Experts of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination Commend Burundi on Efforts to Combat Discrimination, Raise Questions on Ethnic Quotas and the Treatment of Congolese Refugees
The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination today concluded its consideration of the combined eleventh to nineteenth periodic reports of Burundi, with Committee Experts commending Burundi’s efforts to eliminate discrimination, while raising questions on whether ethnic quotas enshrined in the Arusha Accords were being upheld, and the treatment of Congolese refugees at the border.
Mazalo Tebie, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said she understood that Burundi was making great efforts to entrench peace and eliminate all forms of discrimination in the country. Twenty years had elapsed since Burundi had appeared before the Committee. It seemed the situation had improved, and the Committee would like to commend that improvement.
A Committee Expert said it was ethnic conflict which had led to the development of the Arusha Accords, and the subsequent quotas enshrined in the Constitution. These quotas stated that in some sectors, there were 50 per cent Hutu and 50 per cent Tutsi. How was this possible in a country where Hutu represented 80 per cent of the population, while Tutsi only represented 15 per cent? Other reports received by the Committee stated that 90 per cent of members in the State security forces were Hutu. What mechanisms had been established to ensure the effectiveness of the quota system? How was it ensured that there were 60 per cent Hutu and 40 per cent Tutsi across all sectors?
Ms. Tebie also said recent reports pointed to worrying practices, such as pushbacks, border blockades in Cibitoke and Bujumbura provinces, as well as targeted arrests and perceived arbitrary checks, sometimes based on ethnic or linguistic criteria. How did the State party ensure that procedures for the control and identification of refugees were not based on ethnic or linguistic criteria? What measures had the State party taken to prevent refoulement practices, protracted border blockades, and arbitrary controls targeting Congolese refugees?
The delegation said the sectors were in charge of implementing the quotas, so it was important to look at each sector individually. It seemed the information received by the Committee did not reflect the situation on the ground. With the Arusha Accords, Burundi sought to ensure ethnic matters were addressed. There had been meaningful progress in the State, which continued to work in-step with the Arusha Accords.
The delegation said Burundi hosted the largest number of Congolese refugees, and under good conditions. There were more than 108,000 Congolese refugees who had come to Burundi with nothing, and the State was doing its best to assist them. This effort should be recognised. Burundi was affected by the conflict wreaking havoc in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which destabilised the entire region, including Burundi’s border. For this reason, identity checks were the bare minimum to ensure that rebel groups were not entering the country. The efforts being carried out were not aimed at blocking people, but rather ensuring the country’s security.
Introducing the report, Edouard Bizimana, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Burundi and head of the delegation, said the last submitted report dated back to 1998, and the current report was a compilation of nine reports. The delay could be explained by the difficult political and socio-economic situation Burundi had faced for decades. Following the ethnically motivated political conflict, Burundi had learnt lessons.
With the adoption of the Constitution in 2018, Mr. Bizimana said the State was ensuring the participation of all citizens in the decision-making sphere without discrimination on grounds of ethnicity or gender. Burundi’s Constitution recognised 60 per cent of Hutu and 40 per cent of Tutsi in parliament, and a minority of indigenous groups, including the Batwa. However, despite the efforts made to promote and protect human rights, there were certain States that did not acknowledge Burundi’s efforts and politicised certain issues.
In concluding remarks, Ms. Tebie thanked the delegation of Burundi for its active participation in the exchange, and the clarifications provided throughout the dialogue, which allowed the Committee to identify progress made and express concern over the effective implementation over provisions of the Convention.
In his concluding remarks, Mr. Bizimana thanked everyone involved in the dialogue and commended the good work done over the past two days. Burundi stood ready to support the efforts of the Committee and in turn appreciated the Committee’s guidance to help them move forward in the right direction.
The delegation of Burundi consisted of representatives of the Ministry of Justice, Human Rights and Gender; the Prosecutor General’s Office; the State Attorney; the Observatory for the Prevention and Eradication of Genocide, War Crimes, and other Crimes against Humanity; Director of Treaty Bodies, Special Procedures, Universal Periodic Review and Other Mechanisms; the Ministry of Public Health; Director of the Prevention of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence and of the Holistic Care of Victims; Expert advisor to the Directorate of Legal and Judicial Assistance for Vulnerable People and Victims of Human Rights Violations; the Ministry of National Education and Scientific Research; the Human Rights Programme; the National Committee for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the National Forum of Political Parties in Burundi; the President and legal representative of the League; and the Permanent Mission of Burundi to the United Nations Office at Geneva.
The Committee will issue its concluding observations on the report of Burundi after the conclusion of its one hundred and sixteenth session on 5 December. The programme of work and other documents related to the session can be found here. Summaries of the public meetings of the Committee can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here.
The Committee will next meet in public on Tuesday, 25 November at 3 p.m. to consider the combined twenty-third to twenty-fourth periodic reports of New Zealand (CERD/C/NZL/23-24).
Report
The Committee has before it the combined eleventh to nineteenth periodic reports of Burundi (CERD/C/BDI/11-19).
Presentation of Report
EDOUARD BIZIMANA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Burundi and head of the delegation, said Burundi was grateful for the remarkable work of the Committee. The last submitted report dated back to 1998, and the current report was a compilation of nine reports. The delay could be explained by the difficult political and socio-economic situation Burundi had faced for decades. Despite this, Burundi had made the protection of human rights one of its priorities. The Government had adopted several laws in this regard, including the 2017 Criminal Code which supressed racial hatred. Several human rights institutions had been established, including the National Commission on Land and Property, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the National Human Rights Commission, and the National Council on Unity and Reconciliation, among others.
Following the ethnically motivated political conflict, Burundi had learnt lessons. With the adoption of the Constitution in 2018, the State was ensuring the participation of all citizens in the decision-making sphere without discrimination on grounds of ethnicity or gender. Burundi’s Constitution recognised 60 per cent of Hutu and 40 per cent of Tutsi in parliament, and a minority of indigenous groups, including the Batwa. Representatives from this community were among the delegation today, including the Minister of Justice who was originally meant to be leading the delegation. The Batwa indigenous community was represented by three members of parliament and three senators, and there were Batwa officials within different Government structures. Burundi had launched multiple initiatives to ensure the inclusion of the Batwa people, including a strategy plan; healthcare insurance cards for Batwa children; a programme to ensure decent living conditions for vulnerable households, including Batwa; and free care for HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis, among other measures.
Persons living with albinism in Burundi benefited from subsidies and other forms of support from the Government. Burundi had ratified the Palermo Convention in 2012 and enacted a law on trafficking in 2014. The State continued to implement the recommendations received from the treaty bodies and the Universal Periodic Review. Burundi had established a national employment strategy and made efforts to ensure inclusion within the labour market. However, despite the efforts made to promote and protect human rights, there were certain States that did not acknowledge Burundi’s efforts and politicised certain issues. Burundi deplored the politicisation of human rights.
Statement by the National Human Rights Institution
GÉRARD RUGEMINTWAZA, Vice President of the National Human Rights Commission of Burundi, said the Convention had Constitutional status within Burundi’s domestic legislation. The Commission was satisfied that the Constitution protected the individual right to be protected from discrimination based on ethnicity, race, mother tongue, and HIV status, among others. The Commission commended efforts aimed at preventing the exclusion of ethnic groups in Burundi.
The Constitution was respected at the level of public administration and the Commission was satisfied that no public official could benefit from favourable treatment due to their sex, ethnicity, or their region of origin. Non-discrimination training was included in police recruitment, and the defence forces also deployed human rights training. The Labour Code protected persons with disabilities, ensuring they were hired by national institutions such as the judiciary, and prohibited their employment in forms of work which could be detrimental to them. The institutional mechanism tasked with preventing racial discrimination had been established, as well as other entities, including the Ombudsperson’s Office and the Office for Stateless Persons.
Questions by Committee Experts
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said Burundi’s report before the Committee covered nearly two decades of normative, institutional and political developments and highlighted the will of the State to respond. It highlighted several advances, including the revision of the Penal Code; the adoption of sectoral policies on gender, social protection, and the fight against gender-based violence; as well as the establishment of key institutions, such as the National Human Rights Commission, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the Centre for the Promotion of Human Rights and the Prevention of Genocide. However, the Committee needed to assess the effectiveness of these institutions on the ground.
The report did not provide any data on the ethnic composition of the population or on the gender distribution by ethnicity. The 2008 and 2024 national censuses did not include specific information on the socio-economic situation of different groups living in the State party, including the Batwa and other cultural or linguistic groups, which was a major obstacle to identifying structural inequalities and assessing the impact of inclusion policies. Why was this the case and what did the State party intend to do to fill this gap? What measures were in place to ensure the collection and availability of statistical data on the socio-economic situation of different groups living in the State party, including the Batwa? Were there alternative internal mechanisms to access this data?
Why was the Convention, which was incorporated into the domestic legal order, not invoked or applied directly by the Burundian courts in their decisions? Did the absence of invocation reflect an absence of litigation in matters of racial discrimination? How were the courts informed about the possibility of invoking the Convention directly in their decisions? Were there specific mechanisms for victims of racial discrimination to invoke the Convention directly before the courts? What was the current number of complaints registered, prosecutions initiated, and decisions rendered by national courts for racial discrimination?
What measures would be taken to strengthen the effectiveness of the implementation of international human rights instruments by national courts?
The Committee took note of the efforts to provide training and awareness-raising on human rights, including the postgraduate programme in human rights and peaceful conflict resolution at the University of Burundi, which had benefited various institutional and social actors, including judges, lawyers, teachers and civil society. To what extent did professional training courses for judicial actors include modules on the Convention? How many judges had benefitted from training on the Convention?
The Committee noted that the State party had still not incorporated the definition of racial discrimination into its domestic law, despite previous recommendations. What were the reasons for this? How would Burundi recognise and prevent indirect forms of racial discrimination, particularly those resulting from neutral policies that produced structural inequalities towards indigenous minorities, such as the Batwa? What national programmes or plans of action had been developed as a follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, and what had been the main concrete results on the ground?
The Penal Code presented certain limitations, including that the concept of "racial aversion" remained unclear, racist organizations were not expressly banned, and prohibiting propaganda based on racial superiority was not sufficient. Why was there no precise definition of the offence of racial or ethnic hatred or aversion, and what safeguards were in place to ensure its consistent application? What measures had been taken to punish acts of racism and what reforms were envisaged to strengthen this framework, in particular with regard to propaganda based on racial or ethnic superiority, incitement to hatred, and racist organizations and activities? Why was racist or ethnic motive not recognised as an aggravating circumstance, and what was the effectiveness of prosecution in the courts?
There had been evidence of latent ethnic tensions during Burundi’s political elections. What concrete measures had the State party implemented to prevent and punish ethnic or racial hate speech? Could Burundi provide disaggregated figures on the hate speech and hate crimes? Could recent and concrete examples be provided of investigations, prosecutions or sanctions against the perpetrators of hate speech?
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked what measures were being taken or envisaged, including in the legislative field, to prevent, combat and explicitly prohibit racial profiling by law enforcement officers and other public officials? What concrete measures had the State party adopted to prevent and punish practices of racial or ethnic profiling in the context of security operations, particularly in neighbourhoods such as Musaga, Nyakabiga or Jabe, perceived to be close to the opposition or home to Tutsi communities, where arrests without legal basis had been reported? What internal mechanisms had public administrations put in place to identify, prevent and sanction cases of racial or ethnic profiling? What concrete measures allowed victims of racial or ethnic profiling to file a complaint safely, and did the National Human Rights Commission ensure follow up?
Responses by the Delegation
EDOUARD BIZIMANA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Burundi and head of the delegation, said Burundi had evolved a great deal since 2015; the Committee was invited to visit Burundi and see how the situation had changed. There were 50 per cent Tutsi and 50 per cent Hutu within the security forces. It would be difficult for the police to determine who was Hutu and who was Tutsi, and therefore to undertake in racial profiling.
Burundi’s economic activity accelerated by 3.3 per cent in 2023, due to increased activity in the commodities market, as well as progress in tertiary sectors. Burundi had drafted a national plan for development through to 2027, to obtain the status of a developed country by 2060. The process of finalising data from the census was still underway
The Convention was invoked by the courts when there were violations of the rights enshrined in this instrument. Cases of racial discrimination were rare and did not arise frequently in Burundi. There were awareness raising workshops for State actors, including judges, police, administrative staff and lawyers, to inform them of the different human rights instruments, including the Convention. The national human rights institution acted without any interference from the State. The Criminal Code considered acts of discrimination as crimes, including those similar to racial discrimination.
Hate speech was prohibited in Burundi by the Criminal Code and the Constitution. In rare cases of incitation to hatred, or cases of hate speech, judicial bodies were in place to repress all actions of racial discrimination. It was difficult to determine which ethnic group one was from in Burundi; to determine this, the police would need to ask the individual. The State did not see this kind of racial or ethnic profiling. People co-existed in harmony in neighbourhoods; there were no segregated neighbourhoods where Hutu and Tutsi lived separately. Since the last review, there had been 22 cases in the courts linked to racial discrimination, with four concerning cases against persons with albinism.
Since the end of the civil war in Burundi in 2003, Burundi had a Constitution which stemmed from the Arusha Accords, which took all necessary measures to avoid racial discrimination. This included the action to establish security forces as 50 per cent Hutu and 50 per cent Tutsi, to ensure both groups felt safe. Furthermore, the President would always be assisted by someone of a different ethnicity and political party. There was a sharing of power within the three branches: the legislative, administrative and the judicial. In Burundi, an early warning system had been established which encompassed all players of society, including political representatives, civil society, and the police forces. Workshops and awareness raising seminars on the promotion and protection of human rights were organised regularly for people at all levels of Government.
Burundi’s data collection system encompassed the general population and housing census. There was also an electronic data collection system, which made it possible to collect data about mining activities and improve the traceability of minerals. An updated agricultural survey which sought to collect data about livestock breeding in Burundi had also been carried out.
Questions by Committee Experts
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the most recent census did not include any information on the ethnic makeup of the country. In addition to the census, were there any mechanisms which collected this kind of data? Did the absence of cases of racial discrimination mean there were no cases of discrimination, or did it mean the population was not aware they could use the courts for cases of racial discrimination? Hate speech may be prohibited in law, but what was the situation in practice? The Committee had seen evidence of hate speech being used against political parties and the Batwa, among others. The Committee had information that people were affected by racial profiling, despite the information received from the delegation. Had Burundi developed an action plan to combat racism? The Committee commended awareness raising carried out by the State party to try and combat racial discrimination.
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said in Burundi, contrary to other countries where ethnicity could not be referred to, everything seemed to be based on ethnicity. If the Committee received reports of racial profiling, would the State party consider establishing a mechanism to investigate such reports? There were five grounds of discrimination, as outlined in the Convention, which needed to be investigated closely.
A Committee Expert said it was surprising that the delegation claimed there was no racial discrimination in Burundi, as it was ethnic conflict which had led to the development of the Arusha Accords, and the subsequent quotas enshrined in the Constitution. These quotas stated that in some sectors, there were 50 per cent Hutu and 50 per cent Tutsi. How was this possible in a country where Hutu represented 80 per cent of the population, while Tutsi only represented 15 per cent? Other reports received by the Committee stated that 90 per cent of members in the State security forces were Hutu. What mechanisms had been established to ensure the effectiveness of the quota system? How was it ensured that there were 60 per cent Hutu and 40 per cent Tutsi across all sectors?
Another Committee Expert asked if the budget of the National Human Rights Commission had been increased this year, in comparison to last year?
One Expert asked if racial discrimination in Burundi was viewed in the context of social roles given to different ethnic groups, including those marginalised in the past, who were not part of the most advantaged groups in the country’s new state of affairs?
An Expert said the Superior Council for the Magistrates named magistrates. Could the delegation confirm the number of members of the Council? Did the low salaries undermine the financial independence of the magistrates? Three magistrates had been suspended from their duties for three months for handing down an unjustified acquittal. The principle of the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary seemed to be undermined by the executive. Could more clarity be provided?
Another Committee Expert asked if the State worked on policies to help Burundi move past the tension between ethnic groups? Was there still work to be done to ensure the citizenry were represented within certain positions, aligned in the issue of quotas? What cooperation had been done with civil society in this regard?
A Committee Expert asked to what extent was there a system of ranking in society by skin colour?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said Burundi had signed and ratified the Convention with good will and wanted to honour its commitments. Burundi was looking forward, while the majority of the questions asked were looking backwards. It was also important to bear the history of the country in mind. Burundi had suffered divisions which had been addressed. The ethnic issue had become an alibi for obtaining political objectives. The sectors were in charge of implementing the quotas, so it was important to look at each sector individually. The census was not based on ethnic groups, as it was mainly used as a tool to divide people of Burundi. There was just one minority, the Twa. It seemed the information received by the Committee did not reflect the situation on the ground. Regarding the salaries of the magistrates, it was important to keep the economic situation of the country in mind. The magistrates were in fact the best paid. It was important for the Committee to help Burundi move forward instead of pulling them back.
The figure received by the Committee regarding the salaries was incorrect and too low, one member of the delegation said. The issues identified in Arusha were political. The Government of Burundi placed a great emphasis on human rights instruments and was working with the United Nations system on human rights training. With the Arusha Accords, Burundi sought to ensure ethnic matters were addressed. There had been meaningful progress in the State, which continued to work in-step with the Arusha Accords. Burundi had not claimed there was no discrimination; this misrepresented what was said by the delegation. In fact, the delegation had acknowledged that there were cases of racial hatred and had provided the figure of 22 cases. These figures referred to a long period which had elapsed, showing that Burundi had managed to reign in the issue of racial discrimination. This was a meaningful step forward.
Questions by Committee Experts
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked what measures were being taken to strengthen and guarantee the independence and impartiality of the Independent National Human Rights Commission and the Institution of the Ombudsman? How were their mandates and activities strengthened, including in the prevention and combatting of racial discrimination? To what extent did the legal and practical guarantees put in place ensure the real independence and impartiality of these institutions, particularly in the handling of sensitive cases or cases with political connotations? What specific mechanisms did they have in place to receive, investigate and follow up on complaints related to racial discrimination, and how did these mechanisms ensure accessibility, protection of victims, and the effectiveness of the remedies? Were the human, technical and financial resources allocated to the Human Rights Commission and the Ombudsman proportionate to the scope of their missions?
According to corroborating sources, the former President of the National Independent Human Rights Commission was forced into exile following the publication, in January 2025, of a report documenting several serious human rights violations. Two members of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission were also reported to have fled the territory in February 2025. Could information on these allegations be provided? What guarantees had the State established to ensure the protection and independence of national human rights institutions, as well as that of their members?
Burundi's 2011 law on the National Independent Human Rights Commission guaranteed a four-year term, renewable once, and irrevocable except in cases provided for by law or internal regulations. However, in April 2025, the National Assembly issued a call for candidates to replace the commissioners before their terms expired, and new members were elected in May. What precise legal reasons justified the early replacement of the commissioners during this time? What measures were planned to avoid political interference in the governance of the Commission and strengthen its role as an independent mechanism for the protection of human rights?
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said in 2024, Burundi hosted around 85,000 refugees and asylum seekers, as well as 800 people at risk of statelessness, mostly from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the existence of dedicated structures, their integration remained limited. This situation was reported to be particularly acute in Rugombo, Mutambara, Musenyi and the camps in the north-east. What mechanisms were currently in place to ensure that migrants, refugees, asylum seekers and stateless people had equitable access to health services, both in camps and in urban areas? What was being done to ensure access to education for refugee and stateless children? What concrete measures did the State party envisage to promote the socio-economic integration of all legally resident foreigners?
The Committee recalled the attack on the Gatumba refugee camp on 13 August 2004, in which more than 150 civilians, mostly Banyamulenge, were reported to have lost their lives. Additionally, in 2025, the State party experienced a massive influx of Congolese refugees fleeing violence in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, with more than 67,000 people registered between mid-February and mid-March. Recent reports pointed to worrying practices, such as pushbacks, border blockades in Cibitoke and Bujumbura provinces, as well as targeted arrests and perceived arbitrary checks, sometimes based on ethnic or linguistic criteria. What steps had the State party taken to shed light on the attack on the Gatumba refugee camp, and to hold perpetrators to account and ensure justice and reparation for victims, including those from the Banyamulenge community? How did the State party ensure that procedures for the control and identification of refugees were not based on ethnic or linguistic criteria? What measures had the State party taken to prevent refoulement practices, protracted border blockades, and arbitrary controls targeting Congolese refugees?
How did the State party assess the effectiveness of the refugee status determination system, with regard to time limits, access to information, remedies and the independence of the competent bodies? There were reports of interceptions and returns to camps of refugees and asylum seekers, including during travel for medical or professional reasons. How did the State party regulate travel restrictions for asylum seekers and refugees, and what safeguards were in place to ensure respect for their freedom of movement, in accordance with national law and international standards?
According to sources, there were difficulties in accessing birth registration, particularly in rural areas, and certain provisions of the 2020 citizenship act exposed children, particularly those born to Burundian mothers, to an increased risk of not having citizenship. What measures did the State party envisage to ensure universal and accessible birth registration to prevent statelessness? How did authorities intend to revise or adapt the 2020 nationality law to ensure gender equality between women and men in the transmission of nationality? What specific actions were planned to protect vulnerable children, such as Batwa, children with albinism, and those from mixed couples or refugees, from the risk of statelessness? What steps did the State party envisage to finalise the process of accession to the Convention on Stateless Persons and the Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness?
Responses by the Delegation
The delegation said in Arusha, when the main components of the conflict were identified, an army made up of just one ethnic group presented the main source of the problem. When there were internal problems within an organization, should the State sit by idly? This was what happened with the National Human Rights Institution. There had been problems with the commissioners themselves and there had been a state of paralysis, which was why the State had tried to address the situation.
Burundi hosted the largest number of Congolese refugees, and under good conditions. There were more than 108,000 Congolese refugees who had come to Burundi with nothing, and the State was doing its best to assist them. This effort should be recognised. Burundi was affected by the conflict wreaking havoc in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which destabilised the entire region, including Burundi’s border. For this reason, identity checks were the bare minimum to ensure that rebel groups were not entering the country. Verification efforts were only to be expected. The efforts being carried out were not aimed at blocking people, but rather ensuring the country’s security.
There had been campaigns to raise awareness about birth registration, but some people were still hesitant to register births. If one had a parent from Burundi, they automatically had citizenship and if a child was born or found on Burundi soil, they would receive citizenship. Looking at Burundi’s painful history, there had been coups. There were scars which had arisen because of these ethnic divisions but the State had worked to solve these issues.
The National Human Rights Institution had a small increase in its budget during the past year. The Ombudsperson was a respectable institution, working to support Burundi’s legal system, seeking amicable resolutions between different bodies.
Refugees were organised in Burundi, including those who lived in urban areas and those in remote areas. They were able to study at university and open businesses. There was healthcare available throughout the refugee camps.
Questions by Committee Experts
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee had no intention of dragging Burundi backwards; the Committee received information and was seeking to verify it.
Several Committee Experts asked for responses to questions which had been previously asked.
Responses by the Delegation
EDOUARD BIZIMANA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Burundi and head of the delegation, said Burundi wanted to work hand in hand with the Committee and this was reflected in the large delegation Burundi had brought to Geneva.
The delegation said no complaint linked to racial discrimination had been filed before the national human rights institution or the Ombudsperson between 1998 and 2025. Only 30 cases of this nature had been filed in total, and the perpetrators had received heavy sentences, including paying reparations to the victims.
There had been in-fighting within the National Human Rights Commission which had undermined its work. The State had taken the situation into its own hand, and this was why the mandate of commissioners could now be revoked. It was the President of the Commission’s own decision to leave the country due to his own interests, and no criminal proceedings had been enacted against him in the context of carrying out of his functions. When his home was raided, this was not related to his work as the President of the Commission. The President of the Commission had never been intimidated and still harboured brotherly feelings towards Burundi.
There was an attack against a Banyamulenge refugee camp in Gatumba. Following the attack, a special commission was opened to investigate this incident. Investigations were still ongoing, and victims had a right to file a lawsuit and seek reparations. It was hoped perpetrators would be sentenced by the relevant judicial body.
Regarding the two conventions on statelessness, Burundi was continuing analysis on the relevance and significance of their ratification.
There were gaps and discrepancies between the different judges depending on the courts where they had been assigned. The information received by a Committee member regarding a 45-dollar salary was incorrect; the average judge earned around 1,000 dollars.
The budget of the National Human Rights Commission had always been revised upwards.
Questions by Committee Experts
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said Burundi’s legislation stated that posts should be distributed according to an ethnic quota, with 60 per cent of posts occupied by Hutu and 40 per cent operated by Tutsi, effectively excluding the Twa population. According to sources, the Arusha Accords had only been partially implemented, with the Twa population only weakly represented, and no mechanisms existing for monitoring the parity of public institutions. How was the participation of the Batwa population guaranteed in public and political life, particularly in State bodies and decision-making processes? What measures had the State taken to ensure the participation and representation of the various ethnic communities, including the Batwa, in political and public life? What initiatives had been taken to strengthen the recognition of the Twa community in public institutions, beyond co-optation?
What was the composition of the various ethnic groups within major public institutions? What was the ethnic makeup of the Senate after the 2025 elections? How were Twa women represented at the political level? The Arusha Accords set forth the creation of a political order based on pluralism, and tolerance between the ethnic and political components of the Burundi people. What had been done to ensure this parity and tolerance in public life? What was being done to end violence against political candidates?
Since 2015, sources indicated that the civic and media space had seen press suspended and journalists put under pressure. How did the State party plan to ensure the law on press 2024 was not being used to unduly restrain free speech, and instead ensure that it provided effective protection for fundamental freedoms? What concrete measures had been undertaken to ensure safety for journalists and human rights defenders? What was being done to allow independent media to fully contribute to public debate? Information received by the Committee took stock of recurrent violence and intimidation against journalists and human rights defenders, mostly by the police. Could information be provided on the cases of several journalists and human rights defenders who were detained or disappeared?
Non-governmental organizations faced restraints from biannual registration, obligatory central bank deposits, and requirements for alignment with the Government. How did the State party justify the restrictive nature of the January 2017 laws guiding the work of foreign non-governmental organizations? What guarantees had the State party put in place to ensure the effective guarantee of freedom of assembly and protests?
What measures had been taken to improve access for women from marginal groups to essential services? What actions were being taken to strengthen their participation in public life? What measures had been taken by the State to protect women and girls in marginalised communities against violence, without distinction of race or ethnicity? What steps did the State party plan to prevent sexual violence and discrimination?
Information received by the Committee revealed structural obstacles to the justice system for those such as the Batwa and those with albinism. How did the State party intend to ensure equitable access to the justice system? How did the Government plan to extend the availability of free legal counsel? What concrete measures had been taken to explain the appeals process in cases of racial discrimination to different ethnic groups?
Information received showed ongoing land restitution, particularly for the repatriated returning after a long exile. What measures did the State party envisage to rectify the situation of stolen property and land? What measures had the State party taken to guarantee the reintegration of the displaced within the country? What was being planned to ensure safety and rights for returned Burundi refugees, particularly those who wished to recover their property? How many internally displaced persons or returned individuals were staying in shelters?
Responses by the Delegation
EDOUARD BIZIMANA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Burundi and head of the delegation, said some information received by the Committee was not reflective of the reality of Burundi. It was good to have the opportunity to provide clarification on such matters. Given the history of the country, the Batwa population had been marginalised, and efforts were being made today to correct these injustices. The President had formally apologised to these people and had made efforts to include them in the public administration, police and military. There were 13 Hutu and Tutsi senators and three Batwa senators. Among the three Batwa senators, there was one woman.
Foreign non-governmental organizations were reticent to use the quota system. To bring reconciliation for Burundi, these organizations should bear the country’s reality in mind. The National Commission for Land sought to ensure that past injustices were addressed.
The Batwa made up one per cent of the population and had a relationship with natural resources, including hunting, gathering and fishing. The Batwa people did not have specific features or traits identifying them. Their past had been marked by discrimination and exclusion from public life. The Arusha Accords had allowed the Batwa to be involved in public life, including as a Commissioner within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. These efforts by the Burundian Government were appreciated, however, there were no quotas for Batwa as seen for the Hutu and Tutsi. There were also members of the Batwa in the military. The international day for indigenous persons was celebrated by the Head of State. The State was aiming to address land issues and to redistribute land to the Batwa who did not have land. There had also been promises that in the future, the Batwa would be fully integrated like the Hutu and Tutsi. Batwa persons were trained and supported to participate in the job market, and there were awareness raising campaign to ensure Batwa children were enrolled in schools, particularly girls.
In Burundi, freedom of expression was ensured. People could even insult the President of the Republic. Recently a member of civil society had spoken ill of the President and had not faced any consequences, showing that freedom of opinion in the country was effective.
Burundi ensured the protection of human rights defenders and civil society actors against extrajudicial killings, acts of torture, arbitrary detention, enforced disappearance, harassment, defamation and kidnapping. Burundi was the only State where civil society actors were invited to make contributions to the Head of State on issues such as eradicating poverty. Burundi cooperated with national and regional mechanisms to promote and protect human rights, including more than 130 trade unions, 39 press agencies, 18 television stations and 64 websites, among others, which were all key channels for human rights defenders. The 2017 law on non-governmental organizations was the subject of consultation before it was adopted, with civil society contributing to its development.
Questions by Committee Experts
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said she understood that Burundi was making great efforts to entrench peace and eliminate all forms of discrimination in the country. Twenty years had elapsed since Burundi had appeared before the Committee. It seemed the situation had improved, and the Committee would like to commend that improvement. What measures were in place to ensure that Burundians abroad who wished to return to Burundi could do so?
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, said the Committee had received information that there was no magistrates school in Burundi, but students were recruited directly from universities. Could this be clarified?
A Committee Expert asked if Burundi had ratified the Kampala Convention, which protected the rights of internally displaced persons in Africa? Had Burundi adopted measures aimed at consolidating the rights of indigenous communities?
Another Committee Expert said a report had been published by civil society which stated that between January 2024 and May 2025, civil society organizations in the country had recorded more than 200 cases of sexual violence and 605 extrajudicial executions, among other offences, by State agencies, or those acting with the consent of the State. What steps were being taken by the country to make sure that journalists could operate freely and were not subject to arbitrary arrests? It was widely reported that members of the Imbonerakure were used to intimidate people; could Burundi assert that it was truly a youth group?
An Expert asked if customary laws in Burundi were codified? What was the relationship between the rulings made by neighbourhood councils, vis a vis the formal courts?
A Committee Expert asked what the other official languages of Burundi were?
One Expert asked if Burundi could continue with being a democratic State, while at the same time there was the notion of tribes sharing the State?
Responses by the Delegation
EDOUARD BIZIMANA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Burundi and head of the delegation, said he had been shocked to hear some of the Committee’s allegations. It was important to be objective when considering these allegations and taking other sources into account. For those who wanted to voluntarily return to Burundi, they were identified and sometimes assisted by the International Organization for Migration. When returned, they were given kits to help their reintegration back into society. There was no school for magistrates as such in Burundi. Many judges had studied in different neighbouring countries. The suggestion about specific schools for magistrates was well received. Burundi’s official language was French but it aimed to introduce Swahili and English as well.
The Council of Notables from the communities made decisions and handed down rulings on civil cases. If a party was not satisfied with the ruling, they could appear before the Government’s court to appeal the decision. The Council of Notables did not have jurisdiction over criminal cases.
More than 27,900 refugees had been repatriated to Burundi in 2025.
Questions by Committee Experts
BAKARI SIDIKI DIABY, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked what measures had been developed to tackle intersecting forms of racial discrimination? What had been done to protect persons living with albinism, refugees, asylum seekers, stateless persons and displaced persons, and to ensure they could exercise their human rights? What measures had been adopted to ensure the full enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights for persons belonging to ethnic communities, including the Batwa, as well as people with albinism, asylum seekers and refugees? What was being done to reduce poverty among these groups and ensure their effective access to employment, healthcare and basic services?
What measures had been undertaken to promote equal opportunities to land and access to justice for Batwa persons? How did the strategy for land access take into account the cultural specificities of the Batwa? What monitoring indicators were in place for measuring the real impacts of this strategy? How were affected communities involved? One hectare of land had been promised to every Twa household by the Head of State; had this been implemented? How was it ensured that any adopted measures took racial discrimination into account? According to the report, the State party had taken measures to grant land to vulnerable Twa families to help them settle. Would the State develop legislation to recognise the land and customary rights of Batwa families? Would Burundi consider removing the high registration fees and facilitate the registry process? What measures were being taken by the State to reduce the high levels of poverty among the Batwa people?
Measures had been taken to encourage Batwa children to attend school; could the delegation provide more information about these measures, particularly for those in rural areas? What measures were envisaged to protect people with albinism against cases of violence or kidnapping? Had there been prosecutions for such acts and were reparations provided to victims? What specific measures did the State enact to prevent ritualistic violence against persons with albinism? What institutional and social mechanisms were in place to ensure persons with albinism had access to specialised care and reparations? What mechanisms were in place to identify victims of human trafficking and provide them with protection? Could statistics on cases of trafficking be provided?
What steps had been taken to implement the Arusha Accords in Burundi, particularly regarding the transitional justice system and the fight against impunity? What had been done to strengthen the mandate of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Was the State planning to carry out impartial investigations into all violations of international humanitarian law which occurred during the ethnic conflict?
Could information about the National Observatory for the Eradication of Genocide be provided, including resources allocated to it? According to information received by the Committee, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission barely dealt with crimes relating to the Tutsi, Hutu and Batwa, which prevented society from coming to terms with its collective trauma. Today, the Commission was largely perceived as being subservient to the executive branch, with the Hutu overrepresented and the Tutsi and Batwa being marginalised. What was being done to address this situation? What measures were being taken to put an end to the politicisation of the transitional justice process? What measures were foreseen to ensure the arrest and prosecution of persons who had committed human rights violations? How did the State party explain the lack of arrests and prosecutions for historical cases so far? What provisions had been adopted to strengthen the efficiency of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission?
What measures were being taken to immediately end the land seizures and redistributions in certain areas, until there had been an independent assessment of their legal and social compliance? How was it ensured that any future procedures would respect the participation of affected families? Was there a reparations mechanism available for these families? How did the Government intend to reboot dialogue with the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights?
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, asked how the educational system in Burundi had incorporated colonialism into the curricula to raise awareness among the young people on these matters?
Responses by the Delegation
EDOUARD BIZIMANA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Burundi and head of the delegation, said responsibility regarding the youth of the ruling party in Burundi was personal. If a youth from this party committed an act, you could not blame the entire party. The youth of the party in power were dynamic youth who contributed to development. Any individual who committed an illegal act was held to account.
In Burundi, family land was sacred. If a woman married into another family, and then got divorced and returned to her family of origin, she did have rights to the family property.
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission was comprised of seven Hutu, five Tutsi and one Twa, which bore in mind the reality set forth by the Arusha Accords.
Land management was covered by law. If the State provided a parcel or a lot to an individual and they could not use it, the State would take it back and give it to someone else.
Colonisation was important not just to Burundi, but to other African countries. A Commission had been put in place to provide guidance on such matters. Some countries like Germany had taken an initiative to return objects taken during the colonisation period. Burundi was still trying to find the right place to receive these national treasures. Efforts were underway by the different parties to try and heal these tumultuous relations.
Actions were undertaken by the Government to support the indigenous peoples and ensure their presence in decision-making positions. There were socio-economic services for the Twa people, including job training. Previously, Batwa citizens were not considered to be full citizens, but they were now integrated and could marry Hutu and Tutsi persons, which was previously considered taboo.
In Burundi, some minority communities were living in situations marked by vulnerability. The Government had taken measures to promote the right to education. School cafeterias benefitted all social groups, including Twa, Hutu and Tutsi.
Measures had been taken by Burundi to combat trafficking in persons, including a focal point within the police and communities relaying all data on trafficking. Burundi had implemented a plan of activities, including training for magistrates, and a plan for punishing the perpetrators of trafficking. A guide had also been drafted for special operating procedures in combatting trafficking in persons.
Burundi had experienced numerous crimes against humanity, first by the Germans and then the Belgians. After the Arusha Accords, there had needed to be corrections regarding ethnic and gender balance in parliament, which ensured that today’s power was shared. Scientific work was underway regarding the genocide, and the Government recognised that there had been a genocide committed in 1982.
Closing Remarks
FAITH DIKELEDI PATSY TLAKULA, Committee Expert and Follow-Up Rapporteur, said the concluding observations would include a paragraph on follow-up requesting urgent recommendations to be implemented in one year. This would be the first time Burundi would have to submit a follow-up report.
MAZALO TEBIE, Committee Expert and Country Rapporteur, thanked the delegation of Burundi for its active participation in the exchange, and the clarifications provided throughout the dialogue, which allowed the Committee to identify progress made and express concern over the effective implementation of provisions of the Convention. The Committee was fully committed to supporting the State party in its efforts. It was hoped this would be a marker of reinformed cooperation with Burundi, and opened up the door to the possibility of opening a United Nations Human Rights Office in Burundi.
EDOUARD BIZIMANA, Minister of Foreign Affairs of Burundi and head of the delegation, thanked everyone involved in the dialogue and commended the good work done over the past two days. Burundi would take into consideration all the recommendations made by the Committee. The dialogue showed Burundi wished to move forward. Burundi stood ready to support the efforts of the Committee and in turn appreciated the Committee’s guidance to help them move forward in the right direction.
___________
Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media ;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.
CERD25.014E