CCPR/C/130/D/2731/2016 The complaint 3.1 The authors claim that the State party is directly responsible for the fact that Pascal Kabungulu was arbitrarily deprived of his life, in violation of article 6 (1) of the Covenant. 3.2 Despite the investigations conducted in 2005 and the opening of the trial before the garrison military court, and despite the authors’ approaches to the national judicial and political authorities, the judicial proceedings remain at a standstill. The circumstances of Pascal Kabungulu’s death have not been resolved and the presumed instigators of his murder are still at liberty. The national authorities failed not only to conduct a proper investigation, but also to locate the case file or to explain what stage had been reached in the proceedings when the authors requested access to the file. There has been no explanation as to why the proceedings have not moved forward during all these years. Ten years after Pascal Kabungulu was killed, his family still has not obtained the truth, justice or any form of reparation for the harm suffered. This denial of justice, which must be considered in the light of the general climate of impunity for crimes against human rights defenders that has reigned in the country for years,9 constitutes a violation by the State party of Pascal Kabungulu’s rights under article 2 (3), read in conjunction with article 6 (1), of the Covenant. 3.3 Pascal Kabungulu had been the victim of threats, intimidation and attempted assault on several occasions before 31 July 2005, on account of his activities as a human rights defender. In particular, during a hearing before the Military Prosecutor’s Office in 2003, Lieutenant T.I. publicly threatened Pascal Kabungulu with death if he did not stop his investigative work, which pointed to the Lieutenant’s involvement in corruption in the mining sector (see footnote 2). The national authorities were aware of these threats, yet they did not take his objective need for protection seriously and they took no measures to protect him. The existence of a systematic practice of violence, including murder, against human rights defenders in South Kivu confirms that human rights defenders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are a vulnerable group needing specific protection from the Government. Consequently, the State party failed in its obligation to provide Pascal Kabungulu with appropriate protection while there was still time, in violation of his right to security of person under article 9 (1) of the Covenant. 3.4 The authors endured the pain of losing a husband and a father while they were in a state of distress caused by the threats received before and after the event. On top of this, they suffered the anguish of being forced to flee their own country to avoid danger. Moreover, the fact that the family have been denied justice for over 10 years despite all their efforts has kept them in a continuous state of anxiety and prevented them from mourning their loss. The family’s profound suffering has only been exacerbated by the uncertainty and the long wait caused by this denial of justice and by the inaction and indifference of the authorities, who have offered no explanation as to the status of the proceedings and have failed to provide the authors with access to the case file. The authors maintain that this suffering, combined with the State party’s failure to conduct a prompt, thorough and effective investigation, constitutes treatment that violates their rights under article 7, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), of the Covenant. 3.5 The authors were also repeatedly subjected to unlawful interference with their privacy, family and home in the years before and after the murder. Their family life was disrupted by threats and intimidation on several occasions between 2003 and 2005. On 31 July 2005, the family home was broken into in the middle of the night by armed men who were identified as State agents. After the death of Pascal Kabungulu, husband and father, the authors received no protection as a family. Moreover, they were the subject of threats that forced them to flee the country and take refuge first in Uganda and then in Canada, leaving everything behind. These events constitute serious unlawful and arbitrary interference with their privacy, family and home, in violation of their rights under articles 7 and 17, read in conjunction with article 2 (3), and under article 23 of the Covenant. 9 GE.21-00792 A/HRC/14/24/Add.3, paras. 92–93. 5