was a Lendu-based militia, led by Germain Katanga who was later prosecuted and
convicted by the ICC. See International Criminal Court, The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga ICC-
01/04-01/07, available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc/katanga) (last accessed: 1 Jan. 2019).
125
• PUSIC.
8.4 It is unclear on what legal or factual basis the DRC now purports to claim
that Uganda is responsible for the unlawful acts of these six militias. The DRC’s
response to Question 8 is not supported by any evidence. Moreover, the DRC fails
to explain the actions of these six militias during the conflict, the harm they
allegedly inflicted or the connection between them and Uganda. The DRC does
nothing more than provide unilateral, undocumented and unsupported list of
names and abbreviations.
8.5 The Court made clear in the 2005 Judgment that none of the irregular
groups mentioned therein were “under the control” of Uganda.181 A fortiori,
groups not mentioned in the Judgment cannot be deemed to have been under the
control of Uganda. Including such groups at this stage would mean impermissibly
revisiting the 2005 Judgment, which is res judicata as between the Parties.
(Uganda also observes that the UDC appears not to exist,182 while the activities of
181 Armed Activities (2005), para. 177.
182 The Union des Démocrates Congolais (UDC) is not mentioned in the UN Mapping Report of
2010. It does not appear to have been a faction, group or militia during the events which is of
concern to the Court in these proceedings. Neither is it listed by the DRC’s Commission Électorale
Nationale Indépendante (CENI) in 2018 as a political party nor as a political “regroupement”. See
DRC, Commission Électorale Nationale Indépendante, PARTIS ET REGROUPEMENTS
POLITIQUES EN RDC [Année 2018], available at
https://www.ceni.cd/partis_et_regroupements_politiques (last accessed: 1 Jan. 2019). If the DRC
meant to refer instead to the Union des Démocrates Chrétiens (UDC), this group is not mentioned
in the UN Mapping Report of 2010 either.
126
the FAPC183 and PUSIC184 are beyond the ratione temporis scope of the 2005
Judgment.)
8.6 With respect to the three irregular groups listed by the DRC that were
mentioned in the 2005 Judgment, the UPC was a political party founded by
Thomas Lubanga who was later prosecuted and convicted by the ICC.185 The UPC
is mentioned once in the 2005 Judgment (at para. 208). There, the Court referred
to a MONUC special report on the events in Ituri which states that on 6 and 7
March 2003, fighting took place in Bunia between the UPC and the UPDF.186 The
2005 Judgment makes no mention of any form of cooperation between Uganda
and the UPC. On the contrary, it refers to fighting that took place between them.
It is therefore difficult to understand on what legal basis Uganda could be held
responsible for the illegal acts of a militia that was, in fact, aided by a third State
(i.e., Rwanda). Moreover, the UPC fought against, not alongside, the UPDF at a
time and place where Uganda had the responsibilities of an occupying power (i.e.,
was entitled to keep public order and curb the activities of armed groups). Not
183 The Forces Armées du Peuple Congolais (FAPC) was formed in March 2003 by Jérôme
Kakwavu, as a faction of the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC). Uganda recalls that the ratione
temporis scope of the 2005 Judgment, and of its responsibility under that Judgment, ends on 2 June
2003. See UCM, para. 1.6.
184 The PUSIC stands for Parti pour l’unité et la sauvegarde de l’intégrité du Congo. It was a faction
led by Kahwa Mandro that seceded from the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC). Indeed,
sometime in 2003, the UPC was split between the PUSIC, the UPC-Kisembo (UPC-K) led by
Kisembo Bahemuka, and the UPC-Lubanga (UPC-L), under the leadership of Thomas Lubanga.
The UPC-L was by far the strongest military militia. In 2004, long after Ugandan troops departed
from the DRC, the UPC-K merged into the PUSIC. Be that as it may, the DRC does not refer to any
illegal act by the PUSIC that took place before the last Ugandan troops withdrew on 2 June 2003.
Any claim based on PUSIC action appears to be beyond the temporal scope of the 2005 Judgment.
185 See International Criminal Court, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06,
available at https://www.icc-cpi.int/drc/lubanga (last accessed: 1 Jan. 2019).
186 U.N. Security Council, Special Report on Events in Ituri (Jan. 2002-Dec. 2003), U.N. Doc.
S/2004/573 (16 July 2004), para. 73 (DRCRQ Annex 2.4.B).
127
surprisingly, as noted in Uganda’s response to Question 7, in 2012, a Trial
Chamber of the ICC found in the Lubanga case, that it “has not heard any evidence
that Uganda had a role in organising, coordinating or planning UPC/FPLC
military operations”.187
8.7 Concerning the other two militias identified in the DRC’s response—(1)
the RCD/KML and (2) the RCD/N—Uganda notes that the 2005 Judgment refers
to (a) the Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie (“RCD”), (b) the
Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie-Kisangani (“RCD-Kisangani”, also
known as “RCD-Wamba”), or (c) the Rassemblement congolais pour la
démocratie-Mouvement de libération (“RCD-ML”).188 It is difficult to understand
exactly to which of these RCD groups the DRC now refers, given that the 2005
Judgment does not mention the “RCD/KML” or “RCD/N” as such. By
“RCD/KML”, Uganda believes that the DRC is referring to the militia identified
in the 2005 Judgment as the RCD Kisangani, which was later called the
Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie-Mouvement de Libération (“RCDML”).
Uganda also believes that the DRC’s mention of the “RCD/N” is meant to
refer to “Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie – National”, a faction
which seceded from the RCD/KML.189
8.8 Because its response to Question 8 is its final word, it must be understood
that the DRC does not claim compensation for the illegal acts perpetrated by any
other branches of the RCD; viz.:
187 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-
01/04-01/06, para. 561 (Mar. 14, 2012).
188 Armed Activities (2005), para. 27.
189 See UCM, para. 2.51 and U.N. Mapping Report, para. 310 (UCM Annex 25).
128
• the Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie (RCD) at the time it
was still unified;
• the RCD-Authentique (“RCD-A”; not mentioned in the 2005
Judgment);
• the RCD-Originel (“RCD-O”; not mentioned in the 2005 Judgment);
• the RCD-Goma (not mentioned in the 2005 Judgment);
• the RCD-Congo (a faction that seceded from the RCD-Goma and is not
mentioned in the 2005 Judgment); or
• any other RCD faction.
8.9 In light of the above, the only potentially relevant irregular forces listed in
the DRC’s response to Question 8 appear to be two militias: the RCD-Kisangani
(referred to by the DRC as RCD/KML) and the RCD/N. That said, the DRC fails
to provide the Court with any further evidence about their illegal acts, the harm
that they caused and their relationship with Uganda. (In this respect, Uganda notes
that Question 8 is included under the heading “requests for further evidence”.)
8.10 In its Response to Question 8, the DRC also argues that Uganda is
responsible for the (unidentified) unlawful acts of the irregular forces it lists
because the Court established in its 2005 Judgment “two types of connections”190
between Uganda and those armed groups: (1) Uganda breached the obligation not
to intervene in the internal affairs of another State; and (2) Uganda failed, as an
occupying Power, to take measures to respect and ensure respect for human rights
and international humanitarian law in Ituri district.191 Such a casual jumbling of
190 DRCRQ, para. 8.1 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “deux types de liens”).
191 DRCRQ, para. 8.1.
129
distinct internationally wrongful acts reflects a serious misunderstanding as to
what the DRC must prove. Indeed, the DRC’s response to Question 8 does not
even attempt to engage with the extensive arguments that Uganda raised in this
regard in its Counter-Memorial.192
8.11 The mere fact that Uganda intervened in the DRC, or fact that Uganda was
an occupying power in a portion of the DRC, does not mean that the Uganda is
responsible for all loss, damage or injury that occurred in the DRC by irregular
forces, even in occupied territory. Rather than prove its claims for reparation
relating to irregular forces, the DRC instead aims at using a simplistic “but for”
test based on the very general findings from the 2005 judgment. Yet those
findings: (1) did not identify most of the irregular forces now listed by the DRC
as relevant to the DRC’s claims; (2) for those few that the Court did identify, did
not reach factual conclusions regarding the exact relationship of those irregular
forces to Uganda; and (3) did not reach factual conclusions as to specific actions
taken by those irregular forces that caused harm, the attribution of those actions
to Uganda or the valuation of that harm. As such, the DRC cannot now rest itself
on the 2005 Judgment to prove its claims for reparations for actions of militias.
Those claims must therefore fail.
192 UCM, paras. 4.48-61.
130
131
Could the DRC explain the basis on which it attributes to Uganda
45% of the responsibility for damage caused by States and armed
groups not supported by Uganda?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response
9.1 The DRC’s response to Question 9 largely consists of a protracted
digression into issues that are not responsive to the question asked. It also does
not meaningfully add to the record beyond what the DRC already argued in its
Memorial—and Uganda refuted in its Counter-Memorial. Uganda will therefore
only comment on it to the limited extent relevant to the issue raised by the Court.
9.2 The heart of the DRC’s response is contained in three short paragraphs
(paras. 9.26-28) and illustrated by a map. The essence of the DRC’s “explanation”
is that
“[t]he 45% was obtained on the basis of the scale of
the illegal action of each of the actors. Regarding this
subject matter, there were mainly three (3) state
actors, to which the private groups were liable, on
the side of the aggressors. They are Rwanda,
Uganda, and Burundi. The role of the latter has been
recognized to be less significant. That of Rwanda has
been deemed to be almost as great as that of
Uganda”.193
193 DRCRQ, para. 9.26 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “Les 45% ont été obtenus sur
base de l’ampleur de l’action illicite de chacun des acteurs. A ce sujet, les acteurs étatiques, desquels
répondaient les groupes privés, étaient essentiellement à trois (3), du côté des agresseurs. Il s’agit
du Rwanda, de l’Ouganda et du Burundi. Le rôle de ce dernier a été reconnu comme étant moindre.
Celui du Rwanda a été jugé comme presqu’aussi grand que celui de l’Ouganda”).
132
9.3 Uganda considers this explanation facially inadequate. International
responsibility cannot be established by speculative guesstimation. The Court made
clear in the 2005 Judgment that at this reparation phase, the DRC would have to
prove specific injuries suffered by the DRC as a result of specific wrongful acts
for which Uganda is responsible.194 The ostensible explanation the DRC now
offers does not even begin to approximate the showing the Court required.
9.4 The DRC also provides no evidence, even of a very general nature, to
support its sweeping assertions concerning the relative roles of Rwanda, Burundi
and Uganda. Among many other flaws, the DRC’s proposed apportionment makes
no effort to take any account of the six other States and at least 21 major irregular
armed groups that were involved in the conflict.195
9.5 The DRC also attempts to justify the 45% figure graphically. At paragraph
9.28 of its response, the DRC argues that taking into account the amount of
Congolese territory that Uganda occupied confirms the percentage it identifies.
The DRC offers Map No. 8, captioned “Magnitude of the Congolese Territory
under Control and Occupation of Uganda”, as support.196 Uganda observes in the
first instance, that Map No. 8 lacks evidentiary value. It is not dated and the author
is unclear. There are also indications that it has been altered after the fact.
Specifically, the last digits in the dates “1998” and “2003” (i.e. “8” and “3”) in the
label appearing on the top of the map appear to have been added by hand.
9.6 In any event, even taking Map No. 8 at face value, it is clear that the UPDF
never deployed over an area covering 45% of the DRC territory. The inset in the
194 Armed Activities (2005), para. 260.
195 See UCM, paras. 2.48-2.50.
196 DRCRQ, Map 8 on p. 38.
133
lower right corner of the map (a map of the entire DRC) makes clear that the redcoloured
area covers significantly less than 45% of the DRC’s territory.
9.7 More importantly, Map No. 8 is flatly inconsistent with the 2005 Judgment.
The Court specifically found that the only area of the DRC that Uganda
“occupied” was Ituri district, a very small portion of the areas depicted in Map
No. 8. As a result, the 45% share remains largely unexplained and entirely
unfounded. It is, in short, wholly arbitrary.
9.8 To properly answer Question 9 and to meet its evidentiary burden, the DRC
should have:
• Established a proximate causal link between internationally wrongful
acts for which the Court held Uganda responsible in the 2005 Judgment
and the specific damages materially “caused by States and armed
groups not supported by Uganda”; and
• Proved that Uganda’s illegal acts contributed to an identifiable (and
identified) portion of those damages.
9.9 In other words, the DRC should have first established (rather than assume
or assert) that the other States and the armed groups not supported by Uganda
would not have inflicted specific, identified damages in the absence of specific,
identified internationally wrongful acts for which Uganda was responsible. This
demonstration must be concrete rather than abstract, and it must take into account
the specific operative modes of those other States and groups unsupported by
Uganda. After showing the requisite causal link, the DRC should also
convincingly show that a specific share of the identified damages were due to
specific wrongful acts of Uganda.
134
9.10 Only if the DRC made both showings, could Uganda’s internationally
wrongful acts be considered as contributing to damages inflicted by other actors.
The DRC has, however, not made either showing, either in its Memorial or in its
response to Questions 9. It has therefore given the Court no legal or evidentiary
basis to credit its assertion that Uganda is responsible for 45% of the damage
caused by States and armed groups not supported by it.
135
Could the DRC explain its methodology in calculating the averages
of awards by domestic Congolese courts in cases of death, personal
injury, rape and child soldiers, on which the DRC relies? Could the
DRC supply the cases on which it relied in the calculation of these
averages, as well as cases excluded?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
10.1 The DRC’s response to Question 10, which consists of eight short
paragraphs, does not actually answer the questions the Court asked. It neither
provides an explanation of the DRC’s methodology nor submits the decisions
relied upon (or excluded by) the DRC.
10.2 No explanation about the DRC’s methodology is forthcoming in its
response to Question 10. Instead, the DRC simply summarizes what it stated at
paragraph 7.08 of its Memorial, saying that its “lump-sum model” is based on “the
average amounts awarded as compensation in the judgments rendered by its
courts, after setting aside those that were not justified, which it used in order to
calculate the amounts to be awarded for each category.”197 The Court is thus left
with an asserted “methodology” that is based upon an unknown number of
decisions, unknown amounts awarded, unknown categories of damages and
unknown reasoning.
197 DRCRQ, paras. 10.2-10.3 (emphasis omitted) (Translation by Counsel, original in French:
“modèle forfaitaire” ; “la moyenne des sommes accordées à titre d’indemnisation dans les
jugements rendus par ses juridictions, après avoir écarté celles qui étaient dépourvues de motivation,
qui lui avait servi au calcul des sommes à allouer par catégorie”).
136
10.3 Uganda explained in its Counter-Memorial why this “methodology”, even
if done rigorously, is flawed.198 It will not burden the Court by repeating that
analysis here. Uganda simply observes that the DRC’s methodology remains
unexplained and fatally flawed despite having been afforded an opportunity to
rehabilitate it.
10.4 With respect to the DRC national court decisions relied upon to support its
“methodology”, the DRC now supplies two of the national court decisions on
which it claims to have relied. This is actually two more than the zero decisions it
produced with its Memorial. (It was Uganda that submitted seven DRC national
court decisions into the record with its Counter-Memorial in an effort to explain
why such decisions were inherently flawed and unsuitable for use by the Court.199)
10.5 The two decisions the DRC submits with its response are contained in
Annexes 10.1 and 10.2. They add nothing to the DRC’s claims. The first (Annex
10.1)200 appears to concern the prosecution of Jérôme Kakwavu Bukande (see
Uganda’s comments on the DRC’s response to Question 7, above), but the DRC
has only provided fragments of the decision. Notably, those fragments do not
contain the dispositif of the decision or the amounts of compensation awarded by
the DRC court.
10.6 The second decision (Annex 10.2) is the Kakado decision by the Garrison
Military Tribunal of Ituri sitting in the city of Bunia.201 This decision was already
198 UCM, paras. 4.73-4.84; see also ibid., paras. 5.152-5.155, paras. 6.112-6.119.
199 UCM Annexes 43 to 49.
200 The portion of this decision appears to be extracted the Bulletin des Arrêts de la Haute Cour
Militaire (4ème édition, 2016).
201 The decision appears to be extracted from Avocats sans Frontières, Recueil de Décisions de
Justice et de Notes de Plaidoiries en Matière de Crimes Internationaux (undated).
137
in the Court’s record, as Uganda submitted it with its Counter-Memorial202 and
explained why it was flawed.203 Indeed, Uganda observed that this was a decision
where the Military Tribunal expressly stated that it was acting ex aequo et bono
for all types of harm, an inappropriate basis for a decision in the case now before
this Court.204
10.7 Neither of these two decisions therefore provides any support for the DRC’s
methodology.
10.8 Finally, Uganda considers it telling that the DRC’s response to Question 10
does not take any account of the seven DRC national court decisions that Uganda
submitted with its Counter-Memorial. (It appears that the DRC was unaware that
the Kakado decision was already before the Court.) Nor does the DRC explain
why such decisions are probative, despite the many flaws identified by Uganda in
its Counter-Memorial.
10.9 Question 10 also called on the DRC to “supply the cases… excluded” from
its calculation of the averages of awards by domestic Congolese courts. The DRC
appears to have completely ignored this portion of the Court’s question. Rather
than identify and submit to the Court any excluded national court decisions, the
DRC’s response simply repeats the claim from its Memorial that it “set aside those
[decisions] that were not justified”.205 The DRC appears to expect the Court to
202 See Kakado (MP et PC c. Kakado Barnaba), RP 071/09, 009/010 and RP 074/010 (Tribunal
Militaire de Garnison de Bunia, 9 July 2010) (UCM Annex 46).
203 UCM, paras. 4.75, 4.79.
204 UCM, para. 4.79, note 438 (“en conséquence, le Tribunal condamne, ex aequo et bono, seul, le
prévenu KAKADO BARNABA YOGA TSHOPENA à payer au titre du dédommagement pour tout
préjudice subi comme suit […]”) (emphasis added).
205 DRCRQ, para. 10.3. (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “après avoir écarté celles qui
étaient dépourvues de motivation”). See DRCM, para. 7.08.
138
take the DRC’s word for it that such decisions (which may have awarded nor or
relatively low amounts of compensation) are irrelevant to this proceeding. That
expectation is inappropriate.
10.10 With respect to the DRC national court decisions purportedly used for, and
those purportedly excluded from, the DRC’s calculation of lump-sum amounts for
persons harmed, Uganda is entitled to see and to challenge the evidence upon
which the DRC relies. Moreover, the Court is charged with weighing such
evidence in light of the positions advanced by both Parties. Having failed to
produce such evidence on this issue, and having denied Uganda the opportunity
to test such evidence, the DRC’s lump-sum amounts supposedly based upon DRC
national court decisions cannot be upheld.
139
Could the DRC provide more detail on its methodology regarding
the use of future income as the basis of claims for compensation in
respect of deaths that were not the result of deliberate acts of
violence?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
11.1 As was true of the DRC’s response to Question 10, the DRC’s response to
Question 11 does not provide any of the additional detail the Court requested. Nor
does it respond to the myriad problems with the DRC’s nominal methodology
raised by Uganda in its Counter-Memorial.206
11.2 First, it should be observed that the DRC does not explain why the
methodology for identifying the level of compensation due for “deliberate” acts
and “collateral” injuries should be based on average amounts awarded by DRC
national courts, while the methodology for “collateral” deaths should be based on
something else. In particular, the DRC never explains why the methodologies for
“collateral” deaths and “collateral” injuries are not the same. To the extent that
compensation for harm to persons is to be measured by one or the other
methodology, it is arbitrary not to apply the same methodology to all of these types
of harm (bearing in mind that neither of the DRC’s methodologies bears up under
scrutiny). The DRC’s differential treatment of these categories of harms also
suggests that the heightened damages it seeks for deliberate acts of violence are
intended to have a punitive element, which international law does not allow.207
206 See UCM, paras. 5.08-5.14, 5.156-5.179.
207 See the discussion of relevant legal authorities in UCM, Chapter 4 (III).
140
11.3 Second, as Uganda pointed out in its Counter-Memorial, the claimed
average age (27 years) of the alleged victims of non-deliberate killings is deeply
problematic. In its Memorial, the DRC alleged that this number was “determined
based on the files drawn up by the DRC’s investigators”.208 In its Counter-
Memorial, Uganda observed that “the DRC offers no explanation as to exactly
what files were used, how they were drawn up and how that nominal average was
determined”.209 In its response, the DRC now claims that it
“obtained the average age of all the victims of nondeliberate
acts of violence (27 years old) by starting
with the calculation of their average ages. These ages
were those stated by the persons interviewed (see
Annex 1.1-1.10). The average is obtained after
adding the ages recorded in the files, which were
indicated by the victims interviewed, and after
dividing this sum by the number of victims. (Age of
all the victims divided by (/) the number of reported
victims)”.210
11.4 This statement makes clear that the average age the DRC determined is not
the average age of persons who died as a result of non-deliberate acts of violence.
Rather, it purports to be the average age of all victims of non-deliberate acts of
violence. Moreover, the “valuation lists” do not provide any information from
which one can establish the average age of alleged victims, and only a small
percentage of the “victim identification forms” provide such information. Most
“victims” are not even identified (“non signalé).
208 DRCM, para. 7.09 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “déterminé sur la base des fiches
établies par les enquêteurs de la RDC.”).
209 UCM, para. 5.160.
210 DRCRQ, para. 11.2.
141
11.5 Uganda has explained in its earlier comments why the DRC’s new
evidence—consisting largely of victim identification forms—is flawed, poorly
organised and largely inscrutable. For present purposes, Uganda observes simply
that the evidence the DRC points to in response to this question (Annexes 1.1-
1.10) is not organised in a way that speaks directly to this aspect of the DRC’s
claims.
11.6 The DRC still does not provide a list of the specific files it claims to have
used when “adding the ages recorded in the files” or even of the ages contained in
those files. This is problematic because many of the files contained in Annexes
1.1-1.10 do not relate to claims of death or personal injury. If the DRC is using all
of these files for “adding the ages recorded in the files”, then it appears to be
deriving the average age, at least in part, from persons who did not even suffer
death or personal injury.
11.7 Third, Uganda also observed in its Counter-Memorial that the “DRC’s
calculation [of average age] is also based on a flawed assumption that all of the
alleged victims, no matter what their age, their status within a family or their actual
earning potential, would have to be fully employed at all times up to the date of
the deaths. This assertion is facially untenable for obvious reasons”.211
11.8 The DRC’s response to Question 11 does not squarely address this point.
The DRC simply says that it needed to “smooth out its claims and thus avoid
reaching different figures for thousands of victims expected to obtain this
211 UCM, para. 5.161.
142
compensation”.212 Yet the DRC should have explained to the Court why it is
proper to assume that all persons who suffered a “collateral” death were incomeproducing,
when it is well-understood in international claims practice that
children, retired persons and certain other family members are not incomeproducing,
and therefore compensation for their deaths should not be based upon
lost future income. Ample data exists as to the percentage of DRC nationals who
are children, as well as the percentage of DRC nationals who are elderly. Yet the
DRC makes no effort to explain why such data is irrelevant to its computations.
Indeed, this information does not even appear in the DRC’s victim identification
forms or valuation lists, thus rendering the alleged calculations without
evidentiary foundation.
11.9 For example, the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs,
Population Division, estimates that the median age of all persons in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo as of 2000 was 17.2 years,213 meaning that a
full half of the population was below that age and therefore not likely income
producers. Of the population above that age, data would likely reveal that
approximately half were responsible for raising children or were elderly, and thus
also not income producers. If so, that would leave just a quarter of the total
population as income producers. As such, the DRC’s unexplained reliance on
212 DRCRQ, para. 11.7 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “Elle a été contrainte à utiliser
ce paramètre, notamment par le besoin d’aplanir ses prétentions et ainsi éviter d’arriver a des
chiffres différents pour plusieurs milliers des victimes appelées à obtenir cette réparation”).
213 U.N. Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, “Median age by region,
subregion and country, 1950-2100 (years)” in World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision,
U.N. Doc. POP/DB/WPP/Rev.2017/POP/F05 (June 2017), available at
https://population.un.org/wpp/Download/Standard/Population (last accessed 4 Jan. 2019); see also
CIA, The World Fact Book, Median Age: Democratic Republic of the Congo, available at
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2177… (last accessed 27
Dec. 2018) (DRC median age is 18.6 years as of 2017).
143
unorganised and inscrutable evidence so as to fabricate an income-producing age
for this entire class of DRC persons should not be countenanced.
11.10 Fourth, in its Counter-Memorial, Uganda also noted several flaws with the
figure used by the DRC for the average income of an alleged victim: the figure of
US$ 753.20 cited by the DRC as supposedly a 2015 World Bank statistic is not,
in fact, supported by World Bank data;214 any figure relating to 2015 is not
appropriate for determining income during 1998-2003;215 any figure relating to
gross domestic product per capita is not a relevant figure for determining average
income per capita;216 and DRC average per capita income actually is estimated to
be far less than US$ 753.20217 (and during 1998-2003 was very likely below US$
100).218
11.11 Again, the DRC does not address any of these points in its response to
Question 11. Instead, it simply reiterates that it is using per capita gross domestic
product, as it existed in 2015, which it again says was US$ 753.20, referring now
(without citation) to a database of the University Sherbrooke.219 In short, the DRC
has not responded to the Court’s question on this important element of its claim,
nor responded to the flaws identified by Uganda.
11.12 Finally, to the extent that Question 11 invites the DRC to explain in further
detail why its “mathematical formula”—no matter how designed—was
214 UCM, para. 5.162.
215 UCM, para. 5.163.
216 UCM, paras. 5.164-5.168.
217 UCM, paras. 5.169-5.171.
218 UCM, paras. 5.172-5.179.
219 DRCRQ, para. 11.3.
144
appropriate in the context “collateral” deaths, the DRC’s response fails to provide
any such explanation. This would have been especially pertinent in light of the
points made in Chapter 3 of Uganda’s Counter-Memorial, which discussed the
two broad approaches that are used for addressing claims for reparation before
international courts and tribunals.
11.13 The first approach220 is the one used in traditional inter-State claims
proceedings, whereby the claimant State is expected to present convincing
evidence of financially assessable harm with respect to particular persons or
property, all for the purpose of providing reparation for the actual harm incurred
by specified persons or property. This approach, exemplified by the reparation
phases of the Court’s Corfu Channel and Diallo cases, is the one that should be
followed in the present case.
11.14 If such an approach were followed, it would entail, with respect to any claim
for reparation relating to death or personal injury, proof of certain elements, such
as: (1) identification of the persons who are alleged to have been injured; (2)
details of the harm, such as the location and date of injury, and information
concerning the nature of the injury; (3) evidence establishing a causal link between
the injury and the conduct of the respondent; (4) determination of which victims
were gainfully employed and, if so, the extent to which the injury resulted in a loss
of earnings; and (5) the costs of care and other expenses stemming from the injury,
if any.
220 UCM, paras. 3.27-3.51.
145
11.15 The DRC’s response to Question 11 purports to find support from cases
before the Inter-American Court of Justice,221 the ICC (which the DRC
confusingly refers to as an “ICJ” case),222 and the African Court of Human and
Peoples’ Rights.223 But the DRC overlooks the fact that each of those courts
expected and acted upon the basis of proof of the above-stated elements.
11.16 Indeed, in the Mtikila v. Tanzania case cited by the DRC, the African Court
of Human and Peoples’ Rights found at the reparations phase that, while the
Applicant had been the victim of a violation of international law, “the Court does
not have the evidentiary elements to prove a causal nexus of the facts of this case
to the damages claimed by the Applicant in relation to the violations”, and
therefore “it considers that it cannot grant any compensation for pecuniary
damages”.224 Likewise, with respect to non-pecuniary damages, the Court found
that “the Applicant has failed to produce any evidence to support the claim that
these damages were directly caused by the facts of this case”.225 Rather, the Court
221 DRCRQ, para. 11.12 (citing to reparations in the Gutierrez-Soler v. Colombia case). The
Gutierrez-Soler v. Colombia case concerned actions harming a single, named claimant, and entailed
evidence specific to the harm he incurred, his lost income, and other matters.
222 DRCRQ, para. 11.14 (citing to reparations in the ICC’s Lubanga case). As Uganda explained in
its Counter-Memorial, para. 6.11, the reparations in the Lubanga case concerned the recruitment of
child soldiers in Ituri, and therefore was not addressing lost income from the violation. In any event,
the case involved 473 specified claimants, who presented documents proving their identity, and
details of their experience, through signed declarations, collaborating witness testimony,
photographs and certificates of demobilisation. To prove the causal link to Mr. Lubanga’s conduct,
claimants were required to demonstrate that they were recruited by, or participated in, the activities
of the UPC or the FLPC between 1 September 2002 and 13 August 2003, and were less than 15
years old during that time period. Many were able to provide the necessary evidence in the form of
affidavits, witness statements, identification cards, photographs and certificates of demobilization.
223 DRCRQ, para. 11.15 (citing to reparations in the Mtikila v. Tanzania case). The Mtikila v.
Tanzania case involved a single, named evidence, and entailed evidence specific to the harm he
incurred, his lost income, and other matters.
224 Mtikila v. Tanzania, AfCHPR App. No. 011/2011, Ruling on Reparations (13 June 2014), para.
32.
225 Ibid., para. 37.
146
concluded that its finding at the merits phase of a violation by the respondent State
was “just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damages claimed”.226
11.17 The second approach227 for addressing claims for reparation before
international courts and tribunals is to apply specialised techniques characteristic
of contemporary mass claims programs, such as were used by the UNCC. As
Uganda explained in the Introduction to these comments, under that approach,
States may agree (or the Security Council may decide) to set aside the traditional
international law rules on reparation followed by international courts and tribunals
(directed at reparation for the actual harm incurred), in favour of a process that
involves awarding a lump-sum amount to each member of an entire class of
claimants, without differentiating among them based on the actual harm that they
suffered. These lump-sum amounts may be designed to vary by category of harm,
and may entail a minimal evidentiary showing for lower lump-sum amounts but
with the possibility of higher lump-sum amounts for a higher evidentiary showing.
11.18 While the “justice” dispensed in this manner may be somewhat “crude”, the
mass claims process itself is not. Rather, the processes used at the UNCC and
other mass claims programs have been very sophisticated, typically involving the
production by each claimant of at least minimal evidence, which is then carefully
organised into a database and can be tested through highly-specialised techniques
of data-matching, statistical sampling and regression analysis. One important
feature of these processes is that if the random sampling of evidence for a category
of claims reveals that a percentage of the sampled evidence is inadequate to
226 Ibid.
227 UCM, paras. 3.52-3.57.
147
establish the sampled claims, the compensation for all claims in that category is
automatically reduced by that percentage.
11.19 The DRC’s approach to compensation for collateral deaths (and for many
of its other claims) appears to be an effort to utilise a mass claims-type approach
but without any of actual steps and safeguards associated with that approach, and
without explaining why that approach is appropriate in the context of a proceeding
before this Court. At the same time, the DRC at times abandons aspects of the
mass claims approach in favour of elements (such as estimating lost future
income) that are characteristic of traditional inter-State claims proceedings,
thereby reaching for lump-sum amounts (a mass claims approach) derived from
lost future income (an inter-State claims approach). While mixing and matching
in this way may allow the DRC to inflate its claims and avoid satisfying the
requirements of either approach, this hybrid path is unrecognizable in international
law.
11.20 Had the DRC truly contemplated a mass claims approach, it should at least
have considered the levels of lump-sum compensation utilised by prior tribunals.
For example, the UNCC established a category of claimants (Category B claims)
comprised of individuals who suffered serious personal injury or whose spouse,
child or parent died as a result of Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait.228
Successful claims in that category were awarded US$ 2,500 for individuals and
up to US$ 10,000 for families. In other words, the UNCC did not come anywhere
close to the US$ 18,913 for a single “collateral” death now sought by the DRC,
228 See UCM, para. 3.56, note 264.
148
let alone approach the US$ 34,000 the DRC seeks for a single death from
“deliberate violence”.
11.21 At the same time, the UNCC expected a minimal evidentiary showing by
every Category B claimant, and that evidence was randomly sampled to determine
whether it was adequate. The DRC has neither provided a minimal evidentiary
showing as to each of the persons that it claims were harmed, nor provided a basis
for Uganda or the Court to engage in any meaningful scrutiny of such evidence.
149
Could the DRC clarify whether material and non-material harm is
included in its valuation of injury to persons, in particular with
respect to rape and the recruitment of child soldiers?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
12.1 The DRC’s response to Question 12 appears to acknowledge that both
material and non-material harm is included in the lump-sum amounts that it seeks
for instances of rape and recruitment of child soldiers.229
12.2 The DRC’s response does not, however, expressly address deaths and other
types of injuries. Nevertheless, Uganda understands the lump-sum amounts
claimed by the DRC with respect to those injuries also include non-material harm.
Most of those other lump-sum amounts are purportedly derived from DRC
national court cases. While the DRC has submitted very few such cases to the
Court (see comments on Question 10), the amounts nominally awarded appear to
encompass non-material harm.
12.3 The lump-sum amount claimed for one type of injury—death not resulting
from a deliberate act of violence (see comments on Question 11)—is not based on
DRC national court cases. Nevertheless, it too appears to include non-material
harm. For example, the DRC’s response to Question 11 indicates that its proposed
lump-sum amount for this type of harm is intended to cover, in part, “nonmonetary
disruptions”,230 as well as “moral harm”, meaning “the suffering and the
harm caused to the direct victim, the anguish caused to his loved ones and the
229 See DRCRQ, paras. 12.1-12.10.
230 DRCRQ, para. 11.12 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “bouleversements de nature
non pécuniaire”).
150
change in the living conditions of the victim and his family, when the victim is
still alive”.231
12.4 Uganda has explained why the various lump-sum amounts the DRC
identifies for death and personal injury are not sustainable: they are arbitrary and
unsupported, whether conceived of as reflecting material or non-material
damage.232 With respect to the sums claimed for deaths, the DRC provides no
analysis of what portion of the lump-sum amount constitutes material harm or
what portion constitutes non-material harm to the persons allegedly affected, nor
why any such portion is justified in fact or law. With respect to sums claimed for
personal injuries, the DRC makes little attempt to focus its prior or new evidence
on any specific aspects of the material or non-material harm to such persons: the
persons are not identified with any degree of specificity; there is no evidence with
respect to their particular location, age or income; and there is no attempt to
identify whether the injuries entailed particular anguish or trauma.
12.5 The DRC asserted in its Memorial that “[m]oral injury includes the trauma
resulting from the atrocities, the anguish caused by these acts, the suffering
resulting from difficulty accessing care, the distress resulting from the lack of
intervention by the authorities in place and of legal proceedings against the
perpetrators, the permanent deterioration of the quality of life of mutilation
victims, and the irreparable damage to their image and self-esteem”.233 And yet
none of these kinds of factors are developed in any of the DRC’s evidence. For
231 DRCRQ, para. 11.15 (quoting in part from Mtikila v. Tanzania) (Translation by Counsel, original
in French: “préjudice moral”; “englobe les souffrances et les dommages causés à la victime directe,
l’angoisse causée chez ses proches et la modification des conditions de vie de la victime et de sa
famille, lorsque la victime est encore vivante”).
232 UCM, paras. 5.150-5.179.
233 DRCM, para. 7.16.
151
example, no aspect of the DRC’s “victim identification forms” appear to relate to
showing that victims encountered particular anguish, trauma or deterioration in
quality of life meriting compensation for non-material harm. Given that the DRC
itself has recognized234 that the Court requires “a sufficiently direct and certain
causal nexus between the wrongful act … and the injury suffered … consisting of
all damage of any type, material or moral”,235 it is striking that no such nexus has
been developed anywhere in the DRC’s evidence.
12.6 As such, the DRC’s overall approach to evidence for these categories of
harm (and for its claims generally) is not oriented toward proving financially
assessable harm to persons at all. Rather, its claims appear, in reality, to be
disassociated from harms to individuals and instead a massive claim for moral
damage to the DRC itself. But if that’s true, then such a claim is not financially
assessable and should be addressed exclusively through reparation in the form of
satisfaction, not compensation.236
12.7 If viewed as a massive claim for satisfaction by the DRC, then there is direct
overlap between its claim for lump-sum amounts purportedly for harms to persons
and its claim for satisfaction for the DRC itself in the form of US$ 125 million for
“intangible harm”. Given that the DRC has already included non-material harm in
its claims for death, injury, rape and recruitment of child soldiers, there is no basis
for the DRC to seek an order from the Court that Uganda pay still further
compensation for “intangible harm”.237 As Uganda explained in its Counter-
234 DRCM, para. 120.
235 Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
(Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007, para. 462
(emphasis added).
236 UCM, paras. 3.47-3.51.
237 DRCM, paras. 7.76-7.84.
152
Memorial, since that request covers a type of harm that is already encompassed in
the DRC’s other compensation claims, the awarding of “satisfaction” in this form
would result in double-recovery.238 Moreover, the claim for US$ 125 million in
satisfaction is itself arbitrary; the DRC provides no basis for selecting that figure
as the proper measure of non-material harm to the DRC.
238 UCM, paras. 10.39-10.47.
153
Can the DRC explain its methodology for the calculation of
property damage in Kisangani (US$17,323,998), in Beni
(US$5,526,527) and in Butembo (US$2,680,000)?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
13.1 The DRC’s explanation of its methodology for the calculation of property
damages in Kisangani, Beni and Butembo only confirms that it has failed to
provide the Court a reliable evidentiary basis to support this aspect of its claims.
13.2 The DRC’s response to Question 13 is very brief: just two pages. As
summary as it is, it nonetheless makes clear that the amounts the DRC claims are
based on unfounded allegations and unreliable calculations. The DRC states that
it calculated the damages claimed based on “lost property lists” (Annexes 1.6.D,
1.7.D and 1.10.D) and on valuations included in “valuation lists” (Annexes 1.6.C,
1.7.C and 1.10.C).239 According to the DRC, these valuations were then fed into
and totalled by its “EVADO 1.1.” software, a program the DRC admits that it
created for the purposes of these proceedings.240
13.3 The DRC does not explain how its software operates. Nor does it provide a
copy to Uganda or the Court. While it is unclear how EVADO 1.1. actually works,
it is clear that it does so unreliably. The DRC admits as much when it states in its
239 DRCRQ, para. 13.4.
240 DRCRQ, paras. 13.4, 13.7.
154
response to Question 13 that it had to make “substantive adjustments”241 to the
amounts claimed in its Memorial and “revised [them] downward”242 as follows:
• for Kisangani: originally US$ 17,323,998, now US$ 15,197,287.33;
• for Beni: originally US$ 5,526,527, now US$ 5,022,087; and
• for Butembo: originally US$ 2,680,000, now US$ 2,616,444.243
13.4 Although the DRC does not explain why or how these “substantive
adjustments” were made, the downward revision of its claim by more than US$
2,000,000 at this late stage of the proceedings raises serious concerns about the
accuracy of the DRC’s claims and inspires little confidence in the current
numbers.
13.5 The DRC’s computational errors are not the only aspect of the DRC’s
response that raises doubts. There are even more significant flaws that render the
DRC’s claims unfounded and therefore arbitrary.
13.6 As stated, the DRC’s “EVADO 1.1” software nominally relies on numbers
derived from its valuation lists, which are in turn derived from “victim
identification forms”. Yet, as demonstrated in Uganda’s comments to the DRC’s
response to Question 1, the DRC’s victim identification forms lack supporting
evidence of any kind for either the damages alleged or their valuation. Indeed,
many of the forms do not even specify the damages or valuations claimed. The
amounts stated in the valuation lists corresponding to such forms are purely
241 DRCRQ, paras. 13.1 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “corrections matérielles”).
242 DRCRQ, paras. 13.1 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “revus à la baisse”).
243 DRCRQ, para. 13.3.
155
arbitrary lump sum amounts.244 When such unfounded numbers are fed into the
“EVADO 1.1” software, the resulting calculation is equally unfounded. A few
examples will suffice to illustrate the point.
13.7 The DRC, for instance, consistently places exactly the same values on given
categories of property losses, regardless of where and when the alleged damage
occurred, and without regard to the specifics of the case.245 Annexes 1.6.C (Beni),
1.7.C (Butembo) and 1.10.C (Kisangani) to the DRC’s responses value damage to
so-called “luxury houses” the same at all times and in all places (US$ 10,000).246
The same is true for “medium houses” (which are valued at US$ 5,000) and
“simple houses” (which are valued at US$ 1,000/500/400/300/150).247 Based on
these arbitrary lump sums, the DRC claims a total of approximately US$
6,000,000 for damages to houses in Beni, Butembo and Kisangani.248
13.8 Similarly, the DRC’s valuation lists nominally record 1,118 instances of
damages to bicycles. In each and every instance, the value claimed is exactly the
same (US$ 100).249 The same is true for animals. The 599 listed instances of harm
244 See Uganda’s Comments to Question 1, supra.
245 See UCM, paras. 7.58-7.83; 7.132-7.138
246 See e.g., “habitation de luxe” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 31; DRCRQ Annex 1.7.C, p.1; DRCRQ
Annex 1.10.C, p. 2.
247 See e.g. “habitation moyenne” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 1; DRCRQ Annex 1.7.C, p. 2;
DRCRQ Annex 1.10.C, p. 1; “habitation légère” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 1; DRCRQ Annex
1.7.C, p. 1; DRCRQ Annex 1.10.C, p. 7.
248 See DRCRQ Annexes 1.6.C, 1.7.C, 1.10.C. See Uganda’s Comments to Question 14, infra, paras.
14.2-14.7.
249 See, e.g., “vélo” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 1; DRCRQ Annex 1.7.C, p.1; DRCRQ Annex
1.10.C, p. 2.
156
to cows and 305 instances of harm to pigs are uniformly valued at US$ 300 and
US$ 80, respectively.250
13.9 The DRC’s penchant for identical valuations extends also to broad
categories of generic items of property. For example, alleged damages to
“furniture” are, in many instances, valued at exactly the same US$ 5,000.251 Just
based on these arbitrary lump sum amounts, the DRC claims a total of over US
$2,000,000 in damages relating to furniture.252 Similarly, unidentified items of
“merchandise” are, in the majority of cases, valued uniformly at US$ 1,000,253
yielding a claim for nearly US$ 80,000 in alleged damages relating to a completely
amorphous category of property.254
13.10 In Uganda’s view, this remarkable uniformity in valuations defies
credibility and severely undermines the integrity of the DRC’s assertions and
claims. Rather than reveal an effort to identify and prove actual harm for which
Uganda is responsible, this “methodology” rests on unfounded assumptions and
speculation, leading to amounts that are entirely unproven.
13.11 The DRC’s claim for allegedly lost diamonds (totalling nearly US$
1,100,000) provides another useful demonstration of the evidentiary and
methodological flaws that infect the DRC’s approach. The valuation list for Beni
250 See, e.g., “vache” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 1; DRCRQ Annex 1.7.C, p. 2; DRCRQ Annex
1.10.C, p. 20; “cochon” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 1; DRCRQ Annex 1.7.C, p. 5; DRCRQ Annex
1.10.C, p. 29.
251 See, e.g., “meuble” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 2; DRCRQ Annex 1.10.C, p. 2.
252 See DRCRQ Annexes 1.6.C, 1.7.C, 1.10.C.
253 See, e.g., “marchandise” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 60; DRCRQ Annex 1.7.C, p. 6; DRCRQ
Annex 1.10.C, p. 1.
254 See, e.g., “marchandise” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 60; DRCRQ Annex 1.7.C, p. 6; DRCRQ
Annex 1.10.C, p. 1.
157
(Annex 1.6.C) references the alleged loss of a single diamond nominally valued
at US$ 300,000.255 However, the victim identification form which appears to be
the basis for this valuation (from file
“KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_001&_004”) does not include any
support for the amount stated, but merely refers to a “12 carat diamond”. Nor is
there any evidentiary back-up.256
13.12 The 17 alleged instances of lost diamonds in Kisangani are equally
unproven. The victim identification forms offered as evidence are woefully
inadequate. The form allegedly documenting the loss of a diamond valued at US$
375,000 (from file “CCF22082016_0054_002”) is illustrative. Reproduced below,
this incomplete form does not even mention lost diamonds (or any other specific
material loss) and in no way supports the large sum the DRC tries to claim based
on it:257
255 See “diamant” in DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 5.
256 See DRCRQ Annex 1.6.C, p. 5; DRCRQ Annex 1.5,
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_001&_004.
257 See DRCRQ Annex 1.10.C, p. 39; DRCRQ Annex 1.2, CCF22082016_0054_002.
158
159
13.13 The DRC’s valuation lists also purport to summarize the damages allegedly
caused to the same public and private companies that Uganda showed to be
baseless in its Counter-Memorial.258 The DRC does not respond to Uganda’s
previous critiques but nevertheless continues to include those (disproven)
damages as part of its claim. On page 36 of the valuation list for Kisangani, for
example, the DRC claims the following damages to the Congolese National
Bank:259
13.14 The alleged damages are nominally based on the victim identification form
in the file “CCF05032016_2_002”, reproduced below:
258 See UCM, paras. 7.98-7.130.
259 DRCRQ Annex 1.10.C, p. 36.
160
161
13.15 As the Court can see, this form does no more than list the same four items
as the valuation list and provides no corroborating documentation in the form of
bills, receipts, pictures, etc. Notably, the form also refers to the alleged
perpetrators as “unknown, probably the Ugandan and Rwandan armies”.260
13.16 The claim for over US$ 1,100,000 for damages allegedly caused to the
textile company, “SOTEXKI”, which is listed on page 265 of the valuation list for
Kisangani,261 equally fails for lack of proof. As Uganda explained in its Counter-
Memorial, the documents the DRC relies on in of this claim (1) do not attribute
the alleged damages to Uganda; (2) contain no proof of the alleged damages; and
(3) state nominal values that actually add up to 20% less than the DRC claims in
its valuation list.262
*
13.17 The above examples illustrate the baselessness of the DRC’s claims for
property loss and damage in Beni, Butembo and Kisangani. The DRC has entirely
failed to present and prove its damages in the manner typically required in the
inter-State proceedings. It has therefore given the Court no basis on which to
award it the amounts it claims for property damages in Kisangani Beni or
Butembo.
260 DRCRQ Annex 1.5, KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_2_002 (Translation by Counsel,
original in French: “Inconnus, sûrement les armées ougandaise et rwandaise”).
261 DRCRQ Annex 1.10.C, p. 265.
262 UCM, paras. 7.125-7.130.
162
163
Can the DRC explain its methodology for assessing the proportion
of each type of dwelling destroyed in Ituri district and the
reconstruction costs for the dwellings?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
14.1 Question 14 contains two parts. First, the DRC is asked to explain its
methodology for assessing the proportion of each type of dwelling destroyed in
Ituri. Second, it is asked to explain its methodology for assessing the
reconstruction costs for those dwellings. The DRC’s response only underscores
that its claims with respect to both the proportion of each type of dwelling
allegedly destroyed and their reconstruction costs have no basis in evidence and
are therefore arbitrary.
14.2 As regards the proportion of each type of dwelling destroyed, the DRC
Memorial alleged that 80% were simple dwellings, 15% medium dwellings and
5% luxury houses.263 The DRC’s response says that it determined the percentages
based on: (1) “the location” where the destruction had taken place, including
whether it was a rural or urban area;264 (2) “the information contained in the
reports prepared by the fact-finding missions established by the official UN
bodies”265; and (3) testimonies recorded in victim identification forms.266 Yet no
support for the proportions stated can be found in any of these sources.
263 DRCRQ, para. 14.2.
264 DRCRQ, paras. 14.3-4.
265 DRCRQ, para. 14.3 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “des informations contenues
dans des rapports élaborés par des missions d’enquête mises en place par les organes de l’ONU”).
266 DRCRQ, para. 14.3.
164
14.3 With respect to the issue of location, the DRC does not provide evidence
demonstrating that the dwellings at issue were in urban, rural areas or mixed
residential areas. Indeed, many of the victim identification forms the DRC
presents concerning harm to houses do not indicate their location in any way.
Moreover, the DRC does not explain how this fact, even assuming it were properly
established (quod non), might support the percentages it gives. Uganda assumes
(but it is only that: an assumption), that the DRC is intending to suggest that there
are more simple homes in rural areas than in urban areas. But even if that broad
assumption were correct (which seems unlikely), and even if it were established
in fact that more rural than urban houses were destroyed (which it has not been),
Uganda fails to see how that, without more, results in the very precise allocation
the DRC purports to achieve. Instead, it appears to constitute guesswork based
upon pure speculation.
14.4 With respect to the putative UN reports, the DRC’s response does not even
cite any specific UN report. It is unclear how such unidentified reports might
support the DRC’s claim.
14.5 With respect to the victim identification forms, these are nominally
summarized in a list of “lost property” found in Annex 1.9.E (“Liste des Biens
Perdus Ituri”). But no support for the claimed proportions can be found there
either.
14.6 The list purports to reflect the destruction of 13,384 simple dwellings
(“habitation légère”), 199 medium dwellings (“habitation moyenne”), and 26
165
luxury houses (“habitation de luxe”).267 Dividing the total by the numbers for each
category of allegedly destroyed dwellings yields the following percentages:
• 98.3% for “simple” dwellings;
• 1.5% for “medium” dwellings; and
• 0.2% for “luxury” dwellings.
14.7 The DRC’s claims concerning the proportion of each type of dwelling
allegedly destroyed in Ituri are thus not based on any genuine methodology. In
fact, its assertions are inconsistent with the very sources on which the DRC relies.
14.8 As regards the reconstruction costs, the DRC Memorial assessed them at
US$ 300 for each simple dwelling, US$ 5,000 for each medium dwelling and US$
10,000 for each luxury home.268 Those costs, according to the DRC’s response to
Question 14, are based on victim identification forms where “some of the victims
… described the dwellings they had lost and the materials of which they were
composed”.269 The DRC further asserts that “[k]nowing the cost of such buildings
in this region of the DRC”, it chose “the least expensive possible price”.270 As
discussed below, none of these assertions is grounded in evidence.
14.9 First, as stated, many of the victim identification forms do not even specify
the location of houses, even to the extent of making clear whether they were
267 Liste des Biens Perdus Ituri, p. 3 (DRCRQ Annex 1.9.E).
268 DRCM, para. 7.35.
269 DRCRQ, para. 14.5 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “certaines victimes …
décrivaient les bâtiments qu’elles avaient perdus et les matières desquelles ils étaient faits”)
(emphasis added).
270 DRCRQ, para. 14.5 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “Connaissant le coût de tels
bâtiments dans cette région de la RDC … le prix le moins cher possible”).
166
located in rural or urban areas, let alone do they indicate or prove any
reconstruction costs through competent evidence such as invoices, receipts,
construction contracts, bank statements, etc. This recurrent flaw is illustrated in
the victim identification form from the file “ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001
(3)_008” (reproduced below). It states only: “1 house burned with all objects, and
1 metal house lost metal sheet”.271 It addition to not specifying the location of the
two houses it does not even contain an estimate of reconstruction costs.
14.10 Like this form, many others equally fail to provide any of the information
that would be necessary to tether the DRC’s claims to fact.272 None of the forms
provides any supporting evidence, by which reconstruction costs are demonstrated
or can even be estimated. This lack of evidence is especially notable with respect
to the alleged “medium” and “luxury” homes for which the DRC seeks very
substantial amounts, which presumably would have been owned by persons likely
to keep reconstruction records or estimates of the kind noted above. Yet even for
those houses, the DRC has submitted nothing in response to the Court’s question.
271 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_008 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “1
maison brûlée + avec tous objets, 1 maison en tôle détolée”) (DRCRQ Annex 1.4).
272 See, e.g., the “victim identification forms” mentioned in DRCRQ Annex 1.9.C:
ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_003, p. 166; ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_004, p. 27;
ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_006, p. 140; ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_008, p. 169;
ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_010, p. 10; ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_011, p. 150;
ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_015, p. 98; ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_017, p. 102;
ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_019, p. 3; ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_023, p. 3;
ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_025, p. 36; Ituri_CCF04032016 0015_022, p. 103;
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0002_002, p. 139; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0002_004, p.
88; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0002_008, p. 173; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0002_012,
p. 79; ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0005_002, p. 150.
167
14.11 Second, even though the DRC alleges it surveyed reconstruction costs
across different regions and selected the lowest numbers,273 it provides no
273 DRCRQ, paras. 14.4-14.5.
168
information—literally nothing—about this survey or how it resulted in the
estimated costs. If such a survey had really been undertaken, the DRC should be
expected to have submitted it, or at least some supporting materials in the form of
bills, receipts or other documents that might corroborate the alleged costs.
14.12 Third, the DRC has provided no other evidence of reconstruction costs or
estimates to support its claimed lump-sum amounts. For example, the DRC could
have obtained signed declarations from mayors or village leaders, urban planners
or building companies as to the average costs of reconstructing houses at particular
locations, based on their knowledge as to the damage inflicted and the materials
needed. But no such information has been provided to the Court.
14.13 The DRC’s allegations concerning the alleged reconstruction costs are
therefore without foundation.
*
14.14 Because neither the proportion of dwellings allegedly destroyed nor their
purported reconstruction costs have any basis in evidence, the DRC’s
compensation claim under this head of damages is equally baseless. The DRC has
failed to give the Court what the law requires to support an award of
compensation.
169
Could the DRC provide further explanation of the evidence on
which it based its calculation in order to request payment, as a
measure to ensure just satisfaction, of the amount of USD
100,000,000 for the intangible damage that was caused to it by
Uganda?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
15.1 Question 15 asks the DRC to “provide further explanation of the evidence
on which it based its calculation” to request an additional payment of US$
100,000,000 as an element of satisfaction in this case. The DRC’s response does
not do that. It does not contain any discussion of any evidence on which its
calculation purports to be based. Rather than answer the question the Court asked,
the DRC confines itself to making certain general observations, none of which are
relevant to the issue at hand.
15.2 The closest the DRC comes to actually addressing the issue raised by the
Court’s question is the statement that “[i]n this case, the criterion for valuation in
order to determine the amount to be paid proves to be the gravity of the wrongful
act”.274 Elsewhere, the DRC adds: “In fact, the occupation of the Congolese
territory was not merely an invasion, nor swift entry by the troops of this country
into the Congolese territory. Rather it consisted of a real occupation and a takeover
of a portion of the territory. That justifies, first, the claim for the amount of USD
100,000,000 made by the DRC”.275
274 DRCRQ, para. 15.11 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “Dans ce cas, le critère
d’évaluation en vue de déterminer le montant à payer se trouve être la gravité du fait illicite”).
275 DRCRQ, para. 15.14. (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “En effet, l’occupation du
territoire congolais n’était pas une simple invasion, ni une entrée éclaire (sic) des troupes de ce pays
170
15.3 These assertions, of course, have nothing to do with the “evidence” on
which the DRC’s claim is based. They do, however expose the real object of the
DRC’s claim. At root, the DRC seeks another US$ 100 million as a form of
punitive damages against Uganda in light of the alleged “gravity of the wrongful
act”. Yet as Uganda showed in its Counter-Memorial, it is settled that punitive
damages are excluded as a remedy under international law.276 And the ILC has
forcefully stated: “[S]atisfaction is not intended to be punitive in character, nor
does it include punitive damages”.277
15.4 The balance of the DRC’s response is directed at a discussion of the legal
authorities that ostensibly support the payment of money as a form of
“satisfaction”. The DRC tries to rely, for example, on Article 45(2) of the 1996
draft articles on the international responsibility of States for internationally
wrongful acts, which stated that satisfaction could take financial form.278 This
reliance is misplaced for several reasons.
15.5 First, as the DRC itself acknowledges, draft Article 45(2) contemplated the
possibility of the payment of a “token sum” as an additional form of
compensation.279
15.6 Second, as the DRC also acknowledges, “[i]n the last report of the
International Law Commission (ILC) on the international responsibility of States
sur le territoire congolais. Il s’agissait d’une véritable occupation et prise de contrôle d’une partie
du territoire. Cela justifie dans un premier temps la revendication de la somme de 100.000.000 de
dollars des Etats-Unis par la RDC”).
276 UCM, Chapter 4.III.
277 ARSIWA, Art. 37, cmt. 8.
278 DRCRQ, para. 15.7.
279 DRCRQ, para. 15.7.
171
for an internationally wrongful act, financial satisfaction is not included”.280 In
other words, the final version of the articles adopted by the ILC in 2001 do not
contemplate financial satisfaction.
15.7 Third, the reference to financial satisfaction was ultimately dropped
precisely because the ILC rejected the notion that States could bear criminal
responsibility in international law and, with it, the notion of punitive damages.281
The deletion suggests that financial satisfaction is not a permissible remedy; if it
were, the result would be to confuse two distinct forms of reparation: satisfaction
and compensation.
15.8 Fourth, and in any event, the reference to the ILC’s 1996 draft articles is
not responsive to the Court’s question, which seeks clarification of the “evidence”
on which the DRC’s calculation is based.
15.9 The DRC also cites to the awards of certain arbitral tribunals that granted
financial satisfaction.282 Again, the Court’s question was not seeking abstract
references to case law. Rather, it was inviting the DRC to explain the evidence
upon which the DRC’s claim for US$ 100,000,000 is based. Simply enumerating
previous cases allegedly granting payment of money as a satisfaction for moral
damage does not answer the question.
280 DRCRQ, para. 15.7 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “Dans le dernier rapport de la
CDI sur la responsabilité internationale des Etats pour fait internationalement illicite, la satisfaction
financière n’est pas reprise”).
281 See para 15.8, infra.
282 DRCRQ, paras. 15.8-15.10.
172
15.10 Moreover, those cases—which are mostly dated and were not decided by
the Court—confirm that any such amounts are to be symbolic283—a point the DRC
effectively recognizes when it states that “satisfaction … can also occur by means
of the payment of a token sum of money”.284 Indeed, with the exception of I’m
Alone (Canada v. United States of America), the very few cases invoked by the
DRC relate to the payment of very modest amounts for moral damages suffered
by private persons. Thus, in the Arends case, it was ruled:
“The damages consequent upon the detention of this
vessel are necessarily small, but it is the belief of the
umpire that the respondent Government is willing to
recognize its responsibility for the untoward act of
its officers under such circumstances and to express
to the sovereign and sister State, with which it is on
terms of friendship and commerce, its regret for such
acts in the only way that it can now be done, which
is through the action of this Commission by an award
on behalf of the claimant sufficient to make full
amends for the unlawful delay. In the opinion of the
umpire this sum may be expressed in the sum of $100
in gold coin of the United States of America, or its
equivalent in silver, at the current rate of exchange
at the time of payment, and judgment may be entered
for that amount”.285
15.11 Similarly, in the case of the Heirs of Maninat, the French-Venezuelan
Mixed Claims Commission noted that it was difficult to measure claimant’s exact
283 See UCM, para. 10.41.
284 DRCRQ, para. 15.5 (emphasis added) (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “La
satisfaction … peut aussi se manifester par le paiement d’une somme d’argent, à titre symbolique”);
see also ibid., para. 15.7.
285 Arends Case (Netherlands-Venezuela Mixed Claims Commission), Arbitral Award, Umpire
Plumley, 10 RIAA 729 (1903), p. 730 (emphasis added). Indeed, 100 gold dollars is not a totally
negligible amount but it does not exceed at best some thousand today’s dollars, an amount which is
not commensurate with the amount requested by the DRC in the present case.
173
pecuniary loss and added: “[T]he more important feature of this case is the
unatoned indignity to a sister Republic through this inexcusable outrage upon one
of her nationals who had established his domicile in the domain of the respondent
Government”.286 However, it was “the judgment of the umpire that a just
compensation which covers both aspects of this case is 100,000 francs”.287
15.12 And, in the I’m Alone case, no compensation was awarded but it was
decided that “[t]he act of sinking the ship, however, by officers of the United
States Coast Guard, was, as we have already indicated, an unlawful act; and the
Commissioners consider that the United States ought formally to acknowledge its
illegality, and to apologize to His Majesty’s Canadian Government therefor; and,
further, that as a material amend in respect of the wrong the United States should
pay the sum of $25,000 to His Majesty’s Canadian Government”.288 Uganda
considers this aspect of the decision to be no longer consistent with modern
international law; this “material amend” was plainly of a punitive nature.289
15.13 The DRC also refers to the Rainbow Warrior case and to the fact that France
paid US$ 7 million New Zealand,290 adding that “[t]he characterization of this sum
always indicated that it included, in addition to some expenses caused by the
incident, a sum for financial satisfaction or better, compensation for the moral
286 Heirs of Jean Maninat Case (France-Venezuela Mixed Claims Commission), Arbitral Award,
10 RIAA 55 (31 July 1905), pp. 81-82.
287 Ibid., p. 83 (emphasis added).
288 S.S. “I’m Alone” (Canada, United States), Arbitral Award, 3 RIAA 1609 (30 June 1933 and 5
Jan. 1935), p. 1618.
289 Ibid., p. 1618.
290 DRCRQ, para. 15.16.
174
damage”.291 If the DRC is trying to suggest that the US$ 7 million constituted a
form of satisfaction, it is mistaken. In his 1986 ruling, the UN Secretary-General
noted that “New Zealand seeks compensation for the wrong done to it and France
is ready to pay some compensation. … My ruling is that the French Government
should pay the sum of US $7 million to the Government of New Zealand as
compensation for all the damage it has suffered”.292 Analysing that ruling, the
arbitral tribunal noted in its 1990 Award that “[t]he granting of a form of
reparation other than satisfaction has been recognized and admitted in the
relations between the parties by the Ruling of the Secretary-General of 9 July
1986, which has been accepted and implemented by both Parties to this case”.293
And indeed, in the second paragraph of their Agreement of 9 July 1986 the Parties
agreed that “the French Government will pay the sum of US 7 million to the
Government of New Zealand as compensation for all the damage which it has
suffered”.294
*
15.14 The DRC has thus failed to answer the question the Court asked. It has
provided no further explanation of the evidence on which it based its calculation
of US$ 100,000,000 as just satisfaction. Moreover, its response does nothing to
291 Ibid., para. 15.17 (emphasis added) (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “La qualification
de cette somme a toujours révélé qu’elle comprenait, en plus de quelques dépenses occasionnées
par cet incident, une satisfaction financière ou mieux, une indemnisation du dommage moral”).
292 Case concerning the difference between New Zealand and France concerning the interpretation
or application of two agreements, concluded on 9 July 1986 between the two States and which
related to the problems arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair, Ruling, 20 RIAA 215 (30 Apr.
1990), Ruling 2 Compensation, p. 224 (emphasis added).
293 Ibid., para. 115 at p. 271 (emphasis added).
294 Ibid., p. 271 (emphasis in original).
175
resolve the defects in the legal basis of its claim, which essentially seeks punitive
damages under the guise of “satisfaction”.
176
177
Could the DRC explain what is the legal basis it resorted to in order
to request that Uganda, as a measure to ensure satisfaction, finance
the creation of a fund intended to promote reconciliation between
the Hema and the Lendu in Ituri?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
16.1 Question 16 is straightforward. Yet rather than answer it, the DRC’s
response merely repeats what it already said in its Memorial and again cites to the
Rainbow Warrior case as a precedent.295 Uganda addressed the Rainbow Warrior
case in its Counter-Memorial, where it showed that it does not support the DCR’s
request.296
16.2 In brief, the fund in the Rainbow Warrior case was not ordered by the
arbitral tribunal. Rather, only after and separately from the issue of reparation,
did the tribunal make a non-legally-binding recommendation for the creation of
the fund, which was aimed at promoting “close and friendly relations between the
citizens of the two countries”.297 Thereafter, in view of the particular
circumstances of the relationship between the parties in that case, France did not
challenge “in any way the power of the Tribunal to make such recommendations
in aid of the resolution of the dispute”.298 Here, in contrast, Uganda denies the
295 DRCRQ, paras. 16.4-16.5.
296 UCM, paras. 10.42-10.44.
297 Case concerning the difference between New Zealand and France concerning the interpretation
or application of two agreements, concluded on 9 July 1986 between the two States and which
related to the problems arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair, Ruling, 20 RIAA 215 (30 Apr.
1990), p. 274, para. 127 (emphasis added).
298 Case concerning the difference between New Zealand and France concerning the interpretation
or application of two agreements, concluded on 9 July 1986 between the two States and which
178
existence of any legal basis for ordering the creation of a fund as sought by the
DRC.
16.3 Other than its (erroneous) citation to Rainbow Warrior, the DRC does not
point to any legal authority supporting its claim—because there is none. The
request to establish a reconciliation fund is, in a word, unsustainable.
16.4 Although not directly relevant to the Court’s question, the DRC does take
the opportunity to assert that “Uganda was behind the bloody ethnic conflict that
pitted the Hema against the Lendu. Since that conflict erupted, reconciliation
between the two communities has not yet taken place”.299 For the avoidance of
doubt, Uganda wishes to reiterate that this is simply not true. While Uganda fully
accepts the Court’s 2005 Judgment, the DRC’s suggestion that Uganda alone is
responsible for the Hema-Lendu conflict is entirely ahistorical. As Uganda
showed in its Counter-Memorial, the conflict is one of long-standing. It has been
an unfortunate aspect of life in the eastern DRC since the beginning of colonial
times, if not earlier.300 It both predates and postdates Uganda’s presence in the
DRC. There is therefore no factual basis to make Uganda alone shoulder the costs
of reconciliation.
related to the problems arising from the Rainbow Warrior Affair, Ruling, 20 RIAA 215 (30 Apr.
1990), p. 274, para. 138.
299 DRCRQ, para. 16.2 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “L’Ouganda était donc à
l’origine du conflit ethnique sanglant ayant opposé les Hema et les Lendu. Depuis ce conflit, la
réconciliation entre les deux communautés n’est pas encore réellement scellée”).
300 UCM, paras. 2.8-2.81.
179
Can both Parties submit their views with respect to collective
reparations, including the form they should take?
Uganda’s Comments on the DRC’s Response:
17.1 Uganda submitted its response to this question on November 1. The DRC’s
response to Question 17 indicates that there is at least one point of agreement
between the Parties: the definition of “collective reparations” is not settled. As the
DRC itself acknowledges, “in international law there is no consensus on the
definition of the concept of ‘collective reparations’”.301
17.2 Despite this frank acknowledgement, the DRC nevertheless tells the Court
that it is, at least in part, seeking collective reparations (whatever meaning that
term might be given). Yet, as Uganda showed in its own response to Question 17,
collective reparations are not an available remedy under the rules of State
responsibility applicable in inter-State disputes.302 And the DRC’s response
notably does not identify any legal basis for the granting of such reparations in
this case. Nor does it explain how it might be justified in making a claim for
collective reparations at this late stage of these proceedings, when it has never
before made such a claim, whether during the merits phase or in its Memorial on
reparation.
301 DRCRQ, para. 17.4 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “en droit international, il
n’existe pas de définition de la notion de ‘réparations collectives’ faisant consensus”).
302 URQ, p. 12.
180
17.3 Even as it states that it is exercising “its choice for a dual form of reparation,
both individual and collective”,303 the DRC maintains a studied ambiguity when
it comes to specifying to what extent, and with respect to which claims, it seeks
collective versus individual reparations. Nor does it articulate what type of
collective reparations should be awarded, to which collective(s) and for what kind
of injuries.
17.4 The DRC also does not adduce any evidence, even of a general nature,
concerning any particular group or community, much less does it come forward
with evidence of any identifiable injury to such a group or collective. Nor does it
indicate how any collective reparations that might be awarded would be
distributed in order to benefit specific groups or communities.
17.5 To the extent the DRC’s response to Question 17 contains any hints as to
in what sense it seeks collective reparations, the DRC seems to suggest—for the
first time—that the fund it seeks to promote reconciliation between the Hema and
the Lendu in Ituri would constitute a form of collective reparation.304 Yet, as
discussed with respect to the prior question, the DRC has claimed US$ 25 million
for such a fund under the rubric of satisfaction in reparation for the benefit of the
DRC itself, not as a matter of collective reparations for groups of persons.
303 DRCRQ, para. 17.3 (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “son choix pour une double
forme de réparation, individuelle et collective”).
304 The DRC writes that “some kinds of damage, for instance, the ethnic hatred which dominated
the relationship between two ethnic groups, could find satisfaction in the creation of a fund intended
for the reconciliation of the two communities”. DRCRQ, para. 17.16 (Translation by Counsel,
original in French: “certains dommages, par exemple la haine ethnique qui s’est emparée des
relations entre deux ethnies, peuvent trouver satisfaction dans la création d’un fonds destiné à la
réconciliation de deux communautés”).
181
17.6 Uganda respectfully submits that the DRC may not suddenly—and
opportunistically—change its claim in that regard simply because the Court
questioned its legal basis in Question 16 and solicited the Parties’ views about
collective reparations in Question 17.
*
17.7 Despite its flaws, the DRC’s response to Question 17 is telling in at least
one important respect. Specifically, the DRC writes about its claim that
“[t]he objection could also be made to the DRC that
by opting for individual reparations to compensate
for the harms resulting from murders, physical
injuries and rapes, we will arrive at discriminatory
outcomes, since some victims who were not
identified or listed by the commission will be
excluded from the distribution of the individual
reparations”.305
17.8 Uganda considers this statement both revealing and troubling. Here, the
DRC is saying that only those alleged victims “identified or listed by the
Commission” (i.e., those appearing on the DRC’s “valuation lists”) will receive
“the distribution” of any compensation the Court may order.
17.9 The statement is revealing because the numbers of victims listed on the
DRC’s valuation lists are an order of magnitude less than the total numbers for
which it claims compensation. With respect to deaths, for example, the DRC
Memorial claims compensation for 180,000 deaths. Yet only 5,440 deaths purport
305 DRCRQ, para. 17.27 (emphasis added) (Translation by Counsel, original in French: “On pourra
aussi opposer à la RDC l’argument qu’en optant pour les réparations individuelles pour réparer les
dommages nés des meurtres, des dommages corporels et des viols, l’on arrivera à des résultats
discriminatoires, certaines victimes qui n’étaient pas identifiées ni recensées par la commission
seront mises de cȏté par le partage des réparations individuelles”).
182
to be recorded on the valuation lists (and 4,644 of those on their face relate to
individuals who are not even identified).306 The DRC thus seeks compensation for
the alleged deaths of 175,000 individuals who, even on the DRC’s approach,
would never see a penny of any compensation the Court might order.
17.10 The statement is troubling because if the intended beneficiaries of the
money are not those who in fact suffered harm, it is a mystery as to who the actual
beneficiaries will be.
306 See DRCRQ Annexes 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.10.
183
Respectfully submitted,
____________________________
Amb. Mirjam Blaak
CO-AGENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
7 January 2019
184
185
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: ENTRIES SAMPLED FROMVALUATION LISTS FOR
DEATHS .......................................................................................... 187
APPENDIX 2: ENTRIES SAMPLED FROMVALUATION LISTS FOR
DISPLACEMENT ........................................................................... 194
APPENDIX 3: ENTRIES SAMPLED FROMVALUATION LISTS FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES ................................................................... 202
APPENDIX 4: ENTRIES SAMPLED FROMVALUATION LISTS FOR
PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE .................................................. 206
APPENDIX 5: SAMPLED ENTRIES THAT LIST FILE NAMES THAT DO
NOT CORRESPOND TO ANY FILE IN THE RELEVANT
ANNEX............................................................................................ 225
APPENDIX 6: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS THAT
SPECIFIED THE ACTION IN QUESTION ................................... 230
APPENDIX 7: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS THAT DO
NOT ALLEGE THAT THE “AUTEURS PRÉSUMÉS” IS UGANDA
OR UGANDAN SOLDIERS ........................................................... 232
APPENDIX 8: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DEATHS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION
ABOUT THE VICTIM’S EMPLOYMENT .................................... 242
APPENDIX 9: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DEATHS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION
ABOUT THE VICTIM’S AGE ........................................................ 247
APPENDIX 10: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DEATHS THAT DO NOT SPECIFYWHETHER THE DEATH
RESULTED FROMDELIBERATE ACTS OF VIOLENCE OR
NOT ................................................................................................. 252
APPENDIX 11: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES THAT DO NOT ALLEGE THE EXTENT,
NATURE, AND/OR TYPE OF THE VICTIM’S INJURY ............. 257
186
APPENDIX 12: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES THAT DO NOT SPECIFYWHETHER THE
INJURY RESULTED FROMDELIBERATE ACTS OF VIOLENCE
OR NOT ........................................................................................... 259
APPENDIX 13: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DISPLACEMENTS THAT DO NOT ALLEGE THE SPECIFIC
LOCATION OF DISPLACEMENT ................................................ 260
APPENDIX 14: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DISPLACEMENTS THAT DO NOT ALLEGE THE SPECIFIC
DATES OF DISPLACEMENT ....................................................... 263
APPENDIX 15: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE THAT DO NOT STATE THE
EXTENT AND/OR NATURE OF THE LOSS OR DAMAGE ....... 270
APPENDIX 16: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE THAT DO NOT CLAIMANY
PARTICULAR VALUATION ........................................................ 283
APPENDIX 17: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE THAT DO NOT INDICATE THE
SPECIFIC TYPE OF PROPERTY LOST OR DAMAGED ............ 289
APPENDIX 18: SAMPLED VICTIMIDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DISPLACEMENTS THAT CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT
THE DURATION OF THE ALLEGED DISPLACEMENT ........... 292
187
APPENDIX 1: ENTRIES SAMPLED FROM VALUATION LISTS FOR
DEATHS
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.6 (Evaluation décès Beni)
Entry Referenced File
1 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_027
11 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_061
21 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_008
31 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0001_081
41 BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_009
51 BENI_CCF05032016_0010_038
61 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_041
71 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_197
81 BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_049
91 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_049
101 BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_061
111 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_035
121 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_086
131 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_050
141 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_221
151 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_137
161 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_010
171 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_115
181 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_056
188
191 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_170
201 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_037
211 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_068
221 BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_069
231 BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_002
241 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_053
251 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_155
261 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_035
271 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_203
281 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_040
291 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_022
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.7 (Evaluation décès Butembo)
Entry Referenced File
1 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0003_007
11 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_023
21 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0005_012
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.8 (Evaluation décès Gemena)
Entry Referenced File
1 GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_006
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.9 (Evaluation décès Ituri)
189
Entry Referenced File
1 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_176
11 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_026
21 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_004
31 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_014
41 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_008
51 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0056_014
61 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001_008
71 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_156
81 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_106
91 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_144 - COPIE
101 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_110
111 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0025_016
121 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_082
131 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_025
141 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0008_012
151 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_030
161 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_013
171 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014_021
181 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0012 (3)_022
191 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_014
201 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_026
211 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_036
221 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_044
231 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (3)_012
241 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_030
251 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_046
190
Entry Referenced File
261 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0009_011
271 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0005_006
281 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_054
291 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_007
301 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_064
311 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_114
321 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_007
331 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_058
341 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_013
351 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_023
361 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_020
371 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0003_023
381 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_044
391 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (4)_012
401 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0028_004
411 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_012
421 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_012
431 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0012_010
441 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_077 - COPIE
451 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0018_033
461 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_027
471 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_016
481 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_060
491 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_018
501 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_016
511 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_016
191
Entry Referenced File
521 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0017_012
531 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0032_004
541 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_006
551 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (4)_010
561 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_002
571 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0029_004
581 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_018
591 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0020_010
601 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_062
611 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_028
621 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0029_020
631 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_019
641 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_245
651 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_016
661 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_006
671 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_038
681 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_012
691 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_209
701 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_089 - COPIE
711 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_061
721 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_030
731 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_010
741 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_002
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.10 (Evaluation décès Kisangani)
192
Entry Referenced File
1 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0006_030
11 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_056
21 COPIE DE CCF22082016_0033_010
31 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_004
41 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_006
51 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_116
61 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_010
71 CCF22082016_008
81 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_028
91 COPIE DE CCF22082016_0034_004
101 Copie (2) de CCF22082016_0032_002
111 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_048
121 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_016
131 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_332
141 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_308
151 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_074
161 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0002 (2)_056
171 OUGANDA 35
181 COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_060
191 CCF22082016_0057_004
201 CCF22082016_0021_010
211 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_224
221 COPIE (2) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
231 CCF22082016_0050_016
241 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_012
251 COPIE DE CCF22082016_0033_010
193
Entry Referenced File
261 Copie de CCF22082016_0033_002
271 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_048
281 CCF22082016_0051_026
291 CCF22082016_0054_010
301 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_162
311 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_168
321 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_066
331 CCF22082016_0050_014
341 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_100
351 CCF22082016_0050_010
361 CCF22082016_0051_004
371 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_332
381 CCF22082016_0022_012
391 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_330
194
APPENDIX 2: ENTRIES SAMPLED FROM VALUATION LISTS FOR
DISPLACEMENT
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.6.A (Evaluation fuite Beni)
Entry Referenced File
1 BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_022
11 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_026
21 BENI_CCF05032016_0008_020
31 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_031
41 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_036
51 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_040
61 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_097
71 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_159
81 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_153
91 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_156
101 BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_046
111 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_219
121 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_099
131 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_049
141 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_006
151 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_083
161 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_092
171 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_090
181 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_273
191 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_080
201 COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_036
211 COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_039
195
Entry Referenced File
221 BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_005
231 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_004
241 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_157
251 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_020
261 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_033
271 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_039
281 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_137
291 BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_040
301 BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_055
311 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_018
321 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_296
331 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_163
341 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0006_035
351 BENI_CCF05032016_0010_002
361 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_102
371 BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_042
381 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_123
391 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_155
401 BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_035
411 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_014
421 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_149
431 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_006
441 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_157
196
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.7.A (Evaluation fuite Butembo)
Entry Referenced File
1 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_007
11 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_007
21 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0009_018
31 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_013
41 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0012_005
51 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0015_006
61 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_011
71 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_013
81 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_029
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.8.A (Evaluation fuite Gemena)
Entry Referenced File
1 GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_032
11 GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_006
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.9.A (Evaluation fuite Ituri)
Entry Referenced File
1 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_128
11 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_006
21 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_148 - COPIE
31 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_014
41 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_044
197
Entry Referenced File
51 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_010
61 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_008
71 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_106
81 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0018_029
91 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_144 - COPIE
101 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_004
111 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_042
121 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_042
131 GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_002
141 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_114
151 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_025
161 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_056
171 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0003_005
181 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_160
191 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (4)_020
201 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_018
211 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_018
221 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_004
231 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_106
241 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0027_009
251 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_227
261 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_014
271 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_020
281 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_100
291 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0021_004
301 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0012_002
198
Entry Referenced File
311 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0018_008
321 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_064
331 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_046
341 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_031
351 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_045 - COPIE
361 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_030
371 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_060
381 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_019
391 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0029_014
401 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (4)_006
411 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010 (2)_019
421 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_034
431 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_198
441 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0036_006
451 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_040
461 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_024
471 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_219
481 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_036
491 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_084 - COPIE
501 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_128
511 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002_017
521 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_002
531 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_211
541 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_024
551 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0012_022
561 ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_0003_004
199
Entry Referenced File
571 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_011
581 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_060
591 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_011
601 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (3)_002
611 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0005_008
621 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (4)_022
631 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_038
641 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_077 - COPIE
651 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_070
661 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_017
671 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_038
681 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_104
691 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_016
701 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_006
711 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_018
721 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_124
731 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0030_010
741 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_056 - COPIE
751 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (2)_016
761 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (4)_024
771 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_154
781 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_022
791 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_122
801 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0019_006
811 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0001_010
821 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_086
200
Entry Referenced File
831 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0012_014
841 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_032
851 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_018
861 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_024
871 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_016
881 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_123
891 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_132
901 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_008
911 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_040
921 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_082
931 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002_003
941 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_086 - COPIE
951 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_008
961 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_018 - COPIE
971 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_011
981 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_002
991 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_012
1001 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (2)_018
1011 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_065 - COPIE
1021 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0012_004
1031 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0005_003
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.10.A (Evaluation fuite Kisangani)
Entry Referenced File
1 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_002
201
11 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0019_030
21 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_190
31 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_012
41 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_260
51 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_028
61 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_257
71 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_297
81 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_293
91 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_196
101 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_270
111 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_002
121 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0010_028
131 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_028
141 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0017_006
151 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_268
161 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_064
171 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_177
181 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_012
191 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_072
201 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_273
211 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_060
221 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_181
231 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_212
241 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028
251 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_002
261 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_044
271 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_124
202
281 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_108
291 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_038
301 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_180
311 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0008_002
APPENDIX 3: ENTRIES SAMPLED FROM VALUATION LISTS FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.6.B (Evaluation lésions Beni)
Note that none of these entries referenced files. Uganda has determined which
file corresponds to which entry for all entries except one of them (Entry 91).
Entry Referenced File
1 BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_036
11 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_183
21 BENI_CCF05032016_0009_011
31 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_055
41 BENI_CCF05032016_0007_026
51 BENI_CCF05032016_0010_040
61 BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_044
71 BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_022
81 COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_036
91 N/A
101 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_085
111 BENI_CCF05032016_0010_042
121 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_235
131 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_091
203
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.7.B (Evaluation lésions Butembo)
Entry Referenced File
1 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_007
11 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_004
21 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0020_005
31 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_002
41 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_013
51 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_030
61 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0003_020
71 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0002_002
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.8.B (Evaluation lésions Gemena)
Entry Referenced File
1 GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_028
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.9.B (Evaluation lésions Ituri)
Entry Referenced File
1 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_126
11 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011_002
21 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_008
31 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0005_001
41 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_022
51 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (4)_020
61 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_019
204
Entry Referenced File
71 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_020
81 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_012
91 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0023_031
101 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0012 (3)_002
111 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_034
121 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_008
131 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_029
141 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011_004
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.10.B (Evaluation lésions Kisangani)
Entry Referenced File
1 CCF22082016_0013_006
11 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_042
21 COPIE DE CCF22082016_0034_010
31 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_104
41 CCF22082016_0006_014
51 CCF22082016_0050_006
61 CCF22082016_0071_003
71 CCF22082016_0042_006
81 CCF22082016_0008_008
91 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_202
101 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_016
111 CCF22082016_0048_022
121 CCF22082016_0005_012
131 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0010_024
205
Entry Referenced File
141 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_104
151 CCF22082016_0054_030
161 CCF22082016_0054_030
171 CCF22082016_0038_004
181 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_038
191 CCF22082016_0050_022
201 CCF22082016_0054_002
211 CCF22082016_0036_008
221 CCF22082016_0013_012
231 CCF22082016_0004_012
241 CCF22082016_0022_006
251 CCF22082016_010
261 CCF22082016_0004_016
271 CCF22082016_0054_032
281 CCF22082016_0105_010
291 CCF22082016_0026_012
301 CCF22082016_0086_006
311 CCF22082016_0098_005
321 CCF22082016_0042_004
331 CCF22082016_0036_002
341 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_240
351 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_168
361 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_169
371 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_025
381 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_106
391 CCF22082016_0015_004
206
Entry Referenced File
401 CCF22082016_0051_006
411 CCF22082016_0048_030
421 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_332
APPENDIX 4: ENTRIES SAMPLED FROM VALUATION LISTS FOR
PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.6.C (Evaluation pertes biens Beni)
Entry Referenced File
1 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0001_079
11 BENI_CCF05032016_0002_069
21 BENI_CCF05032016_0001_025
31 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_001&_004
41 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_036
51 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_172
61 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_055
71 BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_040
81 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_060
91 BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_003
101 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_007
111 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_125
121 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_069
131 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_039
141 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_048
151 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_024
161 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_151
207
Entry Referenced File
171 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_312
181 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_189
191 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_096
201 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_085
211 BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_009
221 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_100
231 BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_058
241 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_085
251 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_321
261 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_059
271 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_233
281 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_164
291 BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_037
301 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_201
311 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_018
321 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_251
331 BENI_CCF05032016_0007_002
341 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_229
351 BENI_CCF05032016_0008_028
361 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_304
371 BENI_CCF05032016_0008_002
381 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_203
391 BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_024
401 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_077
411 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_010
421 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_018
208
Entry Referenced File
431 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_173
441 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_022
451 BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0009_010
461 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_168
471 BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_016
481 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_018
491 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_310
501 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_058
511 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_079
521 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_106
531 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_076
541 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_141
551 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_074
561 BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_046
571 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_221
581 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_034
591 BENI_CCF05032016_0010_032
601 BENI_CCF05032016_0008_014
611 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_096
621 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_052
631 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_020
641 BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_097
651 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_271
661 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_008
671 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_045
681 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_043
209
Entry Referenced File
691 BENI_CCF05032016_0008_006
701 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_085
711 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_122
721 BENI_CCF05032016_0009_021
731 BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_035
741 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_149
751 BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_014
761 BENI_CCF05032016_0009_023
771 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_104
781 BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_040
791 BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_165
801 BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_052
811 BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_255
821 BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_068
831 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_002
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.7.C (Evaluation pertes biens Butembo)
Entry Referenced File
1 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0014_022
11 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0008_025
21 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_029
31 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_004
41 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0019_006
51 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0004_009
61 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0010_002
210
Entry Referenced File
71 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0020_007
81 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_007
91 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0006_017
101 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_007
111 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_011
121 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_028
131 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0020_011
141 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_002
151 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_006
161 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0006_008
171 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0012_003
181 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0008_011
191 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0008_010
201 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_015
211 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0009_016
221 BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0009_014
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.8.C (Evaluation pertes biens Gemena)
Entry Referenced File
1 GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_026
11 GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_034
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.9.C (Evaluation pertes biens Ituri)
211
Entry Referenced File
1 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0036_005
11 ITURI_SUITE7_CCF08032016_0001_005
21 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_015
31 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_010
41 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_021
51 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_002
61 COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_032
71 COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_021
81 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_037
91 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_028
101 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0013_026
111 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_042
121 ITURI_SUITE7_CCF08032016_004
131 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (4)_002
141 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_068
151 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0027_026
161 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_025
171 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_133 - COPIE
181 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_056
191 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_006
201 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_170
211 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_030
221 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0059_024
231 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0059_016
241 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_033
251 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0031_022
212
Entry Referenced File
261 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0023_008
271 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_014
281 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0035_011
291 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (2)_012
301 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0030_011
311 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_074
321 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0059_008
331 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_006
341 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_009 - COPIE
351 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_001
361 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_001
371 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011 (2)_043
381 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_079
391 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_009
401 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_002
411 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0025_008
421 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0001_008
431 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0007_010
441 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_016
451 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_010
461 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_015
471 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_020
481 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0032_007
491 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0028_004
501 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_010
511 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_205
213
Entry Referenced File
521 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011 (2)_008
531 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_043
541 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0001_015
551 COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_019
561 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0036_034
571 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0052_002
581 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0010_017
591 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (2)_022
601 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (4)_010
611 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_024
621 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_023
631 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_025
641 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_006 - COPIE
651 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0004_004
661 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0002_015
671 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_016
681 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_121
691 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_023
701 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_073
711 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_002
721 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_010
731 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0001_004
741 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_116
751 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (3)_009
761 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_180
771 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_035
214
Entry Referenced File
781 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (4)_006
791 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_018
801 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_008
811 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0034_008
821 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0033_012
831 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0028_004
841 ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0001_014
851 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0035_004
861 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014 (2)_002
871 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_040
881 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (3)_002
891 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0034_010
901 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_022
911 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_014
921 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_002
931 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0023_029
941 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_032
951 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_024
961 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_102
971 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_104
981 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_002
991 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014 (2)_006
1001 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0050_011
1011 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_042
1021 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_011
1031 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0032_003
215
Entry Referenced File
1041 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0034_030
1051 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_035
1061 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0001_006
1071 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_041
1081 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_029
1091 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_012
1101 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0002_010
1111 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0030_012
1121 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_093 - COPIE
1131 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_005
1141 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0031_016
1151 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014_015
1161 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_007
1171 STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0011_004
1181 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_022
1191 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0030_008
1201 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0021_006
1211 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0003_015
1221 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_138 - COPIE
1231 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_002
1241 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (3)_008
1251 ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_123
1261 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_004
1271 ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_101 - COPIE
1281 ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0050_015
1291 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_034
216
Entry Referenced File
1301 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_038
1311 ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_017
Entries Sampled from Annex 1.10.C (Evaluation pertes biens Kisangani)
Entry Referenced File
1 CCF22082016_0006_010
11 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_006
21 CCF22082016_0051_016
31 CCF22082016_0026_014
41 CCF22082016_0017_014
51 CCF22082016_0015_016
61 CCF22082016_0015_030
71 COPIE DE CCF22082016_0036_002
81 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_006
91 CCF22082016_0042_008
101 CCF22082016_0029_006
111 CCF22082016_0006_004
121 CCF22082016_0050_026
131 COPIE DE CCF22082016_0034_010
141 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0006_004
151 COPIE (2) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_062
161 CCF22082016_0016_002
171 CCF22082016_0005_020
181 CCF22082016_0016_004
191 CCF22082016_0048_020
217
Entry Referenced File
201 CCF22082016_0001_012
211 CCF22082016_0048_032
221 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_008
231 CCF22082016_0026_012
241 CCF22082016_0005_018
251 CCF22082016_0034_012
261 CCF22082016_0041_006
271 CCF22082016_0031_002
281 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_050
291 CCF22082016_0022_008
301 CCF22082016_0037_012
311 CCF22082016_0042_014
321 CCF22082016_0018_004
331 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_034
341 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_080
351 CCF22082016_0061_005
361 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0004_032
371 CCF22082016_0030_008
381 CCF22082016_0008_004
391 CCF22082016_0001_008
401 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_036
411 CCF21082016_0006_006
421 CCF21082016_0006_024
431 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_002
441 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_004
451 COPIE DE CCF22082016_0033_012
218
Entry Referenced File
461 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_165
471 CCF22082016_0008_008
481 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_018
491 CCF22082016_0042_020
501 CCF22082016_0046_010
511 CCF22082016_0033_008
521 CCF22082016_0054_006
531 CCF21082016_0006_028
541 CCF22082016_0045_002
551 CCF22082016_0016_002
561 CCF22082016_0004_016
571 CCF22082016_0006_006
581 CCF21082016_0005_002
591 CCF22082016_0051_022
601 CCF22082016_0050_006
611 OUGANDA 34
621 CCF22082016_0004_012
631 OUGANDA 34
641 CCF22082016_0034_002
651 BENI_CCF05032016_008
661 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_046
671 CCF22082016_0042_010
681 CCF21082016_0002_006
691 CCF21082016_0003_014
701 CCF22082016_0050_012
711 CCF22082016_0004_018
219
Entry Referenced File
721 CCF22082016_0041_004
731 CCF22082016_0048_026
741 CCF22082016_0029_026
751 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_002
761 CCF22082016_0022_010
771 CCF22082016_0050_026
781 CCF22082016_0005_012
791 CCF22082016_0045_002
801 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_076
811 CCF22082016_0019_002
821 COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
831 CCF22082016_0042_020
841 CCF21082016_0004_004
851 CCF21082016_0006_016
861 CCF22082016_0018_016
871 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_002
881 CCF22082016_0042_026
891 CCF22082016_0026_008
901 CCF22082016_0010_002
911 CCF22082016_0056_002
921 COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_058
931 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_026
941 COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_026
951 CCF21082016_0007_004
961 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_051
971 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0007_064
220
Entry Referenced File
981 CCF22082016_0051_002
991 CCF22082016_0020_004
1001 CCF21082016_0004_016
1011 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_207
1021 CCF22082016_0119_004
1031 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_029
1041 COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_026
1051 CCF22082016_0054_028
1061 CCF22082016_0057_004
1071 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_020
1081 CCF22082016_0016_006
1091 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_044
1101 CCF22082016_0009_004
1111 COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_060
1121 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_015
1131 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
1141 CCF22082016_0017_002
1151 CCF22082016_0013_014
1161 CCF22082016_0013_006
1171 CCF22082016_0013_004
1181 CCF22082016_0030_010
1191 CCF22082016_0017_010
1201 CCF22082016_0034_002
1211 OUGANDA 32
1221 CCF22082016_0050_030
1231 CCF22082016_0012_024
221
Entry Referenced File
1241 CCF22082016_0004_018
1251 CCF22082016_0005_024
1261 CCF22082016_0054_016
1271 CCF22082016_0051_018
1281 CCF22082016_0007_002
1291 CCF22082016_0047_008
1301 CCF22082016_0015_002
1311 CCF22082016_0013_008
1321 CCF22082016_0021_008
1331 COPIE DE CCF22082016_0034_014
1341 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_164
1351 CCF22082016_0005_012
1361 CCF21082016_0002_014
1371 CCF22082016_0036_008
1381 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_002
1391 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_002
1401 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_036
1411 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_008
1421 CCF22082016_0032_004
1431 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_056
1441 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_038
1451 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0005_026
1461 CCF22082016_0001_012
1471 CCF22082016_0027_006
1481 CCF22082016_0009_006
1491 CCF22082016_0048_024
222
Entry Referenced File
1501 CCF22082016_0019_002
1511 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_062
1521 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_328
1531 CCF22082016_0006_008
1541 CCF22082016_0015_018
1551 CCF22082016_0026_016
1561 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_220
1571 CCF22082016_0001_006
1581 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0012_008
1591 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_048
1601 CCF21082016_0004_004
1611 CCF22082016_0036_006
1621 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_010
1631 CCF22082016_0021_002
1641 CCF2208016_0037_002
1651 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_182
1661 CCF22082016_0007_006
1671 CCF22082016_0018_004
1681 CCF22082016_0101_004
1691 CCF22082016_0036_006
1701 CCF22082016_0097_003
1711 CCF22082016_0014_014
1721 CCF22082016_0004_018
1731 CCF22082016_0019_008
1741 CCF22082016_0051_026
1751 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_110
223
Entry Referenced File
1761 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_011
1771 CCF22082016_0009_004
1781 CCF22082016_0015_004
1791 CCF22082016_0056_010
1801 CCF22082016_0092_006
1811 COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_053
1821 CCF21082016_0004_006
1831 CCF22082016_0026_008
1841 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_031
1851 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_294
1861 CCF22082016_0041_004
1871 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028
1881 CCF22082016_0015_020
1891 CCF21082016_0006_020
1901 CCF22082016_0054_028
1911 CCF22082016_0034_014
1921 CCF22082016_0007_012
1931 CCF21082016_0006_014
1941 CCF21082016_0002_012
1951 CCF22082016_0051_026
1961 KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_231
1971 CCF22082016_0019_008
1981 CCF22082016_0034_016
1991 CCF22082016_0055_010
2001 CCF22082016_0006_018
2011 CCF22082016_0007_008
224
Entry Referenced File
2021 CCF22082016_0005_004
2031 CCF22082016_0050_002
2041 CCF22082016_0042_024
2051 CCF22082016_0005_008
2061 CCF22082016_0021_004
2071 CCF22082016_0050_012
2081 CCF22082016_0010_002
2091 CCF22082016_0048_030
2101 CCF22082016_0037_012
2111 KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_026
2121 CCF22082016_0054_008
2131 CCF22082016_0050_024
2141 CCF22082016_0029_008
2151 CCF21082016_0001_002
2161 CCF22082016_0044_002
2171 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0006_002
2181 CCF21082016_0001_008
2191 CCF22082016_0054_026
2201 CCF22082016_0015_002
2211 CCF22082016_0054_016
2221 CCF22082016_0050_030
2231 CCF22082016_0057_004
2241 CCF22082016_0110_008
2251 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0012_014
2261 CCF22082016_0029_016
2271 COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_051
225
Entry Referenced File
2281 CCF21082016_0006_016
2291 CCF22082016_0019_006
2301 CCF22082016_0042_008
2311 CCF22082016_0033_012
2321 CCF22082016_0058_003
2331 CCF22082016_0022_010
2341 COPIE DE CCF22082016_0033_012
2351 CCF22082016_0050_006
2361 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_180
2371 CCF22082016_0054_026
2381 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_040
2391 CCF22082016_0017_008
2401 KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_330
APPENDIX 5: SAMPLED ENTRIES THAT LIST FILE NAMES THAT DO
NOT CORRESPOND TO ANY FILE IN THE RELEVANT ANNEX
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_008
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_144 - COPIE
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0009_011
COPIE DE CCF22082016_0033_010
COPIE DE CCF22082016_0034_004
COPIE DE CCF22082016_0033_010
COPIE DE CCF22082016_0034_010
CCF22082016_0071_003
CCF22082016_0042_006
226
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0008_008
CCF22082016_0048_022
CCF22082016_0005_012
CCF22082016_0004_012
CCF22082016_0004_016
CCF22082016_0105_010
CCF22082016_0086_006
CCF22082016_0098_005
CCF22082016_0042_004
CCF22082016_0048_030
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_227
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_198
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_219
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_211
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0007_010
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0001_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0036_034
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0010_017
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0001_006
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0002_010
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0011_004
CCF22082016_0017_014
CCF22082016_0015_016
CCF22082016_0015_030
COPIE DE CCF22082016_0036_002
CCF22082016_0042_008
COPIE DE CCF22082016_0034_010
227
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0005_020
CCF22082016_0048_020
CCF22082016_0001_012
CCF22082016_0048_032
CCF22082016_0005_018
CCF22082016_0034_012
CCF22082016_0041_006
CCF22082016_0037_012
CCF22082016_0042_014
CCF22082016_0001_008
CCF21082016_0006_006
CCF21082016_0006_024
COPIE DE CCF22082016_0033_012
CCF22082016_0008_008
CCF22082016_0042_020
CCF22082016_0046_010
CCF22082016_0033_008
CCF21082016_0006_028
CCF22082016_0016_002
CCF22082016_0004_016
CCF21082016_0005_002
CCF22082016_0004_012
CCF22082016_0042_010
CCF21082016_0002_006
CCF21082016_0003_014
CCF22082016_0004_018
CCF22082016_0048_026
228
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0005_012
CCF22082016_0042_020
CCF21082016_0004_004
CCF21082016_0006_016
CCF22082016_0042_026
CCF21082016_0007_004
CCF21082016_0004_016
CCF22082016_0119_004
COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_026
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
CCF22082016_0017_010
CCF22082016_0004_018
CCF22082016_0005_024
CCF22082016_0047_008
CCF22082016_0021_008
COPIE DE CCF22082016_0034_014
CCF22082016_0005_012
CCF21082016_0002_014
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0005_026
CCF22082016_0001_012
CCF22082016_0027_006
CCF22082016_0048_024
CCF22082016_0015_018
CCF22082016_0001_006
CCF21082016_0004_004
CCF22082016_0036_006
CCF2208016_0037_002
229
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0101_004
CCF22082016_0097_003
CCF22082016_0014_014
CCF22082016_0004_018
CCF22082016_0019_008
CCF22082016_0092_006
COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_053
CCF21082016_0004_006
CCF22082016_0015_020
CCF21082016_0006_020
CCF22082016_0034_014
CCF22082016_0007_012
CCF21082016_0006_014
CCF21082016_0002_012
CCF22082016_0019_008
CCF22082016_0034_016
CCF22082016_0042_024
CCF22082016_0005_008
CCF22082016_0048_030
CCF22082016_0037_012
CCF21082016_0001_002
CCF21082016_0001_008
CCF22082016_0110_008
CCF21082016_0006_016
CCF22082016_0019_006
CCF22082016_0042_008
CCF22082016_0033_012
230
Referenced File
COPIE DE CCF22082016_0033_012
CCF22082016_0017_008
APPENDIX 6: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS THAT
SPECIFIED THE ACTION IN QUESTION
Referenced File
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_035
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_013
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0029_020
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0006_030
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_004
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_116
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_028
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_016
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_332
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_074
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_048
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_100
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_036
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_183
BENI_CCF05032016_0009_011
BENI_CCF05032016_0007_026
BENI_CCF05032016_0010_040
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_044
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_022
COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_036
231
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016_0010_042
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_004
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0020_005
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_002
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_013
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0002_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_126
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_008
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0005_001
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (4)_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_019
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_029
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011_004
CCF22082016_0013_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_042
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0010_024
CCF22082016_0054_030
CCF22082016_0050_022
CCF22082016_010
CCF22082016_0054_032
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_106
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_332
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0001_014
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_014
232
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_002
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_032
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_102
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_104
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0050_011
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_041
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_029
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0050_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_017
CCF22082016_0050_030
CCF22082016_0051_018
CCF22082016_0036_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_002
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0012_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_031
APPENDIX 7: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS THAT DO
NOT ALLEGE THAT THE “AUTEURS PRÉSUMÉS” IS UGANDA OR
UGANDAN SOLDIERS
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_156
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0025_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_082
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014_021
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_014
233
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_026
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_036
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_044
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (3)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_030
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_046
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0005_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_054
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_007
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_064
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_114
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_007
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_058
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_020
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_044
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (4)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0028_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0018_033
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_027
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_060
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0017_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (4)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0029_004
234
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0020_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_028
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0029_020
CCF22082016_008
Copie (2) de CCF22082016_0032_002
OUGANDA 35
COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_060
CCF22082016_0021_010
COPIE (2) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
CCF22082016_0050_016
Copie de CCF22082016_0033_002
CCF22082016_0051_026
CCF22082016_0054_010
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_066
CCF22082016_0050_014
CCF22082016_0050_010
CCF22082016_0022_012
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_330
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (4)_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_019
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0023_031
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0012 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_034
235
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_008
CCF22082016_0013_006
CCF22082016_0006_014
CCF22082016_0050_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_016
CCF22082016_0054_030
CCF22082016_0054_030
CCF22082016_0050_022
CCF22082016_0036_008
CCF22082016_0013_012
CCF22082016_0022_006
CCF22082016_010
CCF22082016_0054_032
CCF22082016_0026_012
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_026
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_128
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_144 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_004
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_042
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_160
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (4)_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0027_009
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0021_004
236
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0012_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_031
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_019
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0029_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (4)_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010 (2)_019
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_034
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_040
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_024
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_084 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_128
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_024
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0012_022
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_060
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_011
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0005_008
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_038
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_077 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_038
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_018
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_124
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (2)_016
237
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_154
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_122
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0019_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0001_010
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0012_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_032
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_024
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_132
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_008
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_040
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_082
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_018 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (2)_018
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_177
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_108
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0001_079
BENI_CCF05032016_0007_002
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_018
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_034
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0013_026
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_042
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_025
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_170
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011 (2)_043
238
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0025_008
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0001_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011 (2)_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (2)_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (4)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_024
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_023
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_025
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (3)_009
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0028_004
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014 (2)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_040
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_024
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_102
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014 (2)_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_042
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_041
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0030_012
239
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0031_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0030_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0021_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (3)_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_004
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_034
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_038
CCF22082016_0006_010
CCF22082016_0051_016
CCF22082016_0026_014
CCF22082016_0029_006
CCF22082016_0050_026
COPIE (2) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_062
CCF22082016_0026_012
CCF22082016_0031_002
CCF22082016_0022_008
CCF22082016_0018_004
CCF22082016_0061_005
CCF22082016_0030_008
CCF22082016_0006_006
CCF22082016_0051_022
CCF22082016_0050_006
OUGANDA 34
CCF22082016_0050_012
240
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0029_026
CCF22082016_0022_010
CCF22082016_0050_026
CCF22082016_0019_002
COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
CCF22082016_0018_016
CCF22082016_0026_008
CCF22082016_0010_002
COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_058
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_026
COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_026
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_051
CCF22082016_0020_004
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_029
CCF22082016_0054_028
CCF22082016_0009_004
COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_060
CCF22082016_0013_014
CCF22082016_0013_006
CCF22082016_0013_004
CCF22082016_0030_010
OUGANDA 32
CCF22082016_0050_030
CCF22082016_0012_024
CCF22082016_0051_018
CCF22082016_0015_002
241
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0036_008
CCF22082016_0009_006
CCF22082016_0019_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_062
CCF22082016_0006_008
CCF22082016_0026_016
CCF22082016_0018_004
CCF22082016_0036_006
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_011
CCF22082016_0009_004
CCF22082016_0015_004
CCF22082016_0056_010
CCF22082016_0026_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_031
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028
CCF22082016_0054_028
CCF22082016_0051_026
CCF22082016_0055_010
CCF22082016_0021_004
CCF22082016_0050_012
CCF22082016_0050_024
CCF22082016_0029_008
CCF22082016_0054_026
CCF22082016_0015_002
CCF22082016_0054_016
CCF22082016_0050_030
242
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0012_014
CCF22082016_0029_016
COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_051
CCF22082016_0022_010
CCF22082016_0050_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_180
CCF22082016_0054_026
APPENDIX 8: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DEATHS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE
VICTIM’S EMPLOYMENT
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_027
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_061
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_008
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0001_081
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_009
BENI_CCF05032016_0010_038
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_041
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_197
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_049
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_049
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_061
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_086
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_050
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_221
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_010
243
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_115
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_056
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_170
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_037
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_068
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_069
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_002
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_053
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_155
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_035
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_203
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_040
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_022
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0003_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_023
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0005_012
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_026
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0056_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_156
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_106
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_110
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0025_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_082
244
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_025
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_030
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_013
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014_021
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0012 (3)_022
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_026
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_036
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_044
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (3)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_030
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_046
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0005_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_054
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_007
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_064
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_114
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_007
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_058
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_013
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_023
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_020
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0003_023
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_044
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (4)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0028_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_012
245
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_012
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_077 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0018_033
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_027
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_060
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0017_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0032_004
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (4)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0029_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0020_010
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_062
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_028
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0029_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_019
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_006
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_038
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_012
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_089 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_061
246
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_030
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_002
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0006_030
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_056
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_004
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_116
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_010
CCF22082016_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_028
Copie (2) de CCF22082016_0032_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_048
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_016
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_332
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_308
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_074
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0002 (2)_056
OUGANDA 35
COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_060
CCF22082016_0021_010
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_224
COPIE (2) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
CCF22082016_0050_016
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_012
Copie de CCF22082016_0033_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_048
247
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0051_026
CCF22082016_0054_010
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_162
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_168
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_066
CCF22082016_0050_014
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_100
CCF22082016_0050_010
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_332
CCF22082016_0022_012
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_330
APPENDIX 9: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DEATHS THAT DO NOT CONTAIN ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE
VICTIM’S AGE
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_027
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_061
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_008
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0001_081
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_009
BENI_CCF05032016_0010_038
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_041
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_197
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_049
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_049
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_035
248
Referenced File
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_086
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_050
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_221
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_010
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_115
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_056
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_170
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_037
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_068
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_069
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_002
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_053
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_155
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_035
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_203
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_040
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_022
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0003_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_023
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0005_012
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_026
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0056_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_156
249
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_106
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_110
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0025_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_082
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_025
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_030
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_013
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0012 (3)_022
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_026
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_036
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_044
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (3)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_030
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_046
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0005_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_054
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_007
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_064
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_114
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_007
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_058
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_013
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_023
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_020
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0003_023
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_044
250
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (4)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0028_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_012
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_077 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0018_033
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_027
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_060
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0017_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0032_004
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (4)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0029_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0020_010
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_062
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_028
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0029_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_019
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_012
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_089 - COPIE
251
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_030
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_002
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0006_030
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_004
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_116
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_010
CCF22082016_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_028
Copie (2) de CCF22082016_0032_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_048
OUGANDA 35
COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_060
CCF22082016_0021_010
COPIE (2) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
CCF22082016_0050_016
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_012
Copie de CCF22082016_0033_002
CCF22082016_0051_026
CCF22082016_0054_010
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_162
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_168
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_066
CCF22082016_0050_014
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_100
CCF22082016_0050_010
252
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_332
CCF22082016_0022_012
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_330
APPENDIX 10: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DEATHS THAT DO NOT SPECIFY WHETHER THE DEATH
RESULTED FROM DELIBERATE ACTS OF VIOLENCE OR NOT
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_027
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_061
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_008
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0001_081
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_009
BENI_CCF05032016_0010_038
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_041
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_197
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_049
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_049
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_061
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_035
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_086
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_050
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_221
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_010
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_115
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_056
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_170
253
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_037
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_068
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_069
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_002
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_053
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_155
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_035
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_203
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_040
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_022
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0003_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_023
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0005_012
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_026
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0056_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_156
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_106
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_110
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0025_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_082
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_025
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_030
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_013
254
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014_021
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0012 (3)_022
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_026
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_036
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_044
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (3)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_030
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_046
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0005_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_054
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_007
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_064
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_114
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_007
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_058
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_013
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_023
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_020
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0003_023
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_044
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (4)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0028_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_012
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_077 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0018_033
255
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_027
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_060
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0017_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0032_004
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (4)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0029_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0020_010
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_062
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_028
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0029_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_019
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0003_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_006
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_038
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_012
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_089 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_061
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_030
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_002
256
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0006_030
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_056
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_004
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_116
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_010
CCF22082016_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_028
Copie (2) de CCF22082016_0032_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_048
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_016
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_308
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_074
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0002 (2)_056
OUGANDA 35
COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_060
CCF22082016_0021_010
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001 (2)_224
COPIE (2) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
CCF22082016_0050_016
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_012
Copie de CCF22082016_0033_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_048
CCF22082016_0051_026
CCF22082016_0054_010
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_162
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_168
257
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_066
CCF22082016_0050_014
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_100
CCF22082016_0050_010
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_332
CCF22082016_0022_012
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_330
APPENDIX 11: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES THAT DO NOT ALLEGE THE EXTENT,
NATURE, AND/OR TYPE OF THE VICTIM’S INJURY
Referenced File
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_036
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_183
BENI_CCF05032016_0009_011
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_055
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_044
COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_036
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_085
BENI_CCF05032016_0010_042
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_235
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_091
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_004
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0020_005
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_002
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_013
258
Referenced File
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_030
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0003_020
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0002_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_126
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_008
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0005_001
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (4)_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_019
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0023_031
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0012 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_029
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011_004
CCF22082016_0013_006
CCF22082016_0006_014
CCF22082016_0050_006
CCF22082016_0036_008
CCF22082016_0013_012
CCF22082016_0026_012
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_240
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_168
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_025
259
APPENDIX 12: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PERSONAL INJURIES THAT DO NOT SPECIFY WHETHER THE
INJURY RESULTED FROM DELIBERATE ACTS OF VIOLENCE OR
NOT
Referenced File
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_055
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_044
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_085
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_235
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_091
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_030
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0003_020
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_028
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0023_031
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0012 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_034
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_042
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_104
CCF22082016_0006_014
CCF22082016_0050_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_202
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_016
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0010_024
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_104
260
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0054_030
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_038
CCF22082016_0050_022
CCF22082016_0036_008
CCF22082016_0013_012
CCF22082016_0022_006
CCF22082016_010
CCF22082016_0054_032
CCF22082016_0026_012
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_240
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_168
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_169
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_025
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_106
APPENDIX 13: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DISPLACEMENTS THAT DO NOT ALLEGE THE SPECIFIC
LOCATION OF DISPLACEMENT
Referenced File
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_026
BENI_CCF05032016_0008_020
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_031
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_036
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_040
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_097
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_159
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_153
261
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_156
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_046
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_219
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_099
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_006
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_083
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_273
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_005
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_004
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_157
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_020
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_033
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_039
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_137
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_040
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_055
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_018
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_296
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_163
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0006_035
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_102
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_042
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_123
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_155
BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_035
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_014
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_149
262
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_006
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_157
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0009_018
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_013
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0012_005
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0015_006
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_011
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_013
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_029
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_018
ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_0003_004
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_011
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_011
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (2)_018
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_260
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_257
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_293
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_196
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_270
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_028
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_268
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_177
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_273
263
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_181
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_212
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_180
APPENDIX 14: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DISPLACEMENTS THAT DO NOT ALLEGE THE SPECIFIC DATES OF
DISPLACEMENT
Referenced File
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_022
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_026
BENI_CCF05032016_0008_020
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_031
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_036
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_040
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_097
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_159
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_153
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_156
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_046
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_219
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_099
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_049
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_006
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_083
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_092
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_090
264
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_273
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_080
COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_036
COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_039
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_005
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_004
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_157
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_020
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_033
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_039
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_137
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_040
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_055
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_018
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_296
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_163
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0006_035
BENI_CCF05032016_0010_002
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_102
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_042
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_123
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_155
BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_035
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_014
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_149
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_006
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_157
265
Referenced File
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0009_018
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_013
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0012_005
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0015_006
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_011
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_013
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_029
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_032
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_128
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_006
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_148 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_014
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_044
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_106
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0018_029
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_144 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_004
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_042
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_042
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_002
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_114
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_025
266
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_056
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0003_005
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_160
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (4)_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_018
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_018
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_004
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_106
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0027_009
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_020
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_100
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0021_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0012_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0018_008
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0006_064
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_046
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_031
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_045 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_030
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_060
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0034_019
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0029_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (4)_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010 (2)_019
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_034
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0036_006
267
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_040
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_024
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_036
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_084 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_128
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002_017
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_024
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0012_022
ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_0003_004
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_011
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_060
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_011
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0005_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (4)_022
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_038
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_077 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_070
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_017
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_038
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_104
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (3)_018
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_124
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0030_010
268
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_056 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (2)_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (4)_024
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_154
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0002_022
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_122
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0019_006
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0001_010
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_086
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0012_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_032
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_018
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_024
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0011_016
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0007_132
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_008
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_040
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0004_082
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002_003
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_086 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_008
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_018 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_011
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_002
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0009_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (2)_018
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_065 - COPIE
269
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0012_004
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0005_003
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_028
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_257
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_297
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_293
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_196
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_270
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0010_028
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_028
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0017_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_268
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_064
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_177
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_012
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_072
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_273
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0007_060
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_181
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_212
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_124
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_108
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0005_038
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_180
270
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0008_002
APPENDIX 15: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE THAT DO NOT STATE THE EXTENT
AND/OR NATURE OF THE LOSS OR DAMAGE
Referenced File
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0001_079
BENI_CCF05032016_0002_069
BENI_CCF05032016_0001_025
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_001&_004
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_036
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_172
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_055
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_040
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_060
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_003
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_007
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_125
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_069
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_039
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_048
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_024
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_151
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_312
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_189
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_096
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_085
271
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_009
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_100
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_058
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_085
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_321
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_059
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_233
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_164
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_037
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_201
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_018
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_251
BENI_CCF05032016_0007_002
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_229
BENI_CCF05032016_0008_028
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_304
BENI_CCF05032016_0008_002
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_203
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_024
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_077
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_010
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_018
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_173
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_022
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0009_010
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_168
BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_016
272
Referenced File
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_018
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_310
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_058
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_079
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_106
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_076
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_141
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_074
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_046
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_221
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_034
BENI_CCF05032016_0010_032
BENI_CCF05032016_0008_014
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_096
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_052
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_020
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_097
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_271
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_008
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_045
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_043
BENI_CCF05032016_0008_006
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_085
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_122
BENI_CCF05032016_0009_021
BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_035
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_149
273
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_014
BENI_CCF05032016_0009_023
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_104
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0005_040
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_165
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_052
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_255
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0010_068
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_002
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0014_022
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0008_025
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_029
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_004
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0019_006
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0004_009
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0010_002
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0020_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0006_017
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_011
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_028
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0020_011
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_002
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_006
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0006_008
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0012_003
274
Referenced File
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0008_011
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0008_010
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0001_015
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0009_016
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0009_014
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_026
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_034
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0036_005
ITURI_SUITE7_CCF08032016_0001_005
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_010
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_021
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_002
COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_032
COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_021
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_037
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_028
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0013_026
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_042
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (4)_002
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_068
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0027_026
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_025
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_133 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_056
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_170
275
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0027_030
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0059_024
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0059_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_033
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0031_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0023_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0035_011
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (2)_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0030_011
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_074
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0059_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_006
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_009 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_001
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_001
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011 (2)_043
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_079
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_009
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0057_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0025_008
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0001_008
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0032_007
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0028_004
276
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_205
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011 (2)_008
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_043
COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_019
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0052_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (2)_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (4)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_024
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_023
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_025
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_006 - COPIE
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0004_004
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0002_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_016
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_121
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0004_023
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_073
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_010
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0001_004
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_116
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (3)_009
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_180
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_035
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (4)_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_018
277
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0034_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0033_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0028_004
ITURI_SUITE4_CCF07032016_0001_014
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0035_004
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014 (2)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0021_040
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (3)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0034_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0024_022
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_014
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0023_029
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0006_032
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_024
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_102
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_104
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0033_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014 (2)_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0050_011
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_042
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_011
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0032_003
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0034_030
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_035
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_041
278
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0054_029
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0030_012
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_093 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0026_005
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0031_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_007
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0030_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0021_006
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0003_015
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_138 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (3)_008
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_123
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_004
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_101 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0050_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (3)_034
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_038
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_017
CCF22082016_0006_010
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_006
CCF22082016_0051_016
CCF22082016_0026_014
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_006
279
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0029_006
CCF22082016_0050_026
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0006_004
COPIE (2) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_062
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_008
CCF22082016_0026_012
CCF22082016_0031_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_050
CCF22082016_0022_008
CCF22082016_0018_004
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_034
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_080
CCF22082016_0061_005
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0004_032
CCF22082016_0030_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_036
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_002
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_004
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_165
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_018
CCF22082016_0006_006
CCF22082016_0051_022
CCF22082016_0050_006
OUGANDA 34
BENI_CCF05032016_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_046
CCF22082016_0050_012
280
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0029_026
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_002
CCF22082016_0022_010
CCF22082016_0050_026
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_076
CCF22082016_0019_002
COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_064
CCF22082016_0018_016
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_002
CCF22082016_0026_008
CCF22082016_0010_002
COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_058
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_026
COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_026
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_051
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0007_064
CCF22082016_0020_004
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_207
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_029
CCF22082016_0054_028
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_020
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_044
CCF22082016_0009_004
COPIE (3) DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_060
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_015
CCF22082016_0013_014
CCF22082016_0013_006
281
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0013_004
CCF22082016_0030_010
OUGANDA 32
CCF22082016_0050_030
CCF22082016_0012_024
CCF22082016_0054_016
CCF22082016_0051_018
CCF22082016_0015_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_164
CCF22082016_0036_008
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_036
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_056
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_038
CCF22082016_0009_006
CCF22082016_0019_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_328
CCF22082016_0006_008
CCF22082016_0026_016
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_220
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_048
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_010
CCF22082016_0018_004
CCF22082016_0036_006
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_110
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_011
CCF22082016_0009_004
282
Referenced File
CCF22082016_0015_004
CCF22082016_0026_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_294
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028
CCF22082016_0054_028
CCF22082016_0051_026
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_231
CCF22082016_0055_010
CCF22082016_0006_018
CCF22082016_0021_004
CCF22082016_0050_012
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_026
CCF22082016_0050_024
CCF22082016_0029_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0006_002
CCF22082016_0054_026
CCF22082016_0015_002
CCF22082016_0054_016
CCF22082016_0050_030
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0012_014
CCF22082016_0029_016
COPIE DE KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_051
CCF22082016_0022_010
CCF22082016_0050_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_180
CCF22082016_0054_026
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_040
283
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_330
APPENDIX 16: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE THAT DO NOT CLAIM ANY
PARTICULAR VALUATION
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016_0002_069
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_001&_004
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_036
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_172
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_055
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_040
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_060
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_003
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_007
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_125
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_069
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_048
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_151
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_312
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_096
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_009
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_085
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_037
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_201
BENI_CCF05032016_0007_002
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_304
284
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_203
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_024
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_077
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_010
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_018
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_173
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_022
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0009_010
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_168
BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_016
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_018
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_310
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_058
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_079
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_074
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_034
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_052
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_020
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_097
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_008
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_045
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_085
BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_035
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_014
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_052
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_255
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_002
285
Referenced File
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0014_022
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0008_025
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_029
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0004_009
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0007_028
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0006_008
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0008_011
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0008_010
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_026
GEMENA_CCF05032016_0001_034
ITURI_SUITE7_CCF08032016_0001_005
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_010
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_028
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0013_026
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_068
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_056
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_170
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0031_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0023_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0035_011
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_074
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011 (2)_043
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_079
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_009
286
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0025_008
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_010
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0015_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0025_020
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0032_007
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0011 (2)_008
COPIE DE ITURI_SUITE5_CCF07032016_019
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_023
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_025
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_006 - COPIE
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0004_004
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0002_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_016
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0009 (2)_073
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0010_010
STE_&_ETS_PRIVES_ITURIS_CCF04032016_0001_004
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_116
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (3)_009
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (4)_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0034_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0028_004
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014 (2)_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0023_029
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0008 (3)_024
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_102
287
Referenced File
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_104
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014 (2)_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_042
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_011
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0032_003
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_012
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0014_015
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_007
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_022
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0030_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0021_006
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0005 (3)_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_004
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_101 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0007 (3)_038
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_006
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_006
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0006_004
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_050
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_034
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_080
CCF22082016_0061_005
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0004_032
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_036
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_002
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_004
288
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_165
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_018
BENI_CCF05032016_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_046
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_002
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_076
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_026
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_051
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0007_064
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_207
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_029
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_020
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_044
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_015
CCF22082016_0012_024
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_164
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_002
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_002
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_036
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_008
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_056
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_038
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_062
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_328
CCF22082016_0006_008
CCF22082016_0026_016
289
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_220
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0012_008
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_048
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_0003 (2)_010
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_182
CCF22082016_0036_006
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_110
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_011
CCF22082016_0015_004
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0001_031
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_294
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028
KISANGANI_SUITE2_CCF06032016_026
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0006_002
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_180
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_040
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_330
APPENDIX 17: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
PROPERTY LOSS OR DAMAGE THAT DO NOT INDICATE THE
SPECIFIC TYPE OF PROPERTY LOST OR DAMAGED
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_036
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_172
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_040
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_060
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_003
290
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_007
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_125
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_069
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_048
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_151
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_312
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_009
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_085
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_059
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_233
BENI_CCF05032016_0003 (2)_037
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_201
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_304
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_203
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_024
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_077
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_010
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_173
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_022
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_168
BENI_CCF05032016_0004 (2)_016
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_310
BENI_CCF05032016_0006 (2)_058
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_052
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_020
BENI_CCF05032016_0001 (2)_097
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_271
291
Referenced File
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_008
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_045
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_043
BENI_CCF05032016 (2)_014
BENI_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_052
BENI_CCF05032016_0005 (2)_255
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_002
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0020_007
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0009_014
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0011_015
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_133 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE_CCF04032016_0055_009
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_002
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_008
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0023_029
ITURI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0015 (3)_004
CCF22082016_0026_014
CCF22082016_0029_006
CCF22082016_0050_026
CCF22082016_0061_005
CCF22082016_0030_008
OUGANDA 34
CCF22082016_0050_026
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0014_002
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016_0002 (2)_015
CCF22082016_0013_006
CCF22082016_0030_010
292
Referenced File
OUGANDA 32
CCF22082016_0015_002
CCF22082016_0019_002
CCF22082016_0026_016
CCF22082016_0036_006
APPENDIX 18: SAMPLED VICTIM IDENTIFICATION FORMS FOR
DISPLACEMENTS THAT CONTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT THE
DURATION OF THE ALLEGED DISPLACEMENT
Referenced File
BENI_SUITE1_CCF07 032016_0010_022
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0004_006
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0007_083
BENI_SUITE2_CCF08032016_0006_035
BUTEMBO_CCF04032016_0022_007
ITURI_SUITE3_CCF07032016_0008_148 - COPIE
ITURI_SUITE1_CCF07032016_0002_123
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_190
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0015_012
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_028
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_257
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_196
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0010_028
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016 (2)_028
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_012
KISANGANI_SUITE_CCF05032016 (2)_181
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_212
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0009_028
293
Referenced File
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_124
KISANGANI_SUITE1_CCF06032016_0011_108
Comments of Uganda on the responses of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the questions put by the Court