Building on previous UNSC resolutions and pronouncements,⁴ Resolution 1820(2008) stresses the importance of ending impunity for sexual violence as part of a holistic initiative to achieve sustainable peace, justice, truth, and national reconciliation. This comprehensive approach aims to protect civilians, including by enforcing appropriate military discipline; training deployed UN personnel to prevent, recognize and respond to sexual violence; improving protection for displaced women and girls; increasing women’s participation in conflict resolution peacebuilding; and developing national institutions to assist victims of sexual violence in armed conflict and post-conflict settings.

The Resolution calls for action: in particular, increasing accountability through “national prosecutions,” recognizing the range of sexual violence offenses reflected in statutes of international and ad hoc tribunals. It also specifically references targeted sanctions, affirming the UNSC’s “intention, when establishing and renewing state-specific sanctions regimes,” to consider targeted and graduated measures against those “who commit rape and other forms of sexual violence against women and girls in situations of armed conflict.”⁵ The UNSC expressed its readiness to consider taking such action with respect to countries on its agenda.

A year after Resolution 1820(2008), the UNSC passed Resolution 1888(2009) demanding further action to address “the lack of progress on the issue of sexual violence in situations of armed conflict.” Lamenting the “limited numbers of perpetrators of sexual violence” brought to justice,⁶ the UNSC reiterated State obligations to prosecute genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other atrocities.

The UNSC reiterated its readiness to address “widespread or systematic sexual violence” in armed conflict and provided clear guidelines for holding leaders accountable for sexual violence perpetrated on their watch. Both civilian and military leaders must “demonstrate commitment and political will to prevent sexual violence and to combat impunity and enforce accountability.” The UNSC warned that “inaction can send a message that the incidence of sexual violence in conflicts is tolerated.”⁷

With regard to targeted sanctions, the UNSC reiterated its intention to consider “designation criteria pertaining to acts of rape and other forms of sexual violence” when adopting or renewing targeted sanctions in situations of armed conflict. It further called for the sharing of pertinent information regarding sexual violence with relevant UNSC sanctions committees, their monitoring groups and groups of experts.⁸

To provide leadership and strengthen coordination to address sexual violence in armed conflict, the UNSC requested the Secretary-General appoint a Special Representative.⁹ The UNSC also requested “more systematic reporting on incidents of trends, emerging patterns of attack, and early warning indicators of the use of sexual violence in armed conflict in all relevant reports” to the UNSC, in coordination with the newly appointed Special Representative.¹⁰

Finally, the UNSC specifically requested the Secretary-General to include in annual reports regarding the implementation of UNSC Resolution 1820(2008), “information regarding parties to armed conflict that are credibly suspected of committing patterns of rape and other forms of sexual violence” in situations on the UNSC’s agenda.¹¹

In 2010, dissatisfied with the continued use of sexual violence in armed conflict despite calls for immediate cessation, the UNSC made even more specific requests with respect to targeted sanctions. The UNSC encouraged the Secretary-General to “apply the listing and delisting criteria for parties listed in his annual report on sexual violence in armed conflicts” submitted pursuant to Resolutions 1820(2008) and 1888(2009). The UNSC requested “detailed information on parties to armed conflict that are credibly suspected of committing or being responsible for acts of rape or other forms of sexual violence, and a list of the parties that are credibly suspected of committing or being responsible for patterns of rape or other forms of sexual violence in situations of armed conflict on the Security Council agenda.”¹² This list would be used “as a basis for more focused United Nations engagement with those parties, including, as appropriate, measures in accordance with the procedures of the relevant sanctions committees.”¹³ Finally, the UNSC reiterated that it would consider adding designation criteria pertaining to sexual violence when adopting or renewing targeted sanctions in situations of armed conflict and called for sharing information with UNSC sanctions committees including through their monitoring groups and groups of experts.¹⁴

In addition, the UNSC directed parties to armed conflict to take specific measures, lest they be held responsible for ensuing acts of sexual violence. Adding to previous measures, the UNSC instructed parties to issue “clear orders through chains of command prohibiting sexual violence,” to prohibit “sexual violence in Codes of Conduct, military field manuals, or equivalent,” and to timely investigate alleged abuses in order to hold perpetrators accountable.¹⁵

Issued in 2013, Resolution 2106(2013) builds on the bedrock of Resolutions 1820(2008), 1888(2009), and 1960(2010) regarding the UNSC’s use of targeted sanctions to deter sexual violence in conflict. Resolution 2106(2013) calls for women’s participation “in the work of relevant Security Council sanctions committees.”¹⁶ The UNSC also urged “existing sanctions committees, where within the scope of the relevant criteria for designation, … to apply targeted sanctions against those who perpetrate and direct sexual violence in conflict,” and reiterated its intention to consider including sexual violence-related criteria “when adopting or renewing targeted sanctions in situations of armed conflict.”¹⁷

While requiring repeated calls for action, the UNSC’s directives and recommendations have received some traction. The Secretary-General’s 2013 Report on Women and Peace and Security noted advancement in the UNSC’s “practice with regard to sexual and gender-based violence as designation criteria for targeted sanctions regimes.”¹⁸ Since the adoption of Resolution 1820(2008), references regarding the UNSC’s concern about sexual violence increased drastically in resolutions renewing sanctions regimes.¹⁹ Such references have similarly increased in expert groups’ reports submitted to the relevant sanctions committees. The Secretary-General’s Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict is now enlisted to provide the names of entities that meet sanctions listing criteria pertaining to sexual violence. The UNSC has specifically included sexual violence as a listing criterion for targeted sanctions in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) (Resolution 1807(2008)), Somalia (Resolution 2002(2011)), and the Central African Republic (CAR) (Resolution 2127(2013)),²⁰ and has listed individuals on the basis of sexual violence in the DRC and Côte d’Ivoire. Besides these situations, the UNSC has not listed parties or individuals for targeted sanctions in Liberia or Sudan, even where individuals were indicted for crimes involving sexual violence in conflict.

The following overview of the use of targeted sanctions to address conflict situations involving sexual violence reveals an inconsistent application of targeted sanctions based on widespread reports of sexual violence in several situations, as well as emerging best practices.

“[D]ecades of conflict, widespread violence and insecurity, compounded by drought and massive displacement, have rendered women and girls especially vulnerable to sexual violence” in Somalia.²¹ Between January and November 2012 alone, UN partners and service providers registered over 1,700 rape cases in Mogadishu and surrounding areas.²² Somali refugee women and girls have been targeted by members of organized armed groups including Al-Shabaab, Somali security forces, and private security providers.²³ Insurgent militias have likewise targeted Somali women and girls as they attempt to flee to the border. Within areas it controls, Al-Shabaab subjects them to forced marriage.²⁴ Access to justice for victims is extremely limited. Some cases resolved through traditional mechanisms compel the victim to marry her perpetrator.²⁵ In February 2013, a woman who alleged rape by members of the security forces and the journalist who interviewed her were criminally prosecuted.²⁶

In July 2011, following 20 years of widespread sexual violence unleashed by the fall of the regime in Somalia in 1991, the UNSC expanded the Somali sanctions regime to include sexual and gender-based violence as designation criteria for targeted sanctions.²⁷ While the original sanctions regime initiated in 1992 focused on the arms embargo, the UNSC imposed targeted sanctions against Al-Shabaab rebels and others in 2008.²⁸ The UNSC expanded the sanctions regime to include a travel ban and asset freeze on violators of the arms embargo, as well as “individuals … who threatened the peace, security and stability of Somalia” or impeded access to humanitarian aid.²⁹

The UNSC also incorporated extensive references to the women, peace and security agenda with respect to the Somali sanctions regime.³⁰ Resolution 2002(2011) stressed accountability, reiterated condemnation of sexual and gender-based violence as a violation of international law, and warned that individuals committing violations involving the targeting of civilians, including sexual and gender-based violence, could be subject to targeted measures.³¹

Following this expansion of listing criteria and measures, the Somalia Sanctions Committee’s Monitoring Group reported violations of Resolution 2002(2011) and sexual and gender-based violence against civilians in areas controlled both by Al-Shabaab and the Transitional Federal Government security forces.³² The 751 Somalia Sanctions Committee has so far not designated any individuals for violations relating to international human rights or humanitarian law, generally, or for sexual and gender-based violence in particular.³³

The sanctions regime in Liberia provides another example of inconsistent application of targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for sexual violence in conflict. Despite widespread abductions, rape, and enslavement of Sierra Leonean women and girls by rebel troops supported by Liberian President Charles Taylor during the 1991–2002 civil war, targeted sanctions against Taylor and others responsible did not include listing criteria for sexual violence. In response to Taylor’s support of the rebel Revolutionary United Front in neighboring Sierra Leone, the UNSC adopted Resolution 1343(2001), banning diamond exports from Liberia and imposing an arms embargo. In December 2003 the UNSC adopted Resolution 1521(2003), imposing an arms embargo and travel ban and assets freeze on Taylor and individuals linked to him, as well as embargoes on diamond and timber experts fuelling the conflict.³⁴ The Panel of Experts was not assigned to track or report on sexual violence.

Parallel to the Liberia sanctions regime, in 2000, the UNSC supported the establishment of the SCSL, to try “persons who bear the greatest responsibility for the commission of the crimes.”³⁵ The Secretary-General’s first report on the SCSL to the UNSC reiterated the SCSL’s jurisdiction over egregious crimes including “sexual violence against girls and women, and sexual slavery,” which continued to be widespread.³⁶

On 7 March 2003, the SCSL indicted Taylor, who was still serving as the President of Liberia at the time. The operative indictment issued several years later included charges of rape, sexual slavery, and outrages on personal dignity for Taylor’s role in the widespread sexual violence committed against civilian women and girls between 1996 and 2002.³⁷ In April 2012, Taylor was convicted for supporting armed groups that had “committed a campaign of sexual violence and sexual slavery against the women of Sierra Leone in order to spread terror among the civilian population.”³⁸ Leaders of these groups were also convicted of sexual violence as co-perpetrators and superiors.³⁹

While Taylor and several rebel leaders were convicted for these crimes, countless others have evaded justice. No targeted sanctions were imposed against them on the basis of sexual violence. The sanctions regime may have been a missed opportunity to reinforce and ensure accountability for sexual violence in this conflict situation.

Since 1998, the conflict in the DRC has claimed millions of lives. Members of State forces and national and foreign rebel groups have committed thousands of rapes on a daily basis. In March 2004, the UNSC adopted Resolution 1533(2004), establishing the 1533 DRC Sanctions Committee and Group of Experts. Sanctions have since been modified and strengthened to include travel bans and asset freezes.⁴⁰ In March 2008, the UNSC added sexual violence in the DRC as a criterion for targeted sanctions⁴¹ on the heels of Group of Expert reports of sexual abuse against children in areas where rebel groups operated.⁴² The following year, an estimated 8,000 women were reportedly raped in the DRC provinces of North and South Kivu alone.⁴³ In 2009, the Group of Experts reported high levels of sexual violence committed by military agents and identified cases of command responsibility.⁴⁴ They named several individuals who had committed rape or had a command position over others who had committed sexual violence.⁴⁵ Again in 2010, the Group of Experts reported on mass rape committed in villages in North Kivu and identified individuals who had participated in these crimes.⁴⁶

By late 2010, the 1533 DRC Sanctions Committee had listed five individuals due to allegations of rape, sexual abuse or sexual violence. When the UNSC renewed the DRC sanctions regime and Group of Experts’ mandate, it specifically assigned the Group of Experts the task of investigating command responsibility for acts of sexual violence.⁴⁷ The following year, another individual was added to the sanctions list for planning and ordering a series of attacks, in the course of which children were raped and abducted.⁴⁸ Three more individuals and two groups were added to the sanctions list, explicitly justified by allegations of rape, sexual abuse, sexual violence, or targeting women.⁴⁹ The listed individuals and their alleged participation in sexual violence are described below in Sect. 3.4.3.

However, the persons listed for targeted sanctions based on sexual violence and individuals indicted for sexual violence by the ICC are not consistent. None of the five individuals listed for responsibility for sexual violence has been indicted by the ICC. Conversely, individuals who have been indicted for crimes involving sexual violence have not been listed for targeted sanctions based on that conduct, including rebel commanders Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, for whom the ICC found “sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe” that they were responsible for rape and sexual slavery during a 2003 village attack.⁵⁰ While ICC judges ultimately acquitted these commanders of sexual violence charges based on the higher standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt,⁵¹ this does not absolve them of responsibility for these acts for sanctioning purposes, particularly if they took no action after learning of the crimes despite their ability to do so.⁵² This disparity undermines the UNSC’s focus on accountability for perpetrators and their superiors.

Staggering reports of campaigns of terror and rape against women, children and men have featured prominently in the Darfur crisis, first condemned by the UNSC in May 2004.⁵³ This sexual violence has continued unabated and has spiked following armed clashes between the army and various armed groups, particularly by government forces.⁵⁴

UNSC Resolutions authorizing the Sudan sanctions regime and the Panel of Expert reports have consistently included reference to sexual and gender-based violence. Resolution 1591(2005), imposing targeted sanctions, specifically condemns sexual violence and defines its listing criteria for sanctions more generically as individuals who commit violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or other atrocities.⁵⁵ Since 2007, the Panel of Experts has included a dedicated section applying this criteria to sexual and gender-based violence⁵⁶ and has extensively reported on these issues from the outset of the sanctions regime.⁵⁷

In parallel, the UNSC established an international commission of inquiry which concluded that war crimes and crimes against humanity had been committed in Darfur, including rape and other forms of sexual violence, and recommended referral to the ICC.⁵⁸ On 31 March 2005, the UNSC adopted Resolution 1593(2005) referring the situation in Darfur to the ICC. The ICC indicted seven individuals; the four most senior indictees were charged with sexual violence but remain at large.⁵⁹ While they continue to evade justice, targeted sanctions have not been imposed on them.

In 2010, the UNSC specifically defined the original listing criteria of Resolution 1591(2005) regarding “individuals … who commit violations of international humanitarian or human rights law or other atrocities” to include sexual and gender-based violence.⁶⁰ The UNSC further strengthened the regime by specifically requesting the Panel of Experts to provide the Sanctions Committee with information on individuals and entities meeting the listing criteria, including sexual and gender-based violence.⁶¹ Nevertheless, none of the individuals listed by the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee are designated for sexual violence or rape. Reportedly, there is no agreement in the 1591 Sudan Sanctions Committee on imposing targeted sanctions against any of the ICC indictees as a tool to enhance accountability, and there have been no additions since the original listings in April 2006.⁶²

A UN official has warned that “the seeds of a genocide are being sown” in the CAR.⁶³ For more than a year, attacks fueled by two rival factions (Christian Anti-Balaka and Muslim Séléka/ex-Séléka) have killed hundreds, displaced one million, and have triggered widespread violence between Christian and Muslim communities across the country. The UN Special Representative for Sexual Violence in Conflict reported that between January and November 2013, at least 4,530 cases of sexual violence were perpetrated by armed men, largely believed to be Séléka, in seven areas. Anti-Balaka and Séléka factions have committed sexual violence during house-to-house searches and during retaliatory attacks. Séléka elements have been conducting forced marriages, sometimes involving children.⁶⁴ In January 2014, a senior UN official reported 1,186 confirmed cases of sexual violence in the CAR in one month.⁶⁵ In mid-February, the High Commissioner for Human Rights reported that Anti-Balaka elements were deliberately targeting the Muslim population of Bangui in attacks referred to as “clean-up operations,” including widespread killings, rapes, plundering, and the destruction of Muslim homes.⁶⁶

In December 2013, the UNSC issued Resolution 2127(2013), stressing the need for accountability,⁶⁷ requesting the immediate establishment of an international commission of inquiry to investigate abuses,⁶⁸ and imposing sanctions in the CAR. Initially, the UNSC imposed an arms embargo and expressed its “strong intent to swiftly consider imposing targeted measures against individuals” engaging in “sexual violence” or other “violations of human rights and international humanitarian law” in the CAR.⁶⁹ The sanctions regime includes a Sanctions Committee and Panel of Experts tasked inter alia with reporting on individuals who meet the listing criteria.⁷⁰

True to its word, the following month the UNSC imposed a travel ban and asset freeze on individuals and entities designated as “involved in planning, directing, or committing acts that violate international human rights law or international humanitarian law, as applicable, or that constitute human rights abuses or violations,” including “sexual violence.”⁷¹ The UNSC further extended sanctions to individuals who are “leaders of, have provided support to, or acted for or on behalf of or at the direction of, an entity” designated by the Sanctions Committee.⁷²

The UNSC again stressed “the need to end impunity in CAR and bring to justice perpetrations of violations of international humanitarian law and of abuses and violations of human rights.”⁷³ On 22 January 2014, the UNHRC established an International Commission of Inquiry to investigate these violations and abuses.

Amid escalating reports of mass rape and other forms of sexual violence in Bosnia and Croatia in the early 1990s, it was understood that a joint effort would be required to counter the impunity. Beyond international criminal prosecution, victim advocate Rhonda Copelon urged that the “leaders responsible should be arrested, not feted, in the countries to which they travel, and the actual rapists should not enjoy vacations or carry out international business without sanction. The cost of their atrocities, if it is not prison, should at the least be confinement to their own countries.”⁷⁴ While calling on advocates to bring civil lawsuits on behalf of sexual violence victims against the perpetrators, her advice equally applies to the utility of targeted sanctions to combat impunity. It is also consistent with the comprehensive approach reflected in the UNSC’s women, peace and security agenda: to effect change, concerted action is required on all fronts.