Fifteen people were flown to Kinshasa on 17 April 2026 and more than half were back in their own countries within seven weeks. The arrangement behind the flight has never been produced by either government.
These are statements about the public record, not about the country. "Record not available" means the Coalition has not located a report or a decision on that point, and it is not a finding that the thing did not happen.
Basis: a documented return to countries of origin within seven weeks of arrival, confinement on arrival, and a receiving government that describes its own role as transit.
“Four Peruvians and three Colombians returned home earlier this week,” with a further Colombian man who returned on his own. That is more than half of the fifteen, within seven weeks of arrival. AP describes the mechanism as a programme in which the International Organization for Migration covers travel costs for people who consent to go back.
Kinshasa describes the “strictly transitional, temporary, and time-limited nature of this mechanism,” says all logistics and financial costs are covered by the United States, and states that it is “not a permanent relocation mechanism.”
Water “can cut out for days at a time in the hotel, and rodents scurry through their rooms.” An observer described those transferred as “confined to the hotel and unable to move freely,” which the Global Detention Project characterises as de facto detention.
A Colombian woman holding protection under the Convention against Torture was flown to the DR Congo. The court found on 13 May that the DR Congo “formally refused to accept plaintiff” and ordered her return. It dissolved that order on 5 June on the Government’s sworn declarations. She was later medically evacuated from the DR Congo to Spain.
The arrangement itself has never been produced. It is reported as an exchange of diplomatic notes of 24 December 2025.
Fifteen people were flown to Kinshasa in April 2026. By early June, more than half were back in the countries they had been taken from the United States to avoid.
They went home through the International Organization for Migration’s assisted voluntary return programme, which IOM describes as “strictly voluntary and based on free, prior and informed consent.” They were living in a hotel they could not freely leave, without status, in a country none of them had chosen.
Transferred. 15 people on 17 April 2026: seven women and eight men, Peruvians, Colombians and Ecuadorians
Arrangement. Reported as diplomatic notes of 24 December 2025. The text has not been located. A separate capacity of 50 to 100 people a month is reported but unverified
The Associated Press, 5 June 2026: “Four Peruvians and three Colombians returned home earlier this week,” with one further Colombian man who “returned to his home country on his own in recent days.” That is more than half of the fifteen, within seven weeks of arrival.
AP describes the mechanism: a programme in which “the IOM covers travel costs and logistics for migrants who consent to go back to their home countries, as an alternative to forced deportation.”
Mark Banchereau, Associated Press, 5 June 2026.
NPR: “water can cut out for days at a time in the hotel, and rodents scurry through their rooms. Mosquitoes are also ubiquitous.” The Global Detention Project reports an observer describing them as “confined to the hotel and unable to move freely,” which it characterises as de facto detention.
NPR, 28 April 2026; Global Detention Project.
AP reports that the group “had been granted protections against removal to their home country by U.S. federal courts” and that immigration judges “ruled they were likely to face persecution back home.” A United States lawyer told Al Jazeera that “all the deportees are believed to have legal protection from US judges.” The Global Detention Project puts it narrowest: “At least one deportee held recognized asylum protections.”
The claim that all fifteen held withholding or deferral rests on one compilation, Third Country Deportation Watch, a joint project of Refugees International and Human Rights First, whose underlying case data is not published. It is attributable, not established, and this page does not state it as fact. The supportable formulation is that the group is reported by AP to have held United States court protection against return home, and that at least one such grant is independently documented in litigation.
On 7 July 2026 her counsel filed a notice of “CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND INTERIM MEDICAL EVACUATION FROM THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO TO SPAIN.” On 21 July a further notice filed the Direction Générale de Migration’s April 2026 hand-delivered refusal-to-accept letter.
D.D.C. docket, ECF 43 and ECF 48. The underlying documents have not been read; these are the docket entries.
The Congolese government described the “strictly transitional, temporary, and time-limited nature of this mechanism,” said “All logistics and financial costs are covered by the United States government,” and that it is “not a permanent relocation mechanism.”
Ministry of Communications statement, April 2026. Note carefully: Kinshasa has not acknowledged that returnees went to countries United States courts deemed unsafe. That juxtaposition is the Associated Press’s, and must be attributed to AP.
Human Rights First stated on 5 May 2026 that agreements with “Cameroon, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Moldova, Poland, and Sierra Leone have yet to be disclosed.” A later FOIA release is reported; the document itself was not located.
The DRC’s second periodic report was considered on 25 April 2019 and concluding observations published on 17 May 2019 as CAT/C/COD/CO/2. The document could not be retrieved from OHCHR, undocs or the Atlas of Torture. Anything the site says about it must come from the document, not from a summary.
Quiroz Zapata v. Mullin, No. 1:26-cv-01560-RJL (D.D.C.), Judge Richard J. Leon. A Colombian woman, holder of protection under the Convention against Torture, was flown to the DR Congo on 16 April 2026.
On 13 May 2026 the court granted a temporary restraining order, finding that the DR Congo “formally refused to accept plaintiff” in a letter of 14 April 2026, and that “[d]espite the DRC’s refusal, the Government placed plaintiff on a removal flight and physically transported her to the DRC” anyway. It ordered the defendants to “take all available steps to facilitate the return of plaintiff to the United States.”
On 5 June 2026 the court dissolved that order. The Government produced sworn declarations that “the DRC accepted Plaintiff through the established manifest process before her removal,” that the State Department and the Embassy in Kinshasa “did not receive and were not aware of the purported April 14 letter from the DRC before plaintiff’s removal,” and that the letter “surfaced through an irregular chain of custody.” The court found the emails putting the letter before ICE were dated 16 April at the earliest, after her flight departed at 12:07 a.m. Central on 16 April, and that counsel emailed it on 17 April. The plaintiff withdrew her motion for a preliminary injunction and was ordered to show cause why the case should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
So the case does not establish that the Government knowingly flew a woman to a country that had refused her. It establishes that she was flown there, that a refusal letter existed dated two days before the flight, and that the court found no record evidence the Government had it in time. Publishing the May order without the June one would be a serious error.
ECF 14 (13 May 2026) and ECF 35 (5 June 2026), read in full from the court’s own filings. Her grant of protection under the Convention against Torture is in the record at ECF 31.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo has more of a machinery than most countries in this project. Its human rights commission has a statutory power to make periodic visits to every penitentiary and detention centre in the country and has published dated reports naming the prisons it entered. The International Committee of the Red Cross has been present since 1978 and says in its own words that it visits people who have been arrested and detained. The United Nations refugee agency publishes telephone numbers for ten offices.
What does not exist is any route by which an individual can complain to an international body. That is set out below. The practical consequence is that everything here depends on getting a record made inside the country, and on someone outside knowing where you are.
What exists, in the order in which it usually matters
The ICRC has been in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1978 and states that it works to reunite separated family members, to locate people, exchange messages and clarify the fate of missing persons. Its Kinshasa address and telephone are below. A family that does not know which country you are in cannot instruct a lawyer for you.
The national Ordre des Avocats publishes no telephone number. The Kinshasa and Gombe bar does, and its offices are at the Nouveau Palais de Justice. Both are below. Ask by name if you can, and record the date you asked and who you asked.
The Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme has an express statutory power, in article 6(3) of its founding law, to make periodic visits to penitentiary and detention centres throughout the country. Article 6(6) requires it to watch over the rights of prisoners, refugees and displaced people. Unlike most bodies in this project it has published what it found: a mission report covering North and South Kivu records that it visited Goma central prison on 12 June 2023 and Bukavu central prison on 16 June 2023. Naming the power when you write to it costs nothing.
No individual complaint route to an international body is open from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. What you say now, to whom, and on what date is therefore likely to matter somewhere else. Say it clearly and get it written down.
Legal representation
Provincial bar, the reachable one
Offices at Avenue Pumbu, also given as Avenue des Bâtonniers, at the Nouveau Palais de Justice, Kinshasa. This is the bar that publishes a working telephone number. Further addresses: admission-assistant@barreaudelagombe.cd and ass-bat@barreaudelagombe.cd.
Checked September 8, 2026 · Barreau de la Gombe, official site
National bar association
Governed by Ordonnance-Loi n° 79-028 du 28 septembre 1979, with the Règlement Intérieur Cadre of 19 August 1987 as modified on 24 February 2001. Offices at 15 C, Avenue Kolwezi, Gombe, Kinshasa, open 08:30 to 16:00. It publishes no telephone number: the telephone field on its own contact page contains bank account numbers. Second address: onavocatsrdc@gmail.com.
Checked September 8, 2026 · Ordre National des Avocats, official site
Official complaint bodies
National human rights institution, A status
Created by Loi organique n° 13/011 du 21 mars 2013, under article 222 of the Constitution. Article 6(3) gives it the power to make periodic visits to penitentiary and detention centres throughout the Republic; article 6(6) requires it to watch over the rights of prisoners, refugees and displaced people. Offices on Boulevard du 30 juin, Kinshasa, Immeuble de la Territoriale, open Monday to Friday 08:00 to 16:00. Further numbers published by office: Vice-President +243 811 856 737, Rapporteur +243 998 411 585, Secrétaire technique +243 999 939 102. Accredited A status, with a review deferred to 2026.
Checked September 8, 2026 · Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme, official site
International presence
Detention visits and restoring family links
Present in the country since 1978. In its own words: “We visit people who have been arrested and detained to ensure that they are treated with dignity” and “We reunite separated family members.” Offices at Avenue Papa Iléo, Gombé, Kinshasa.
Checked September 8, 2026 · ICRC, Democratic Republic of the Congo
Country office, with nine further offices
6729, Avenue de l’OUA, Kinshasa/Ngaliema, BP 7248 Kinshasa. Open Monday to Thursday 08:00 to 17:00 and Friday 08:00 to 14:00. Second number +243 99 60 41 802. Other offices with published numbers: Goma +243 818806655, Beni +243 822343957, Bukavu +243 821789349, Uvira +243 814455257, Kalemie +243 817150871, Bunia +243 826012417, Faradje +243 821976115, Kananga +243 816878756, Gbadolite +243 811027168. The agency warns that because of the security situation it may not be able to reach some areas.
Checked September 8, 2026 · UNHCR, contacter le HCR en RDC
Country office
372 Avenue Colonel Mondjiba, Bâtiment 58, Concession Utex, Kinshasa, Ngaliema. Its country page publishes no email address. It publishes nothing about people deported or transferred into the country.
Checked September 8, 2026 · International Organization for Migration, Democratic Republic of the Congo
Read this first if you or someone you know is detained here now.
This country is a member of the East African Community. Its Court of Justice, sitting at Arusha, is open to any person resident in a Partner State. You do not need this country to have signed anything extra. You do not have to go through the local courts first.
But the time limit is two months, and it runs from the day the detention began, not the day it ends.
Article 30(2) of the Treaty establishing the East African Community requires proceedings to be brought “within two months of the enactment, publication, directive, decision or action complained of, or in the absence thereof, of the day in which it came to the knowledge of the complainant.”
The Court’s Appellate Division has held that this is absolute. In a case brought by men who had been seized in one country, taken to another and were still in detention when they filed, the Court said:
“The Court finds the Respondents’ argument that when the act complained of is a continuous detention, the starting date for computation of its limitation time is the day when it ceases is erroneous… nowhere does the Treaty provide any power to the Court to extend, to condone, to waive, or to modify the prescribed time limit for any reason (including for ‘continuing violations’).”
“the starting date of an act complained of under Article 30(2), (including the detention of a complainant), is not the day the act ends, but the day it is first effected.”
Their case was struck out while they were still held. If you have been detained for more than two months, this door has probably closed. If you have been detained for less than two months, it is open today and will not be open for long.
Where a state hid the detention, the Court has allowed a case to proceed because the state could not show when the applicant or their family learned of it. That is a point about who must prove what, not a doctrine that a continuing detention restarts the clock. If your detention was concealed from your family, say so, and say when they found out, because the date they found out may be the date that counts.
This matters, and getting it wrong loses the case at the door. The Court has no human rights jurisdiction as such. The protocol that was supposed to give it one, under Article 27(2) of the Treaty, has never been agreed.
What the Court can do is interpret the Treaty, and it has held that a state breaches the Treaty when it breaks the rule of law. The obligations to use are Article 6(d), which binds Partner States to good governance including “adherence to the principles of democracy, the rule of law” and “the recognition, promotion and protection of human and peoples rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter”, and Article 7(2), by which states undertake to abide by “the maintenance of universally accepted standards of human rights”.
The Court put its own position this way:
“While the Court will not assume jurisdiction to adjudicate on human rights disputes, it will not abdicate from exercising its jurisdiction of interpretation under Article 27(1) merely because the Reference includes allegation of human rights violation.”
So the claim must be framed as a breach of the Treaty, not as a human rights violation. A case pleaded the other way round is likely to fail on jurisdiction without anyone looking at what happened to you.
The Court has protected a person turned back at an airport and briefly detained, but on the basis of free movement rights that belong to citizens of Partner States. It said expressly that the national immigration law remains applicable “where citizens of other nations, except the Partner States, are concerned.” A person transferred here from outside East Africa cannot use that route and has only the rule of law argument under Articles 6(d) and 7(2).
Treaty for the Establishment of the East African Community, Articles 6(d), 7(2), 27, 30 and 38, from the text published by the East African Legislative Assembly. Attorney General of the Republic of Uganda v Omar Awadh and 6 Others, Appeal No. 2 of 2012, Appellate Division, 15 April 2013. Attorney General of the Republic of Kenya v Independent Medical Legal Unit, Appeal No. 1 of 2011, 15 March 2012. Katabazi and 21 Others v Secretary General of the East African Community, Reference No. 1 of 2007, 1 November 2007. Samuel Mukira Mohochi v Attorney General of Uganda, Reference No. 5 of 2011, 17 May 2013. Attorney General of Rwanda v Plaxeda Rugumba, Appeal No. 1 of 2012, 1 June 2012. Checked 8 September 2026. The Coalition is reading these provisions and judgments, not advising on them, and a lawyer admitted in the region should settle how a particular case is framed.
Article 38(3) requires a Partner State to take the measures needed to implement a judgment “without delay”, and Article 33(2) gives the Court’s decisions precedence over national court decisions on the same matter. Article 44 provides for execution, but only of judgments imposing a pecuniary obligation, and only through the ordinary civil procedure of the state concerned. There is no body that monitors compliance and no sanction if a state ignores the Court. The Coalition could find no published figure for how often states comply.
None of the international ones. The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a party to more of the machinery than most states in this project, and has still left every individual door shut.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo acceded to the Convention against Torture on 18 March 1996. It has never made the declaration under article 22. It does not appear on the depositary’s list of states that have accepted individual complaints, and has entered no reservations. The Committee has no competence to receive a complaint against it.
It ratified the Protocol establishing the African Court on 31 January 2017 and deposited the instrument on 8 December 2020, so it has been bound only since that later date. It has never made the declaration under article 34(6). Neither an individual nor an organisation can file directly. The route to the Court runs only through the African Commission.
The Commission’s own communication procedure is available. The Coalition has not identified a decided communication against the Democratic Republic of the Congo arising from these transfers and records that as open.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo acceded to the Optional Protocol on 23 September 2010. The United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture therefore has a mandate, and it exercised it: it visited from 1 to 7 December 2024. That is recent, and it is more than most countries in this project can say.
The other half has not happened. Sixteen years after acceding, there is still no national preventive mechanism. The Subcommittee emphasised the urgent action needed to establish one, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo remains on its list of states not complying with that obligation.
The Committee adopted concluding observations on 9 May 2019, CAT/C/COD/CO/2. The third periodic report was due on 17 May 2023 and has not been submitted. As at 8 September 2026 it is more than three years overdue.
Treaty positions from the United Nations Treaty Collection, chapters IV-9 and IV-9-b, the African Union depositary list for the African Court Protocol, and the United Nations Treaty Body Database, all checked 8 September 2026. Subcommittee visit and non-compliance status from its own annual reports.
Where the people transferred to the Democratic Republic of the Congo are now, and under what status. Whether the Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme has visited any of them, which it has the power to do and has done for others. Whether the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture saw anything relevant during its visit of December 2024, since its report is published only with the state’s consent. Whether the United Nations refugee agency or the International Organization for Migration has any role with this group. And whether any communication has been brought against the Democratic Republic of the Congo before the African Commission arising from these transfers.
If you know any of these, the Coalition wants to hear from you.
Every entry below is a fact with a source.
18 Mar 1996
The Democratic Republic of the Congo accedes to the Convention against Torture, without the declaration that would allow an individual to complain to the Committee.
23 Sep 2010
It accedes to the Optional Protocol, undertaking to create a national preventive mechanism. Sixteen years later there is none.
21 Mar 2013
Loi organique n° 13/011 creates the Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme, with power to make periodic visits to penitentiary and detention centres.
31 Jan 2017
It ratifies the Protocol establishing the African Court, without the declaration allowing individuals to file directly.
9 May 2019
The Committee against Torture adopts CAT/C/COD/CO/2. It is the last time the country has been reviewed.
8 Dec 2020
The instrument of ratification of the African Court Protocol is deposited, nearly four years after ratification.
12 and 16 Jun 2023
The Commission Nationale des Droits de l’Homme visits the central prisons of Goma and Bukavu, and publishes what it found.
17 May 2023
The third periodic report to the Committee against Torture falls due. It has not been submitted.
1-7 Dec 2024
The United Nations Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture visits and emphasises the urgent need to establish a national preventive mechanism.
24 Dec 2025
Reported date of the diplomatic notes. Text not located.
Dec 2025
A minerals agreement granting the United States preferred access to Congolese cobalt, tantalum, lithium and copper is concluded in the same period. No source asserts a link and neither should the site.
5 Apr 2026
Kinshasa announces the arrangement, framing it as reflecting a “commitment to human dignity and international solidarity.”
17 Apr 2026
Fifteen people arrive in Kinshasa. One source gives 18 April.
28 Apr 2026
NPR reports the hotel conditions.
13 May 2026
A temporary restraining order issues in Quiroz Zapata v. Mullin requiring facilitation of one woman’s return.
May 2026
Transfers are paused over an Ebola outbreak, after a single flight.
Early Jun 2026
The restraining order is dissolved.
5 Jun 2026
AP reports that more than half the group have returned to Peru and Colombia.
The Coalition publishes what it can source and says plainly what it cannot. The following is open on this page.
The text, instrument type and date of the arrangement. Whether it was in fact released under FOIA in June 2026. The reported 50 to 100 per month capacity and the reported $50 million to UNHCR, both single-sourced. The text of CAT/C/COD/CO/2. Whether any UN special procedure has addressed these transfers.