House of Commons - Foreign Affairs

Select Committee on Foreign Affairs Minutes of Evidence

Supplementary memorandum from Amnesty International UK

1. This memorandum to the Foreign Affairs Committee provides further information and clarification in response to questions asked during the oral evidence session of 7 January 2003.

US STATE DEPARTMENT REPORT ON HUMAN RIGHTS (Q.25)

2. Responding to a question on the US State Department report on human rights, Tim Hancock said "I am not one hundred per cent confident but I think it is that Congress demands that the State Department issues an annual report on human rights". Further research indicates that the annual submission of "Country Reports on Human Rights Practices" to Congress is required by the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, as amended, and the Trade Act of 1974, as amended.

ESTONIA (Q.38)

3. Amnesty International has conducted only limited research on Estonia since the country abolished the death penalty in 1998. However, we note that the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) published concluding observations in November 2002. These state that:

4. CERD goes on to express a number of concerns about apparently (or potentially) discriminatory practices. It also recommends that Estonia consider becoming a party to the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness (1961) and the Convention relating to the Status of Stateless Persons (1954) amongst other international instruments[30]. International experts have expressed concerns and suggested remedial action. The EU should encourage Estonia to respond positively and should step up the monitoring of human rights compliance in both accession countries and existing member states.

TURKEY (Q.38)

5. During 2001 and 2002 Amnesty International welcomed constitutional amendments and law reforms aimed at bringing Turkish domestic law into line with human rights standards. Reforms included abolition of the death penalty except in times of war or imminent threat of war, changes to detention regulations and to laws that have been used in the past to curtail the right to freedom of expression. However, during the previous administration, political differences between the three coalition parties often meant that the new laws were watered down, ambiguous and insufficient for ending the human rights abuses that they were supposed to address.

6. Amongst the reforms, some had the expressed aim of combating torture and impunity. However, they have failed to end the widespread and systematic use of torture and ill-treatment. In some areas (for example, length of police detention and the continuation of incommunicado detention) the amendments were clearly an insufficient step to effectively combat torture. In common with other reforms, the changes were not implemented in practice. Last year, Amnesty International found that all the factors that contribute to the persistence of systematic torture and impunity for perpetrators were still in place[31].

7. The Justice and Development Party (Adalet ve Kalkynma Partisi—AKP) was elected to government with an absolute majority on 3 November 2002. Both the AKP and the opposition Republican People's Party have stated that they are committed to introducing and implementing reform legislation necessary to meet the Copenhagen criteria. In December 2002 and January 2003, Parliament introduced reform packages which could address some of our continuing concerns regarding torture. Once again however, the question is whether the reforms will be implemented properly. On a positive note, Amnesty International UK understands that Turkey has recently signed Protocol 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights (abolishing the death penalty in peacetime).

NEW PARTNERSHIP FOR AFRICAN DEVELOPMENT (NEPAD) (Q.41)

8. Before the last G8 summit, Amnesty International welcomed NEPAD. It recognises the need for improved international assistance and for national level responsibility in Africa.

9. We noted the need for detailed proposals to meet the principles and commitments outlined in section Al of NEPAD, which covers human rights, democracy and political governance. We felt there was a need for African governments to indicate further steps for the implementation of the human rights remit of the "heads of state implementation committee". Amongst the areas requiring meaningful G8 action to make NEPAD and other international development programmes a success, Amnesty International identified:

— relevant institution building (including national-level human rights commissions);

— human rights training for police and security forces;

— greater international support for refugee protection in Africa;

— ongoing attention to child soldiers; and

— initiatives that would provide greater protection to Africa's many courageous front-line human rights defenders.

We hope that the next G8 summit will provide an opportunity to evaluate progress.

SIERRA LEONE (Q.44)

10. Since the re-election of Ahmed Tejan Kabbah in May 2002, the security situation has appeared relatively stable. However, ongoing instability in neighbouring Liberia poses a threat. Diamond mining also continues to be a source of tension, raising concerns about the protection of civilians from human rights abuses. Amnesty International welcomes the development of diamond certification systems for the country. However, groups formerly responsible for human rights abuses are still able to mine diamonds and to profit from them. Instead of selling diamonds illicitly through neighbouring countries, former members of the RUF[32]would be able to sell diamonds through the government export certification system. To break the link between diamonds, weapons and human rights abuses, there must be effective and transparent controls on diamond mining and trading within Sierra Leone from the point of mining to the point of export.

11. The Special Court for Sierra Leone has been established to try the most serious violators of human rights during the latter part of the 10-year civil conflict. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has also been established. Amnesty International has expressed concern that crimes committed by all parties to the conflict should be addressed appropriately and given equal attention.

12. The Special Court will only prosecute a limited number of those who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity, and only those committed since 30 November 1996. The TRC also has an important role to play in revealing the truth about human rights abuses committed during the conflict. It is not, however, a judicial mechanism, so accountability for crimes not covered by the Special Court relies on the Sierra Leone criminal justice system. Because of the protracted armed conflict, this system is seriously deficient. The Special Court can help reconstruction by designing and choosing staff and infrastructure that would provide assets to the Sierra Leone justice system after the Special Court process ends.

The trials against Foday Sankoh and others

13. Amnesty International is concerned that legal proceedings before the High Court against Foday Sankoh, together with some 100 other members of the RUF and the group formerly known as the "West Side Boys", fall short of international standards of fair trial.

14. There is particular concern that these defendants do not have legal representation and that the trial has proceeded without defence lawyers. Amnesty International understands that there may be reluctance among lawyers in Sierra Leone to act on behalf of these defendants. The government, however, is obliged to ensure that competent and effective defence counsels represent the defendants, even if genuine efforts to provide legal counsel have not yet met with success.

15. These defendants are being tried for capital offences. In such circumstances, international standards require the strictest observance of all fair trial guarantees and certain additional safeguards. Without the presence of defence lawyers, these requirements cannot be met. Amnesty International is unconditionally opposed to the death penalty. We believe that the High Court should follow the practice of the Special Court, where life imprisonment is the maximum sentence that can be imposed.

Detention without charge or trial

16. Amnesty International is concerned about reports that there are another 20 detainees held in the Central Prison, Pademba Road, Freetown, without charge or trial. This contravenes Sierra Leone's obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. We urge a speedy review of these cases to establish whether there is evidence of a criminal offence.

Deaths in custody and provision of adequate medical care

17. At least 12 detainees have died in custody at the Pademba Road prison since 2000. While there was no indication that these deaths were a result of other than natural causes, they inevitably raise questions about the general conditions in the prison.

Role of the UK government

18. The UK government has shown commitment to improving the human rights situation within Sierra Leone. At present, we have no reason to doubt that this commitment continues. However, with the security situation stabilised and the peacekeeping forces going through a process of reduction, the country is no longer at the forefront of international attention. Nevertheless, the government of Sierra Leone requires continued significant engagement, help and encouragement to develop the will and capacity to fully protect and promote the human rights of all its citizens. The UK will need to work hard to ensure that the rest of the international community remains engaged with Sierra Leone. The international community must not be complacent. The challenges of reconstruction are immense and there is a significant risk that Liberia's conflict (or even the problems in Cote d'Ivoire) could undermine past progress.

IRAN (QS.48-51)

19. The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran contains many important safeguards of rights and freedoms. Iran is a State Party to a number of international human rights instruments[33]. There is also a vigorous debate on human rights in Iran's parliament, the Islamic Consultative Assembly, amongst members of the judiciary, non-governmental and professional bodies, such as the Bar Association, and many newspapers.

20. There are, however, significant issues of concern.

Judiciary and the administration of justice

21. Iran's judiciary lacks structural independence, despite Constitutional guarantees. There is no separation of powers of investigator, prosecutor and judge. Lower court judges are required to give a ruling even in the absence of codified law. Such flaws have resulted in a catalogue of unfair trials.

22. Current provisions for the registration of lawyers in Iran, their apprenticeship with a given Bar Association, and the independence of the Bar Associations, fall far short of international standards. They limit the independence of lawyers and the Bar Associations and consequently limit the right of the accused to effective defence.

23. Engagement with Iran needs to address these deficiencies. Dialogue should promote a review of all laws concerning the structure of the judiciary, its independence, method of appointments and discipline and the constitutional framework in which it works. There should be a review of all laws that require judges to rule where relevant legislation may not exist and amendment of laws making judges personally liable for their rulings. Procedural laws governing arrest, detention, access to legal counsel and trial procedures should be brought into line with international standards, along with provisions on the security and freedom from interference of lawyers and Bar Associations.

Freedom of Expression and Prisoners of Conscience

24. Restrictions on freedom of expression and association in Iranian law go beyond both the Iranian constitution and the international human rights treaties to which Iran is a party. Restrictive, contradictory and vaguely worded provisions contained in the Penal Code, the Theologians' Law and the Public and Revolutionary Courts' Procedural Law undermine the right to freedom of expression. For example, the Penal Code prohibits a range of activities, such as those connected with journalism or public discourse, which do not amount to recognisably criminal offences. This has resulted in unfair trials and the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience.

25. On 5 November 2002, the Iranian authorities released Abdollah Nouri, a former Minister of the Interior and publisher of the banned newspaper Khordad. He was imprisoned in November 1999 on vaguely worded charges. Although his release is welcome, many prisoners of conscience remain behind bars.

Implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and human rights

26. The European Union has identified full implementation of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 as one of the key benchmarks for the improvement of the EU's relations with Iran. The country's report to the Counter-Terrorism Committee cites its "Islamic Sentencing Law (the Penal Code) of 1991 and 1996" as a "law (that) cover(s) acts that intend to or knowingly cause to result in . . . insecurity and/or instil public fear". This law provides for the death penalty, cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. Because of its restrictive, contradictory and vaguely worded provisions, the law facilitates the possible imprisonment of individuals for the expression of their thought or belief. The UK, EU and UN must insist on respect for human rights safeguards when engaging with Iran on the implementation of UNSCR 1373 and other measures in the context of the "war against terrorism".

Torture

27. Amnesty International continues to receive reports of torture and ill-treatment in pre-trial detention, either as punishment or to obtain a "confession". Cruel punishments continue to be imposed. Flogging is provided for in dozens of offences and can be imposed in cases apparently relating to freedom of expression.

28. Engagement with Iran should aim at stopping the practice of torture. This should include demanding that Iran investigate allegations of torture and bring those responsible to justice. Iran should sign and ratify the UN Convention Against Torture and grant unrestricted access to the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture.

Death penalty

29. The death penalty continues to be applied for a wide range of often vaguely worded offences and after manifestly unfair trials. At least 139 people, including one minor, were executed in 2001. Two women were stoned to death that year and at least four others remained under sentence of execution by stoning as at October 2002.

30. Engagement with Iran should encourage a review of the use of the death penalty, with a view to progressively restricting the number of crimes for which it may be applied. As a first step, the EU should request that Iran does not carry out sentence of death by stoning. The EU should also seek Iran's commitment that the death penalty will not be applied to juvenile defendants and the mentally impaired.

EU-Iran Human Rights Dialogue

31. Amnesty International did not attend the dialogue session in Teheran in December. Its representatives were unable to secure visas. The organisation feels that it is still too early to form a view on the results of the dialogue. However, we would wish to make the following observations.

32. The starting point for the dialogue must be the acknowledgement of serious concerns about the human rights situation in Iran. It should be clear from the outset that dialogue concerns human rights and is not a "dialogue on mutual respect". The dialogue must be based on specific, measurable and time-bound objectives to avoid a situation of dialogue for dialogue's sake. The EU should commit to making the results of its annual assessment of the dialogue public.

33. Pursuit of dialogue should not preclude the use of other means to address human rights concerns, including via initiatives at the UN Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and the UN General Assembly. In previous years, the EU has sponsored or supported resolutions on Iran at the CHR. It will be interesting to note whether this approach has changed following the initiation of the human rights dialogue.

HONG KONG (Q.57)

34. Implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law raises issues that are widely regarded as being of fundamental importance for the future of fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong and the "One Country, Two Systems" concept.

35. Amnesty International believes that the legislation, as proposed, goes far beyond what is needed to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law and may increase the limits and restrictions of fundamental human rights. We have both general and specific concerns. It is beyond the scope of this memorandum to set out the specifics but these are available to the Foreign Affairs Committee on request.

36. Amongst our general concerns is the presentation of the proposals as a draft consultation document, rather than a draft White Bill. This means that the public still has little information as to how the Bill may be worded. Amnesty International is therefore calling for a longer public consultation period and a White Bill to be presented before the final "Blue Bill". The present timetable does not allow adequate time to research and study the proposals and for rational and informed debate. No adequate justification for the timing of proposals and for it being rushed through to the "legislative process" has been provided.

37. Amnesty International is concerned about the potential enactment of new national security laws with vaguely worded provisions, which may criminalise those who peacefully exercise their right to freedom of expression and association. The proposals also provide for a host of new emergency investigative powers for the police.

38. Some of the proposed offences, such as publication of seditious material and leaking of state secrets as well as the emergency investigation powers, could result in widespread censorship or self-censorship of the media. They could further limit civil society and the activities of human rights defenders. Some proposals could be used to imprison prisoners of conscience or harass those expressing views by abusive use of search and seizure.

39. The treason legislation contains vague and potentially wide-ranging terms, such as to "intimidate or overawe"., "constraint to change its policies" and "to put force on the PRC[34]". These may be interpreted as including peaceful expression of the rights to freedom of expression and association. Under the proposed offence of secession, disruption of public services could be used to criminalise peaceful protests on issues such as Tibet and Taiwan.

40. The proposals contain a wide definition of "state". It is defined as the Central Government of the PRC, any of its departments or any other "competent authority". The Central People's Government and organs of state power are defined in the Chinese constitution as potentially including local and provincial people's congresses as well as other administrative, judicial or procuratorial organs. This could mean that an action by NGOs or others to call for the release of a person detained in one particular province may in effect be seen as an action to "intimidate" or "overawe" the Central People's Government. Consequently, it may be treated as a treasonable offence under this legislation.

41. We are also concerned at the substantial rise in penalties for many offences which are already covered in existing legislation. In some cases the penalties include much increased prison sentences and unlimited fines. For example, the fine for possession of seditious material has increased 25-fold. Abuse of this offence may have an impact on the publishing industry, freedom of the press, civil society and human rights defenders.

42. The consultation document claims that "legislation to implement Article 23 are as clearly and tightly defined as appropriate, so as to avoid uncertainty and the infringement of fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Basic Law". The proposals do exactly the opposite. Concepts have been borrowed from the PRC with respect to protection of the state. This is worrying. Much of the legislation and practice of state security in the PRC runs counter to the protection and promotion of fundamental rights. The corner stone of the Basic Law and the concept of "One Country, Two Systems" is that central government legislation and underlying concepts on these issues are not to be introduced into Hong Kong for fifty years after 1997.

43. The extra territoriality of some offences (including treason, secession, and sedition) is also of concern. Offences can apply to all Hong Kong SAR[35]permanent residents, regardless of their current residence, in respect of their actions outside the HK SAR. In view of the vagueness of the proposed legislation, there is a risk that residents peacefully exercising their right to freedom of expression in other countries might be held criminally responsible for it when they return to Hong Kong.

NORTH KOREA/CHINA (QS 58-60)

44. For at least two years, Amnesty International has expressed concern about the treatment by the Chinese authorities of North Korean asylum seekers. During 2002, hundreds of North Koreans were rounded up in northeast China and forcibly repatriated without being given access to a refugee determination procedure.

45. Tens of thousands of North Koreans have fled their country over the past few years, crossing the border to China's northeastern provinces of Jilin and Liaoning. Some hide in the hills along the border and survive by scavenging, begging or stealing. Others have been given support by China's local ethnic Korean community and foreign aid organizations, or have found work in local farms and enterprises. Their illegal status makes them particularly vulnerable to exploitation and harassment. Various sources have reported that some North Korean women have been sold as brides. The UN refugee agency is barred from visiting border areas and providing appropriate assistance.

46. The Chinese authorities claim that all North Koreans who illegally come to China are economic migrants, and have consistently denied them access to any refugee determination procedure, despite evidence that many among them have genuine claims to asylum. One consequence of China's policy has been "diplomatic incidents" as North Koreans have sought refuge in embassies and consulates.

47. Those pushed back over the border meet an uncertain fate. The North Korean government forbids its citizens from leaving the country without permission. Those sent back from China reportedly face long interrogation sessions and torture by North Korean police. Some are sent to prison or labour camps immediately after being caught, without any judicial process, and with the risk of death in detention from starvation and disease. Summary executions have also been reported.

48. Independent human rights monitors continue to be refused access to North Korea and information is difficult to obtain and verify. Consequently the real picture remains unclear. Nevertheless, Amnesty International continues to receive reports of use of the death penalty (although the authorities have claimed that the last execution took place in 1992), torture, trafficking and forced labour, freedom of movement, unfair trials and political prisoners. Amnesty International is also concerned about reports that in some places of detention, prisoners are given little or no food, contract illnesses and are being denied access to medical care. Many reportedly die of starvation and disease.

UN COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (Q 64)

49. Last year's session of the UN Commission on Human Rights (the 58th session) adopted a resolution aimed at enhancing the effectiveness of the working methods of the Commission. The resolution noted that while the number of documents submitted to the Commission had increased significantly, the time available for the work of the Commission had been drastically reduced. It therefore called for a thorough review of the working methods of the Commission and requested the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to solicit ideas and proposals.

50. Membership of the Commission carries responsibilities. Those standing for election to the Commission should have already taken, or announced their intention to take, a number of concrete steps. These include extending a standing invitation to all the Commission's special procedures and cooperation with their requests to undertake visits, including follow-up visits. Cooperation should also include the provision of written information about implementation of the special procedures' recommendations.

51. Members and those seeking election should take steps to ratify key international human rights treaties (including the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court) and provide for communications procedures and on-site investigation, as relevant. They should submit periodic reports to the treaty monitoring bodies on time, in accordance with guidelines, and implement the recommendations of those bodies.

52. The expectation that members of the Commission will undertake these steps is particularly pertinent in relation to the five states elected to serve on the Bureau of the Commission. As a number of special duties are conferred upon the Chair of the Commission, including the appointment of individuals to special procedures posts, it is imperative that the Chair is, and is perceived to be, an exponent of human rights at the domestic and international levels.

Special Procedures

53. The creation of the special procedures (such as Special Rapporteurs and Working Groups) has been one of the Commission's major historic achievements. Amnesty International would like to see increased efforts to place them firmly at the heart of the CHR process. This requires both political will and increased financial resources. In practical terms, it would entail more time at the Commission for the presentation and discussion of their reports. CHR's deliberation of these reports should follow a set agenda with more focussed dialogue on observations and recommendations and the extent to which current and past recommendations have been addressed. CHR should also attend to the degree of cooperation with the Commission and its mechanisms and should reflect the recommendations of the special procedures in its resolutions and decisions.

54. To facilitate meaningful dialogue, the reports of the special procedures must be available sufficiently (at least six weeks) before the CHR session begins, preferably in all UN languages. All reports should continue to have an executive summary listing the principal conclusions and recommendations. OHCHR should produce a comprehensive and regularly updated compilation of the recommendations made by the thematic mechanisms, as well as a compilation of country concerns and recommendations[36].

UGANDAN TROOPS IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO (Q.72)

55. In a recent report, Amnesty International identified the Democratic Republic of Congo as one of five countries that it will focus on at the 2003 CHR session[37]. In that report, we note that in the Ugandan controlled Kibali-Ituri province, Ugandan troops have continued to participate in the killing of unarmed civilians and other human rights violations. As many as 50,000 people are reported to have been killed since June 1999 and 500,000 displaced.

56. Amnesty International has noted a number of incidents involving Ugandan troops over recent years. In April 2000, for example, Ugandan troops and RCD-ML forces were implicated in the killing of dozens of unarmed members of the Lendu ethnic group following intercommunal violence between Lendu and members of the RCD-ML supported Hema ethnic group[38]. In June 2000, at least 700 civilians were killed when fighting erupted between Rwandese and Ugandan troops in Kisangani. The violations were mainly characterised by indiscriminate shelling, extrajudicial executions of unarmed civilians and summary executions of captured soldiers[39].

57. In January 2001, armed Hema combatants killed as many as 250 unarmed civilians, mostly Lendu, in the northeastern town of Bunia during intercommunal violence. Amnesty International was concerned at reports that Ugandan troops did not intervene to halt the killings, even though they were apparently in a position to do so, and may even have stood by as killings took place[40].

CHINA: HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE "ONE CHILD POLICY" (Q 73)

58. Amnesty International takes no position on China's family planning policy per se. The policy is implemented with a range of exemptions and different restrictions apply in different areas. However, we have reported on a number of serious human rights violations of concern to Amnesty International, perpetrated by officials in the course of implementing family planning policy.

59. Public reports from China indicate that local annual birth quotas have a prominent role and are implemented by stiff penalties and financial rewards. Officials are placed under great pressure to ensure that policy is followed. Some have resorted to violence, torture and ill-treatment, including physically coerced abortions and sterilisation. Deaths in custody have also been reported. In some cases, officials who have engaged in violence have received only suspended sentences.

60. Public outrage and reports to local newspapers disclosed the brutal battering and killing of a new born "out of plan" baby by birth control officials on 15 August 2000. In front of several witnesses they reportedly kicked the baby repeatedly as he convulsed on the ground, then took him away to a paddy field where they drowned him. Responding to reports of this case, Chen Shengli, Director of the State Family Planning Commission's Information and Education Department was reported as saying, "Clearly the educational level of these officials was quite poor. They didn't understand the law . . . But unfortunately they killed the infant, and there isn't much we can do now to change the outcome."[41]

61. China must address such attitudes and should ensure that there is no impunity for human rights violations.

MYANMAR: AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL'S ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE KAREN, KARENNI AND SHAN (Q.74)

62. Over the past five years, Amnesty International has published reports on Shan state (April 1998, June 1999, July 2000), Kayah state (June 1999) and Kayin state (June 1999). In June and July 2001, reports were published focussing on the plight of ethnic minorities in Myanmar. In July 2002, we published a report on the lack of security in counter-insurgency areas. There have also been detailed entries on Myanmar in Amnesty International's annual reports.

63. Over the last five years, Amnesty International has also made a number of submissions at the annual conference of the International Labour Organisation concerning human rights abuses of ethnic minorities in Myanmar.

64. Amnesty International has gathered evidence for its reports from hundreds of Shan, Karenni and Karen people, including by visiting various locations in Thailand. The most frequently reported forms of human rights abuses in the last seven years are forcible relocation, extrajuducial executions, forced labour, extortions, and torture and ill-treatment. These abuses are usually reported to be at the hands of the tatmadaw, or Myanmar army. However there have also been some reports of similar human rights abuses by armed opposition groups such as the Karen National Union (KNU)[42]. More detailed information is available to the Committee on request.

Amnesty International UK

January 2003

29 Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Estonia. 01/11/2002. A/57/18, para. 353. This can be obtained at www.unher.ch. Back

30 Ibid, para 361. Back

31 Amnesty International, Turkey: Systematic torture continues in early 2002, AI Index: EUR 44/026/2002. Back

32 Revolutionary United Front. Back

33 Iran has ratified the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Iran has not ratified the Convention Against Torture or the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discription Against Women and its Optional Protocol. Back

34 People's Republic of China. Back

35 Special Administrative Region. Back

36 For further information, see: Amnesty International, 2003 UN Commission on Human Rights: A Time for Deep Reflection, AI Index IOR 40/025/2002, December 2002. Back

37 Ibid. Back

38 The RCD-ML is the Rassemblement congolais pour la de«mocratie«-Mouvement de Libe«ration, one of the armed opposition factions opposing the government of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Back