2023 RLLR 258

2023 RLLR 258 Citation: 2023 RLLR 258 Tribunal: Refugee Protection Division Date of Decision: October 30, 2023 Panel: Logan Sherwood Counsel for the Claimant(s): David Mushagalusa Mika Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo RPD Number: VC3-04401 Associated RPD Number(s): N/A ATIP Number: A-2024-01360 ATIP Pages: N/A DECISION INTRODUCTION [1] These are the reasons for the decision in the claim of XXXX XXXX, a citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) who has been granted refugee status in South Africa. He is claiming refugee protection pursuant to sections 96 and 97(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA)[1] against both the Democratic Republic of the Congo and South Africa. ALLEGATIONS [2] The allegations are found in the claimant’s Basis of Claim form[2] and in the claimant’s testimony. The following is a brief synopsis of those allegations. [3] The claimant was born in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and is a citizen of the DRC. The claimant’s father, mother and sister were killed in the DRC on XXXX XXXX, 2004, due to their ethnic background as Banyamulenge (Congolese Tutsi originally from Rwanda) despite having been born in the DRC. During that time period the Congolese Army was routinely killing Banyamulenge. The claimant was not killed but he was severely beaten and nearly died. Following this incident, the claimant fled to South Africa where he was granted refugee status in 2005. [4] After arriving in South Africa, the claimant began to face discrimination based on his DRC nationality. The claimant testified that upon arriving in South Africa, he was slapped by a police officer while waiting to make his refugee claim because the police officer was angry that the claimant had misunderstood something the officer said to him. The claimant was also regularly the recipient of racial slurs during his time in South Africa. [5] The claimant became XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in South Africa on XXXX XXXX, 2014. He testified that this was a volunteer position and that many of the congregation were refugees. The claimant tried to assist these refugees by XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in addition to XXXX XXXX. The claimant also began working as a XXXX for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in 2014 where part of his work involved XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX in South Africa and XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. He also attended conferences where he XXXX XXXX against Operation Dudula (an anti-migrant movement) and the lack of government action against xenophobia in South Africa. [6] In 2019, the claimant was attacked while working alone at his XXXXoffice by members of Operation Dudula. He knew they were members of Operation Dudula because of the particular hymns they sang as they approached the XXXX. The claimant testified that he was beaten, called racial slurs, accused of bringing refugees into the country who were taking away jobs from South Africans, and told to go back to his country. The claimant went to a hospital to seek medical attention, but the nurses refused to allow him to see a doctor due to his ethnicity and would only give him some medication. The claimant went to the police but was told that the police couldn’t do anything because they didn’t know how to find the attackers. [7] Later in 2019, members of Operation Dudula again came to the claimant’s XXXX, but the claimant heard them approach because they were singing, and he managed to hide from them. The claimant contacted the police again but was told there was nothing the police could do to protect him. The police suggested that the claimant should consider leaving South Africa for his safety. [8] There were also several other attempts by members of Operation Dudula to locate and harm the claimant which resulted in harm to the claimant’s children when the perpetrators were unable to locate him. For example, on one occasion members of Operation Dudula came looking for the claimant at his house but he was not home. They kidnapped his daughter and took her in their car, but she managed to jump out while the car was moving and escape. The claimant reported this incident to the police, but nothing was done. On another occasion, the same daughter was beaten by members of Operation Dudula. [9] In 2022, the claimants’ son was taken from his school by Operation Dudula members and beaten and tortured. He was told that if his father did not leave South Africa, they would kill the claimant’s entire family. [10] On XXXX XXXX, 2022, the claimant’s home was broken into by people he believed were part of Operation Dudula. While the claimant and his family managed to escape unharmed, this incident made the claimant ever more fearful as before he escaped out the back, he heard the perpetrators say ‘kill’ while they were banging on the door. The claimant again asked the police for help but was told that he and his family should leave the country for their safety. [11] The next day, the claimant left South Africa for a conference in the United States. Before leaving, the claimant asked his brother to help hide his family. After the conference in the United States, the claimant came to Canada for another conference that he had previously booked. On XXXX XXXX, 2023, the claimant received a phone call from his brother who told the claimant that his brother had been assaulted by unknown people who asked where the claimant and his family were. Fearing for his life if he returned to South Africa, the claimant made a refugee claim in Canada on XXXX XXXX, 2023. DETERMINATION [12] I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee pursuant to section 96 of the IRPA. ANALYSIS Identity [13] The claimant’s identity as a citizen of the DRC is established on a balance of probabilities by his testimony and the supporting documentation filed, namely a copy of his South African Travel Document which includes a US visa showing he was born in the DRC, and a copy of his South African Refugee document which states his nationality is “Congolian (DRC)”.[3] Credibility [14] In line with the Federal Court’s decision in Maldonado[4], a claimant’s sworn testimony creates a presumption that the individual’s allegations are true unless there is a reason to doubt their truthfulness. In this case, I found the claimant to be credible, consistent, and forthright in his testimony. In particular, I found that the claimant was articulate about his work with the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and why this work was personally important to him as a person whose family had been killed because of their ethnicity. [15] The claimant also submitted documents[5] in support of his claim, including a letter from the XXXX of the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX which states that the claimant worked as a XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX, a certificate of XXXX from the XXXX XXXX XXXX where the claimant was a volunteer XXXX, an affidavit that the claimant made to the South African Police Service on XXXX XXXX, 2022 regarding the break-in that occurred at his home the day prior, copies of South African refugee status documents for the claimant and his family members, an invitation from the XXXX XXXX XXXX to speak to students in the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX program about xenophobia in South Africa, and photos of the claimant working with refugees in South Africa. I find no reason to question the authenticity of these documents, leading me to find they have probative value in establishing, on a balance of probabilities, the credibility of the claimant’s allegations that he was XXXX as a XXXX, that he worked for the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX and that he has been granted refugee status in South Africa. As such, I attach high weight to these documents. [16] Ultimately, I found the claimant’s testimony to be consistent and devoid of major inconsistencies and I found the aforementioned documents to have probative value, leading me to accept the central tenets of his claim as outlined in the allegations section above. I also accept the claimant’s testimony that he has been targeted by members of Operation Dudula and that he has tried to obtain police protection but has been unsuccessful. Nexus [17] In order to be found to be a Convention Refugee, a claimant must establish a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, nationality, religion, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. [18] The claimant has alleged he faces harms such as physical violence and death, amounting to persecution, due to his race as Banyamulenge in the DRC. I find that the persecution the claimant fears in the DRC has a nexus to the Convention ground of race and his claim against the DRC has thus been assessed under section 96 of the Act. [19] In South Africa, the claimant alleges harms such as discrimination, physical assault and even death, amounting to persecution, due to his nationality as a citizen of the DRC living as a refugee in South Africa. I find his claim against South Africa has a nexus to the Convention ground of nationality, and his claim against South Africa was assessed under section 96 of the Act. Exclusion Article 1E [20] The United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees does not apply to individuals who are recognized by the competent authorities of the country in which they have taken residence as having the rights and obligations attached to the possession of the nationality of that country.[6] This provision is included in section 98 of the Act, which states that a person who is found to be excluded by Article 1E of the Convention is neither a Convention refugee under section 96 nor a person in need of protection under section 97 of the Act. [21] The test to be applied in Article 1E determinations was set out by the Federal Court of Appeal in Zeng. [7] It is as follows: Considering all relevant factors to the date of the hearing, does the claimant have status, substantially similar to that of its nationals, in the third country? If the answer is yes, the claimant is excluded. If the answer is no, did the claimant previously have such status and lose it, or had access to such status and failed to acquire it? If the answer is no, the claimant is not excluded. If the answer is yes, various factors must be considered and balanced, including (but not limited to): the reasons for the loss of status (voluntary or not); whether the claimant can return to the third country; the risk the claimant would face in the home country; Canada’s international obligations; and any other relevant factors. [22] In this case the claimant has been granted refugee status in South Africa but has never become a permanent resident. The claimant testified that he can legally return to South Africa. While I note that the claimant’s South African refugee document states that if a refugee departs South Africa permanently, their refugee status shall become null, there is no evidence before me that South African authorities have nullified the claimant’s refugee status or taken any steps to initiate such a process. When the claimant left South Africa, he travelled on a validly issued South African refugee travel document which allows him to travel to any country in the world except for the DRC. The claimant testified that he had previously travelled abroad in 2008 to Rwanda for two weeks and returned to South Africa without issue. During his testimony, when I asked the claimant if he could legally return to South Africa, he testified that he could. In light of the available evidence, I find on a balance of probabilities that the claimant’s status in Africa is valid at the time of his refugee hearing. [23] I also find that the claimant has status substantially similar to nationals of South Africa in that country. His South African refugee document states that he is entitled to socio-economic rights as provided for in Chapter 2 of the Constitution including work and study rights in South Africa. Item 3.3 of the National Documentation Package[8] states that a refugee has all the rights contained in the Bill of Rights, except rights specifically reserved for citizens, for example the vote. [24] The claimant’s testimony also confirms that while he faced some discrimination, overall, he was able to enjoy status similar to that of South Africans. The claimant testified that he was able to obtain rental housing despite some landlords telling him they wouldn’t rent to refugees. The claimant was able to attend XXXX in South Africa and most recently was a XXXX student at the XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX. The claimant also testified that he has been able to legally work in South Africa although some jobs are reserved for permanent residents or South Africans only. [25] While the claimant experienced some difficulty in exerting his rights afforded to him as a refugee under South African law, for example in finding housing, I find overall that the claimant enjoyed rights and status similar to those of South Africans. According to the Zeng test, the claimant would therefore be excluded. [26] However, the claimant is also alleging that his life is at risk in South Africa. The most recent jurisprudence from the Federal Court[9] has held that the RPD must conduct a risk assessment in the country of residence under sections 96 and subsection 97(1) of the Act before excluding a claimant. This is because the safety of the 1E country lies at the core of the definition of a 1E country, which is defined as a safe country where the claimant enjoys surrogate protection. Risk in South Africa [27] The claimant fears that he will be persecuted in South Africa because of his nationality as a non-South African. He also fears that members of Operation Dudula will harm or kill him because they are angry that he supports refugees in South Africa and that he has spoken out against xenophobia. [28] I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution in South Africa is well-founded. [29] The US Department of State report at Item 2.1 specifically states that xenophobic violence is a continuing problem in South Africa. It says that on social media, immigrants were often blamed for increased crime and the loss of jobs and housing by political leaders and often police.[10] [30] Item 2.4, a report from Freedom House, notes that foreign workers were targeted by xenophobic violence in two major incidents during the year. In March 2021, at least 3 people were killed in the city of Durban, while in September, 12 were killed in attacks in Gauteng Province.[11] [31] Item 13.2 describes that a March 2017 article from the Washington Post written by a radio and television journalist from Johannesburg explains that, in South Africa, xenophobic violence and treatment by society and authorities of black Africans of foreign origin who are citizens often targets Nigerians, Somalis, Malawians, Pakistanis and Zimbabweans and that the acts of violence are specifically targeted at African and Asian migrants. Similarly, according to a March 2017 opinion piece by a researcher at the African Centre for Migration and Society, hostility towards foreign nationals is pervasive in South Africa, and it results in cases of murder, injuries, threats of mob violence, looting and the destruction of residential property and businesses, as well as mass displacement.[12] [32] Item 13.10 notes that in addition to being targeted by mob violence, non-nationals said they have been harassed verbally and physically by South Africans for being foreign and not using local languages in their daily interactions, including while walking on the street. A common and hurtful insult thrown at foreigners is the label “kwerekwere,” a derogatory and slang word used by Black South Africans to mean foreigner.[13] The claimant testified that he was often called “kwerekwere” when he was out in public in South Africa. When I asked him how often this occurred, he testified that he approximated that it was three times per week, and he said that it happened anywhere he went in public. [33] Item 13.10 further describes that many foreign shop owners throughout South Africa have been victim to rioting and vandalism, including having their shops burned down. This report lists many incidents of violence during 2019-2020 taking place in Johannesburg, Cape Town, and other places around the country. The violent mobs are often made up of Black South Africans who are angry at the economic and living conditions they are experiencing – poverty and inequality, chronically high unemployment, high crime rates, and poor public services. They are directing this anger at African and Asian foreigners who they believe are taking jobs and livelihoods away from South Africans.[14] [34] Regarding Operation Dudula, which is the group that has attacked the claimant and his family, Item 2.1 states that Operation Dudula is an anti-migrant group which was created during the riots in July 2021. It was able to organize and mobilize quickly and escalated the pace of its’ demonstrations and attacks, particularly in Soweto and Johannesburg.[15] Item 2.2 states “Operation Dudula, an anti-migrant movement, launched in three additional provinces” in 2022-2023, and that xenophobic violence resulted in injury and loss of life.[16] According to Item 2.3, after the COVID-19 pandemic, “many foreign nationals in South Africa faced xenophobic violence. Vigilante groups such as “Operation Dudula” and “Put South Africa First”, conducted door-to-door searches for undocumented foreign nationals, whom they blame for South Africa’s high crime and unemployment rates.[17] [35] I find the objective country condition information as cited above indicates that foreigners such as the claimant are being targeted with repeated and brutal xenophobic violence throughout South Africa and if the claimant returned to South Africa, he faces more than a serious possibility of persecution including assaults and even death based on his nationality. State Protection [36] I also find that there is clear and convincing evidence that state protection would not be forthcoming to the claimant in South Africa. The country condition evidence notes that hostility towards foreign nationals is pervasive in South Africa.[18] A welfare organization in Cape Town notes that discrimination against foreigners is institutionalized in South Africa and that they often receive reports of hate speech or harassment against foreigners by government officials.[19] The police in South Africa have been accused of condoning xenophobic violence.[20] Further the US Department of State report notes that, while the government sometimes responds quickly and decisively to xenophobic incidents, responses are sporadic and often slow and inadequate.[21] [37] This information is in line with the treatment the claimant experienced from the authorities, including the police, in the past. The claimant testified that he has made multiple reports to the police and has been told more that once by police that they cannot protect him and that he should move away from South Africa to be safe. I find that the presumption of state protection has been rebutted. There is clear and convincing evidence that the state in South Africa is unable or unwilling to provide the claimant with operationally adequate state protection. Internal Flight Alternative in South Africa [38] At the hearing, I proposed Cape Town as a potential internal flight alternative. The claimant testified that xenophobia exists in Cape Town, and he would not be able to live there without being persecuted on the basis of his nationality. He also feared that Operation Dudula would locate him in Cape Town and said that they operated throughout South Africa. The claimant also testified that if he returned to South Africa, he would continue to raise his voice against xenophobia and Operation Dudula. [39] The objective country evidence at Item 2.2 indicates xenophobic attacks on citizens deemed to be ‘foreigners’ is escalating, the government lacking accountability, and these types of attacks occur in most areas of South Africa.[22] The documentary evidence also suggests that xenophobia is rampant in South Africa. I find that the claimant would face a serious possibility of persecution on the basis of his nationality if he moved to Cape Town. [40] Item 2.2 notes that Operation Dudula has been launched recently in Western Cape province, which is where Cape Town is located.[23] Operation Dudula has already attacked the claimant and threatened to kill him, attacked his family members when they couldn’t find him, and attacked his brother even after the claimant left South Africa. Given that Operation Dudula seems highly motivated to locate the claimant and is present in Cape Town, I also find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution from Operation Dudula specifically in Cape Town. [41] Therefore, I find that there is no viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant. Risk in Democratic Republic of Congo [42] The claimant fears that he will be persecuted in the DRC because of his Banyamulenge ethnicity. The claimant’s father, mother and sister were killed by DRC army officers based on their ethnicity and the claimant was nearly beaten to death by them. He fears that if he returns to the DRC he will be harmed or killed by the army, police or local population because of his ethnicity. [43] I find that the claimant’s fear of persecution in the DRC is well-founded. [44] According to Item 13.9, the population of the Democratic Republic of the Congo comprises several hundred ethnic groups. In the South Kivu province along the Rwandan border, the Banyarwanda are found, a minority speaking Kinyarwanda, the language of Rwanda. Item 13.9 states that most of the Banyarwanda are Hutu, but a minority is Tutsi or Batwa. The Kinyarwanda-speaking Tutsi living in South Kivu started to speak of themselves as ‘Banyamulenge’ from the 1970s onwards.[24] This is in line with the claimant’s narrative and testimony that the Banyamulenge are Congolose Tutsi originally from Rwanda. [45] Item 13.9 references a 2007 report by Human Rights Watch that states that Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese represent less than five percent of the total population of the country, and of those, Congolese Tutsi are only a small part, “numbering several hundred thousand”. [46] The Response to Information Request at Item 13.1 states that Banyamulenge are considered by “many Congolese as recent immigrants with no rightful claim to Congolese citizenship.” In correspondence sent to the Research Directorate, a researcher in African studies who has written about the situation of Rwandan populations in the DRC, stated that, in his opinion, the “anti-Tutsi” ideology is still present in the DRC. Similarly, the Professor Emeritus explained that some Congolese call for the “return home” of all Rwandan groups.[25] [47] The US Department of State Report for 2022 at Item 2.1 describes that in June 2022 credible reports of Rwandan support to the March 23 Movement (M23) rebel group contributed to violence and discrimination against Rwandaphones and those with a perceived sympathy for Rwanda or M23. In June local media reported that a mob brutalized, lynched, and burned a Rwandaphone man in Kalima, Maniema Province due to his Banyamulenge ethnicity following a march to show support for the FARDC. Item 2.1 also stated that hate speech and calls for violence against Congolese ethnic Tutsi and Rwandaphones, including the Banyamulenge community, increased since mid-2021 and was exacerbated by the resurgence of the M23 armed group, supported by the government of Rwanda.[26] [48] Based on the above it is clear that ethnic violence against the Banyamulenge continues in the DRC. As such I find that the claimant faces a serious possibility of persecution in the form of assaults or even death based on his Banyamulenge ethnicity. State Protection [49] According to Item 2.1, government officials are responsible for unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings; forced disappearances; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government. Extrajudicial executions are also perpetrated by armed groups, the majority occurring in conflict-affected provinces.[27] [50] Based on the claimant’s personal circumstances as well as the objective country documentation as referred to above, the panel finds on a balance of probabilities that it is objectively unreasonable for the claimant to seek protection from the authorities in the DRC. The authorities are one of the agents of persecution. Therefore, the panel finds that there is no adequate state protection available for the claimant in the DRC. Internal Flight Alternative in Democratic Republic of the Congo [51] At the hearing, I proposed Kinshasa as a potential internal flight alternative. The claimant testified that he would not be able to live in Kinshasa without being persecuted as the Banyamulenge are persecuted throughout the DRC. [52] The claimant’s views are corroborated by the objective evidence. Item 13.1 states that “the situation is still relatively tense for the Banyamulenge in Kinshasa”. It further notes that there are few Banyamulenge in Kinshasa and those who do live there mainly work as officers in the security forces in Kinshasa or are those who hold influential positions.[28] [53] As mentioned above, Item 2.1 states that government officials are responsible for unlawful or arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings; forced disappearances; torture and cases of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment by the government.[29] The claimant’s family members were unlawfully killed by DRC army soldiers and the claimant was beaten nearly to death by them. [54] Given that the state is the feared agent of persecution, and is in control of all of its’ territories, I do not find that there is a viable internal flight alternative available to the claimant. CONCLUSION [55] For the above noted reasons, I find that the claimant is a Convention refugee. As such, his claim for protection is accepted. ——— REASONS CONCLUDED ——— [1] Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, S.C. 2001, c. 27. [2] Exhibit 2 [3] Exhibit 2, Exhibit 4 [4] Maldonado v. Canada (Minister of Employment and Immigration), [1980] 2 F.C. 302 (C.A.). [5] Exhibit 4 [6] Article 1 of UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), The 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. [7] Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Zeng, 2010 FCA 118. [8] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 3.3: Citizenship. Paralegal Manual 2015. The Black Sash; Education and Training Unit. November 2015. [9] Canada (Citizenship and Immigration) v. Saint Paul, 2021 FCA 246; Mwano v. Canada (MCI), 2020 FC 792. [10] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 2.1: South Africa. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023. [11] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 2.4: South Africa. Freedom in the World 2023. Freedom House. 2023. [12] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 13.2: Treatment by society and authorities of black Africans of foreign origin who are citizens or permanent residents; state protection available (2017-April 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 30 April 2018. ZAF106092.E. [13] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 13.10: “They Have Robbed Me of My Life”: Xenophobic Violence Against Non-Nationals in South Africa. Human Rights Watch. Kristi Ueda. 17 September 2020. [14] Ibid [15] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 2.1: South Africa. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023. [16] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 2.2: South Africa. Amnesty International Report 2022/23: The State of the World’s Human Rights. Amnesty International. 27 March 2023. POL 10/5670/2023. [17] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 2.3: South Africa. World Report 2023: Events of 2022. Human Rights Watch. January 2023. [18] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 13.2: Treatment by society and authorities of black Africans of foreign origin who are citizens or permanent residents; state protection available (2017-April 2018). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 30 April 2018. ZAF106092.E. [19] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 13.4: Treatment of refugees by authorities and society; including protection available from common criminality and access to social services (2014-January 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 22 January 2015. ZAF105045.E. [20] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 2.1: South Africa. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023. [21] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 2.1: South Africa. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023. [22] National Documentation Package, South Africa, 31 March 2023, tab 2.2: South Africa. Amnesty International Report 2022/23: The State of the World’s Human Rights. Amnesty International. 27 March 2023. POL 10/5670/2023. [23] Ibid [24] National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 13.9: Democratic Republic of the Congo: The Situation of the Banyamulenge (2020 to March 2022). Austrian Red Cross. Austrian Centre for Country of Origin and Asylum Research and Documentation. April 2022. [25] National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 13.1: The treatment of the Banyamulenge living in the provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu, as well as in Kinshasa (2014-August 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 17 August 2015. COD105270.FE. [26] National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 2.1: Democratic Republic of the Congo. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023. [27] Ibid [28] National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 13.1: The treatment of the Banyamulenge living in the provinces of North Kivu and South Kivu, as well as in Kinshasa (2014-August 2015). Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada. 17 August 2015. COD105270.FE. [29] National Documentation Package, Congo, Democratic Republic of the, 28 April 2023, tab 2.1: Democratic Republic of the Congo. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2022. United States. Department of State. 20 March 2023.