Introduction

This study examines Burundi’s critical right-to-life issues, analyzing the interplay of national laws, international treaties, and political dynamics. It argues that legal protections are insufficient without political will and institutional accountability, exploring how political actions undermine existing legal frameworks. This research is vital because widespread right-to-life violations constitute a serious human rights crisis demanding urgent attention. By documenting these violations and analyzing their causes, the study aims to significantly advance Burundi’s understanding of human rights.

Burundi’s commitment to the right to life must be understood within the context of its distraught history, marked by ethnic tensions, political instability, and recurring cycles of violence (Kasmi J & Khan M, 2021; Nkurunziza, 2022; Popplewell, 2018; Uvin, 2009; Daley, 2007 and Ndikumana, 2005). This historical backdrop has profoundly shaped the current human rights landscape, particularly concerning the protection of this fundamental right.

Specifically, this paper investigates the following key issues: What domestic laws and international treaties related to the right to life has Burundi endorsed? What are the contested aspects of these legal instruments, and what are the key arguments surrounding their implementation? Why is it crucial to interrogate these issues now?

This study contends that although Burundi has domestically ratified key international treaties, such as the ICCPR, ICESCR, and ACHPR, that enshrine the right to life, and having domestic laws ostensibly safeguarding this fundamental right, its effective enforcement is fundamentally obstructed by political interference (ethnic manipulation), an absence of accountability, and widespread impunity related to judicial shortcomings (Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, 2024). The above barriers, often rooted in historical grievances exacerbated during the colonial era, fuel cycles of violence and impunity, undermining the very foundation of human rights protection.

The study also argues that while Burundi’s legal commitments are substantial, their practical effectiveness is compromised by its political leadership, which has long prioritized political expediency and the consolidation of power over accountability, thereby perpetuating cycles of violence and violating human rights. The manipulation of ethnic tensions rooted in colonial legacies fuels cycles of violence, impeding justice and enabling gross violations of the right to life. Despite international commitments, the gap between normative standards and on-the-ground realities remains vast. This dissonance underscores the urgent need to critically examine how political dynamics and a lack of accountability impede the realization of human rights in Burundi, especially in the face of recurring violence, extrajudicial killings, and selective justice (Global Center for the Responsibility to Protect, 2024).

This is evident in the government’s response to dissent, which has frequently involved the use of excessive force, arbitrary arrests, and other repressive measures, but Burundi considered these accusations biased (GICJ, 2024; US country report, 2023; Human Rights Watch, 2021). A more robust and consistent commitment to the rule of law, coupled with genuine efforts to promote accountability for human rights abuses, is essential for addressing the ongoing crisis and ensuring respect for the right to life in Burundi.

Furthermore, beyond the specific context of Burundi, this study offers valuable insights into the broader challenges of state obligations and the enforcement of international law at the domestic level. It explores how political dynamics can obstruct the implementation of international human rights norms, even when these norms are formally incorporated into domestic law. This analysis offers significant implications for other fragile and conflict-affected states facing comparable challenges, as its findings provide valuable insights that can inform their strategies for addressing similar difficulties. The study will contribute new perspectives by providing empirical evidence of how political interests and activities can directly contradict and negate legal guarantees of the right to life.

Background

Burundi’s persistent human rights challenges, particularly the right to life, are deeply rooted in its tumultuous history (Nkurunziza, 2022; Popplewell, 2018). Burundi’s history is marked by ethnic divisions between the Hutu and Tutsi people (Isabirye and Mahmoudi, 2000; Ntibazonkiza, 1993). The country’s ethnic divisions, exacerbated by colonial policies, culminated in the devastating 1993 genocide (Lemarchand, 1994). While the 2015 crisis, sparked by President Nkurunziza’s bid for a third term, brought renewed instability, it was the culmination of years of shrinking civic and political space (Amnesty International, 2020; ICG, 2016). Addressing these issues necessitates sustained reconciliation efforts, institutional strengthening, and accountability for past human rights abuses.

The colonial power’s ‘divide et impera’ methods (IPSS, 2018; Chretien and Mukuri, 2002; Ntibazonkiza, 1993; Braeckman, 1966), which post-colonial elites have subsequently continued, are the primary contributors to the country’s fragility. Asymmetric conflicts between the political elites of the two main ethnic groups in Burundi, the Hutus and Tutsis, have resulted in violence and mass atrocities (Ntibazonkiza, 1993; Lemarchand, 1966; D’hertefelt et al. 1962). After the independence, thousands of people have been killed (Uvin, 2009). Most of them were from the Hutu ethnic group, killed by Tutsis. As an example, from April 29 to July 31, 1972, soldiers of the Tutsi-dominated military slaughtered around 200,000 Hutus and occasioned around 150,000 Hutu refugees to nearby countries (Lemarchand, 1994).

The historical antagonism between the Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups was exacerbated during Belgian colonial rule when preferential treatment was given to the Tutsi population (Ntibazonkiza, 1993). The country has experienced decades of political instability, ethnic conflicts, and civil wars, which have left a legacy of violence, fear, and impunity (Rufyikiri, 2021; Lemarchand, 1994). Burundi has been plagued by recurrent violent conflicts since its independence in 1962, including major outbreaks in 1959, 1965, 1969, 1972, 1988, 1993, 2010, and 2015 (Kasmi J & Khan M, 2021; Nkurunziza and Ngaruko, 2000; Daley, 2007).

Empirical evidence substantiates the claim of political interference with Burundi’s laws protecting the right to life. For instance, in 2000, a peace agreement was finally signed, and Pierre Nkurunziza was elected president (Burihabwa and Curtis, 2021). But tensions have remained high. However, he also cracked down on dissent, and his government was accused of human rights abuses (Human Right Watch, 2021). The 2015 political crisis marked a sharp decline from the period of stability and economic prosperity established since the 2000 peace accord and subsequent elections (US Country Report, 2020; Amnesty International, 2019; Bouka, 2017; Palmans, 2006). A failed coup in 2015 escalated unrest and instability, leading to widespread casualties and the displacement of over 400,000 people. The ensuing crackdown on dissent resulted in widespread human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, and torture, as documented by various international organizations and human rights groups (US country Report, 2022; Human Rights Watch, 2022; [Case No ICC-01/17-X-9-US-Exp, ICL 1832 (ICC 2017)]). These actions directly contravened both Burundian law and international human rights standards. Furthermore, the lack of accountability for these abuses underscores the influence of political considerations in obstructing justice and perpetuating a climate of impunity.

The human rights situation in Burundi remains dire. The government has faced accusations of widespread human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, arbitrary detentions, torture, and forced disappearances (US Country Report, 2022). These abuses particularly undermine the right to life, with numerous killings reported. The right to life is a fundamental human right, universally recognized and codified in various international and regional human rights instruments. Notably, it is enshrined in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Further emphasizing its global importance, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) of 1966 explicitly protects this right in Article 6.

Regionally, the right to life is also secured. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, in its Article 4, provides this protection. Similarly, the European Convention on Human Rights of 1953 includes the right to life. Domestically, the United Kingdom has incorporated this right into its legal framework through Article 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Right to life is essential for the protection of all other Human Rights (Finegan, 2020). In Burundi, the Right to life has been threatened by a range of factors since its independence in 1962, including the ongoing political and security crises which included civil wars and Human Rights violence (Shyaka, 2008), poverty, and a lack of access to basic services and information (Mercier, Ngenzebuke and Verwimp, 2020; Hatungimana, 2011; Sentamba, 2005). It was the women’s movement, trade unions, farmers’ associations, and the like who pressed Civil Society Organizations that have attempted to safeguard the Right to life in Burundi but have been largely unsuccessful (The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, 2018; Bainomugisha and Issaka, 2004).

While Burundi’s ratification of international legal instruments provides a normative framework for protecting the right to life, persistent violations highlight a critical lack of political will and institutional accountability. This ongoing human rights crisis highlights the need to address structural and political barriers that hinder the enforcement of legal commitments and the protection of fundamental human rights.

Research approach

This research employed a mixed-methods approach to examine human rights violations in Burundi, focusing specifically on the right to life. A combination of desk-based qualitative and doctrinal legal analysis, along with Comparative and Content Analysis research methods, was employed to provide a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between domestic law, international obligations, and practical realities on the ground.

Data collection involved a multifaceted approach. A thorough legal analysis of Burundi’s domestic laws was undertaken to assess their alignment with international human rights standards, particularly those related to the right to life. Simultaneously, randomly selected case studies, contextualizing instances of extrajudicial killings, torture, judicial biases, and illegal detention, were conducted to expose patterns of violence and systemic failures. To complement this, a comprehensive review of human rights reports, UN documentation, NGO reports, and media accounts was undertaken to gather qualitative data on violence, impunity, and the effectiveness of legal responses. To comprehensively assess the effectiveness of legal safeguards and their enforcement, the study utilized a multifaceted approach. This included a gap analysis to identify discrepancies between laws and their implementation, impact assessments to evaluate the consequences of legal provisions, accountability assessments to scrutinize mechanisms for holding perpetrators responsible, and a comparative analysis to benchmark Burundi’s legal framework against international standards.

While this study offers valuable insights into the protection of the right to life in Burundi, it is essential to acknowledge its limitations. Relying on secondary data and a limited number of case studies may restrict the generalizability of the findings. Additionally, the challenging political climate and limited access to information hindered data collection and analysis.

International and national legal framework on the right to life

International legal framework

Definition and scope of the right to life

Emerging from the ashes of World War II, a conflict that claimed over 60 million lives (United Nations, 2021), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted in 1948. Like the United Nations itself, this landmark document was a direct response to the unprecedented devastation of the era. As the world grappled with the horrors of the past (Sommerville and Westwell, 2008), nations united to prevent such atrocities from recurring. For the first time in history, a global consensus was forged around the fundamental rights inherent to all human beings. Encompassing 30 articles that safeguard against torture, inhuman treatment, slavery, and other abuses, the UDHR marked a new era of human rights protections in history (Fengyu, 2017).

The right to life is a fundamental human right universally recognized under international law and Burundian law. It is the most basic of all human rights, without which all other rights become meaningless (The Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1986). According to Elisabeth Wicks (2010), the Right to Life, a cornerstone principle enshrined in international law and national constitutions, guarantees protection from being arbitrarily killed. It goes beyond just staying alive, encompassing protection from violence, unlawful killings, and freedom from torture, and cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Dinstein (1981) add that the Right to Life is incontestable because civilized society cannot exist without legal protection of human life. The inviolability or sanctity of life is, perhaps, the most basic value of modern civilization. In the final analysis, if there were no Right to Life, there would be no point in the other human rights, and once life is lost, nothing remains to protect.

William J. Aceves (2018) asserts that a defining feature of this right is its global applicability and the fact that it cannot be suspended or limited under international law. The UDHR (Article 3), the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (art 4), the European Convention on Human Rights (1953 art 2), and the ICCPR (Article 6(1)) emphasize that every human being, regardless of race, nationality, gender, or any other status, possesses the Right to Life (Finch, 1941). This inherent right is untouchable by such distinctions and cannot be revoked based on them (UDHR; El Salvador Constitution).

These documents go beyond simply declaring this right. They place a clear obligation on governments to actively protect it. The UDHR (Article 3) lays the groundwork for legal systems that safeguard life by emphasizing everyone’s right to “life, liberty, and security of person.” The ICCPR (Article 6(1)) strengthens this notion by stating that the Right to Life is “inherent” and must be “protected by law.” This translates to a responsibility for governments to establish and enforce laws to prevent unlawful takings of life (Aceves, 2018).

While not explicitly mentioning the Right to Life, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) also contributes to its protection. Articles like the right to adequate food, healthcare, and decent work conditions (Articles 11 & 12) create circumstances where life can be sustained and lived with dignity. Similarly, the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) protects the Right to Life by prohibiting torture and cruel treatment, which can ultimately lead to death.

On the other hand, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) further expands on this right. While recognizing the “Right to Life” and the state’s obligation to protect it (similar to the ICCPR), it also guarantees the right to security of existence (Article 4). This encompasses access to essential resources for life and survival. A crucial aspect of protection involves the prohibition of “arbitrary deprivation of life.” Both the UDHR (Art 6), ACHPR (Art 4), and ICCPR (Art 6) explicitly forbid this. This means governments cannot take a person’s life without following established legal procedures or having a legitimate justification. This safeguards individuals from unlawful killings by the state, including extrajudicial executions. It is important to acknowledge that the specifics of how the Right to Life applies in certain situations, such as the death penalty or self-defense, can be debated. However, the core principle remains that “protecting life from arbitrary state action remains paramount” (Heyns and Probert, 2016).

The international legal framework surrounding the right to life in Burundi is robust, establishing it as a fundamental human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) establishes this right as fundamental in Articles 1 and 2, requiring analysis of how Burundi’s national laws correspond. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further strengthens this right in Articles 6(1), 7, and 9, imposing obligations on Burundi to protect it through legislation, with limited exceptions. Evaluating Burundi’s legal framework, particularly regarding restrictions placed on Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), is crucial to assess its alignment with these articles. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) adds another layer of protection through Article 4, guaranteeing the right to life. An exploration of how the ACHPR complements the ICCPR is necessary, along with an investigation of how CSOs might leverage this instrument to advocate for improved legal protections in Burundi. These instruments collectively establish the right to life as absolute and non-derogable. They obligate Burundi as well as other states to not only respect this right but also take positive measures to shield it from threats by both state and non-state actors. Furthermore, they require effective investigations into violations and ensure accountability for perpetrators.

International criminal law, designed to hold individuals accountable for the gravest crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, and aggression, is a crucial component of the global legal order. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), a foundational document in this field, establishes the legal framework for prosecuting such offenses. Given the nature of the crimes committed in Burundi, the ICC’s potential role in bringing perpetrators to justice warrants careful consideration.

Burundi’s legal framework extends beyond the core treaties and conventions previously mentioned. It incorporates diverse international agreements covering environmental protection, refugee rights, and child rights. These additional instruments significantly influence Burundi’s legal landscape, potentially impacting domestic policies and practices. Analyzing these relevant treaties and conventions gives us a holistic view of Burundi’s international legal obligations and their interplay with its domestic legal system.

In conclusion, international instruments recognize the Right to Life as an inherent, inviolable human right deserving of legal protection. States are obligated to prevent arbitrary life deprivation and create conditions for dignified living. The UDHR lays the foundation, the ICCPR provides specific protections, and other instruments like the ICESCR, CAT, and ACHPR reinforce the Right to Life through related rights, such as access to essential resources. This comprehensive framework ensures the Right to Life is not merely a declaration, but a globally upheld and protected right. As stated above, this right is also enshrined in international law bodies (UDHR), international Human Rights instruments (ICCPR), regional instruments (ACHPR, ECHR), and domestic frameworks (Constitution of Burundi, Human Rights Act).

National legal framework

To remain relevant and effective, a legal framework necessitates a dynamic structure that enables it to accommodate the evolving needs of society, respond to the complex implications of technological progress, and ensure justice by acknowledging and learning from historical developments (Fenwick et al. 2017; Lyria, 2007).

Constitutional provisions

Burundi’s legal system is a complex interplay of various sources. The foundation lies in the 2018 Constitution (Constitution of Burundi, 2018), the supreme law. Parliament builds upon this with organic and statutory laws to flesh out the Constitution’s principles (Article 163). Further strengthening Burundi’s legal framework is Burundi’s domestic legislation. Laws are enacted to uphold the rights enshrined in ratified treaties. International agreements ratified by Burundi hold direct weight, though the country uses a mix of monist (Article 279) and dualist (Article 277) approaches to integrate them.

The legal framework on Human Rights in Burundi is primarily based on international Human Rights treaties and conventions that the country has ratified (UNGAR A/HRC/51/44 (2022)). The treaties and conventions include the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1990), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1990), and the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT, 1993). Burundi has also ratified regional treaties such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR, 1989). These treaties and conventions are incorporated into Burundi’s domestic law through various mechanisms, including constitutional provisions, legislation, and judicial decisions. This approach aligns with the observations of international legal scholars like Hurst Hannum (1995) and Jack Goldsmith (1998), who have noted the widespread practice of integrating treaty rights into national legal frameworks. Additionally, judicial decisions can interpret and apply these rights through the national context. This three-pronged approach (constitution, legislation, and judicial decisions) ensures a comprehensive legal framework for human rights in Burundi.

The 2018 Constitution of Burundi guarantees a wide range of rights for its citizens, including civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights (Human Rights Foundation, 2022). It affirms the inherent dignity and equal worth of every person and prohibits discrimination (Article 13). To safeguard these rights, Burundi established the National Independent Human Rights Commission (CNIDH) (Law n°1/04 of January 5, 2011, art 2). Furthermore, the Constitution explicitly protects the right to life as a fundamental human right. It stipulates that: “Every human person has the Right to Life” (Article 24).

In view of the above, Burundi’s judiciary recognizes the right to life as a fundamental constitutional guarantee. Therefore, courts generally interpret this as a primary right that warrants protection against arbitrary deprivation by the state or other actors, such as cases involving extrajudicial killings, police violence. Burundi’s constitutional court and other judicial bodies are tasked with ensuring that laws and state actions comply with constitutional protections (Organic Law N°1/28 of 30 December 2024 amending Organic Law N°1/20 of 3 August 2019 on the organization and functioning of the Constitutional Court and the procedure applicable before it, Article 22/1&2).

As demonstrated in the subsequent discussion of judicial decisions and human rights reports, notwithstanding the constitutional acknowledgment of the right to life, significant challenges to effective enforcement persist. The Burundi judiciary has frequently been criticized for its limited independence and capacity constraints, which often impede the robust protection of this fundamental right. Additionally, the provisions within the Criminal Code, particularly those on self-defense, lack clarity, thereby allowing for inconsistent judicial interpretation concerning the permissible use of force. These interpretive gaps can undermine the effective protection of the right to life and lead to inconsistent judicial outcomes.

Addressing these deficiencies typically involves clarifying the scope of the right to life within legal doctrines, ensuring that substantive and procedural protections are robust. It may also require legislative refinement to align laws with constitutional guarantees and judicial rulings to close interpretive gaps, ultimately safeguarding this fundamental right comprehensively.

Regarding legislation in Burundi, article 24 of the Constitution states that: “Every human person has the Right to life”. Articles 195–241 of the Criminal Code of 2017 criminalize all the acts that violate the Right to life. Under Act No. 1/09 of 11 May 2018 revising the Code of Criminal Procedure, Burundi introduced special forms of procedure for the prosecution and swift punishment of the perpetrators of various offenses, including offenses that violate the Right to life (Burundi Code of Criminal Procedure 2018). However, while swiftly prosecuting and punishing crimes against the right to life can protect lives, it could also deny the defendant their right to life if the penalties include death or life imprisonment. For instance, the Burundi Code of Criminal Procedure (2018, arts. 268-279) outlines a specific process for investigating and trying cases where someone was, or is believed to have been, caught in the act. Overall, the Constitution of Burundi provides that the rights and duties proclaimed by the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the International Bill of Human Rights shall be an integral part of the Constitution (Ouguergouz, 2003).

International Human Rights Law serves as the foundational framework governing Burundi’s legal landscape. Central to this framework is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a landmark document outlining fundamental rights and freedoms to which all individuals are entitled. To bolster these protections, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights were subsequently adopted. These treaties, collectively known as the International Bill of Human Rights, establish specific obligations for states, including Burundi, to respect, protect, and fulfill the rights enshrined within them. By ratifying these instruments, Burundi has committed to upholding these fundamental rights for its citizens. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is a set of rules designed to protect civilians, wounded soldiers, and prisoners of war during armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions are the foundation of IHL, outlining basic principles for humane treatment. To address modern warfare, the additional Protocols provide more specific regulations. By studying these conventions and protocols, we can understand how IHL applies to potential conflicts in Burundi, ensuring that humanitarian principles are respected.

Furthermore, by calling treaties “an essential component” that is “integrated” into the legal framework (Burundi’s Constitution, art 19), the Burundian Constitution strengthens the idea of a monist system. This suggests that treaties become part of Burundian law upon ratification, with self-executing provisions likely taking effect without further domestic legislation. Overall, the Constitution of Burundi incorporates the rights and responsibilities outlined in both the International Bill of Human Rights and the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights as fundamental laws of the country.Footnote 1 These rights and obligations are integral parts of the Constitution (Ouguergouz, 2003).

Galbraith (2017) asserts that how these agreements are implemented depends on specific provisions of the treaty itself. As is the case in numerous other nations, including the United States, certain treaties within Burundi contain provisions that directly impact citizens without necessitating the enactment of new legislation. These provisions take effect immediately upon ratification (Burundi’s Constitution, art 19). Others require Burundi to pass new domestic laws to fulfill the treaty’s specific requirements (Burundi’s Constitution, art 277 & 279). As stated earlier, Burundi mainly follows a monist system, where ratified treaties automatically become part of domestic law and can be enforced in national courts. This aligns with Article 19’s language describing treaties as “integrated” into the legal framework. In a dualist system, on the contrary, ratified treaties are separate from domestic law, requiring additional legislation to become enforceable.

The case of Gaëtan Bwampamye illustrates the evocation of international human rights treaties into Burundian courts: In 1997, Gaëtan Bwampamye, a former principal of a medical school in Ngozi province, northern Burundi, was unfairly tried and sentenced to death by the Ngozi Court of Appeal (Avocats Sans Frontières (on behalf of Bwampamye) v. Burundi, ACHPR, Comm. No. 231/99 (2000)). This unjust sentence was part of a larger trend in Burundi, where hundreds of people faced execution after 1996 without proper legal recourse. Gaëtan Bwampamye ‘s lawyer refused to give up and appealed to the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Burundi is a signatory), arguing that the lack of proper legal representation deprived Gaëtan Bwampamye of a fair trial. In 2000, the African Commission upheld the lawyer’s argument, ordering Burundi to fully implement the ruling. This required reopening the case and aligning Burundian law with the African Charter.

Despite the above-mentioned legal provisions, Burundi’s ability to protect and promote the right to life has been severely compromised by ongoing challenges since independence in 1962 (Ndikumana, 1998, 2005). Political and security crises, including civil wars and human rights violations (Shyaka, 2008), coupled with poverty and limited access to basic services and information (Sentamba, 2005), have resulted in the country’s failure to consistently comply with international standards.

The international legal framework surrounding the right to life in Burundi is robust, establishing it as a fundamental human right. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) establishes this right as fundamental in Articles 1 and 2, requiring analysis of how Burundi’s national laws correspond. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further strengthens this right in Articles 6(1), 7, and 9, imposing obligations on Burundi to protect it through legislation, with limited exceptions. Evaluating Burundi’s legal framework, particularly regarding restrictions placed on Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), is crucial to assess its alignment with these articles. The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) adds another layer of protection through Article 4, guaranteeing the right to life. An exploration of how the ACHPR complements the ICCPR is necessary, along with an investigation of how CSOs might leverage this instrument to advocate for improved legal protections in Burundi. These instruments collectively establish the right to life as absolute and non-derogable. They obligate Burundi as well as other states to not only respect this right but also take positive measures to shield it from threats by both state and non-state actors. Furthermore, they require effective investigations into violations and ensure accountability for perpetrators.

Burundi’s legal system presents a complex picture. While it shares some key features with international standards, significant challenges hinder its effectiveness in upholding human rights and the rule of law. On the positive side, Burundi’s codified legal system and adherence to international treaties demonstrate a commitment to established legal frameworks (Burundi Constitution, art 19; Ouguergouz, 2003). However, serious concerns arise when examining the practical application of these principles (Niyonkuru, 2017).

Burundi risks significant consequences for violating international law protecting the right to life. These include potential international legal action, such as sanctions or tribunal referrals. Politically, the nation could face diplomatic isolation and expulsion from international bodies. Its global reputation and legitimacy would also suffer. Moreover, such disregard for international law could weaken its overall effectiveness by encouraging impunity.

Burundi’s persistent disregard for international human rights law, particularly the right to life, could have severe consequences. Internationally, it could face targeted sanctions from the UN Security Council or the African Union, including trade restrictions, aid cuts, travel bans, or even military intervention (ISS/PSC Report, 2016). Legal challenges at the ICJ could result in binding judgments and reparations. Diplomatic relations might suffer, leading to isolation and condemnation from the international community. Economic growth is hindered by reduced foreign investment and aid, as international sanctions and a damaged reputation deter global engagement (Roel and Lionel, 2020). Individuals face increased risks of human rights abuses, including extrajudicial killings, torture, and disappearances, while the erosion of the rule of law prevents victims from seeking justice. This climate of fear and repression stifles civil society, silencing dissent and undermining public trust in institutions. Ultimately, these abuses can lead to displacement, economic hardship, and the breakdown of social cohesion, with the most vulnerable populations bearing the brunt of the consequences (Savard, 2024). Ultimately, non-compliance undermines the credibility of international law and the global effort to protect human rights. To be effective, the threatened consequences for violating international agreements must be severe enough to deter states from such actions (Downs, 1998).

Municipal legislation and judicial decisions

Municipal legislation

To enforce this right, the Criminal Code (Burundi Criminal code, 2017) criminalizes all the acts that violate the Right to Life (Articles 202–210). The perpetrator or co-perpetrator of any of the acts constituting the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes is punishable by life imprisonment (Art. 202); Anyone who conceives or plans the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes is liable to life imprisonment (Art.203); Anyone who publicly orders or incites the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes is liable to life imprisonment (Art. 204); Natural or legal persons convicted of the crime of genocide, a crime against humanity or a war crime are liable to at least one of the additional penalties set out in Article 60 such as public presentation of the condemned man, temporary or permanent withdrawal of driving licence, etc. (Art. 205); Anyone who subjects a person to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment shall be punished by penal servitude for ten to fifteen years and a fine of one hundred thousand to one million Burundian francs (Art. 207); The offense is punishable by the penal servitude of twenty in certain circumstances (Art. 208/1-5); Torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment resulting in permanent mutilation or disability, or accompanied by sexual assault, is punishable by twenty years’ imprisonment. It is punishable by life imprisonment when it results in the death of the victim (Art. 209); No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification for torture (Art. 210).

Judicial decisions

On 11 May 2018, Burundi introduced expedited legal processes to prosecute and impose penalties on individuals responsible for multiple offenses, including those that infringe upon the Right to Life. These changes were implemented through Act No. 1/09, which revised the country’s Code of Criminal Procedure. One example is the particular set of rules governing the investigation and trial of cases in which the accused is believed to have been apprehended while committing the crime, such as in flagrante delicto proceedings RMP22317/NP (RP 8358) by the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Bujumbura province (Burundi Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 268 to 279). If torture by a public official in the performance of his or her duties is duly established, and if the victim has duly lodged a civil claim, full compensation for the damage shall be paid by the State (Art. 349); in the event of compensation for the victim of torture, the State may take recourse action against the torturer, his co-perpetrators and accomplices (Art. 350).

Another point is about the abolition of the death penalty. Burundi’s 2009 abolition of the death penalty, following its last execution in 1997 (Case of Gaëtan Bwampamye), exemplifies the substantial global decline in capital punishment. Since 1976, more than 85 nations have ended the practice, demonstrating a clear shift away from its use (The Death Penalty Information Center, 1976). However, Burundi has yet to solidify its commitment by ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which specifically addresses the abolition of the death penalty.

To combat torture and violence against women, Burundi has also undertaken significant legal reforms. The Burundian constitution has recently enacted laws explicitly prohibiting torture and any cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. This legal framework is further strengthened by a progressive law (Amnesty International, 2023) that specifically addresses violence against women. This new law offers a clearer definition of rape, bans harmful traditional practices, and, importantly, provides crucial support services for victims. However, reports from Human Rights organizations (Amnesty International, 2023) indicate a significant gap between these laws and their enforcement (UN-ICCPR, 2023). There are documented cases of torture (IWACU News, 2021) by security forces and the Imbonerakure (US Country report, 2022).

One such case involves Simon, who, after refusing to participate in the elections, was arrested and tragically died in custody on March 18, 2018. Human rights activists attribute his death to “acts of torture.” Iwacu reporters Fabrice Manirakiza and Rénovat Ndabashinze investigated the incident. Another example comes from an anonymous interviewee in Gitega province. On March 23, 2019, National Congress for Liberty (CNL) member Pasteur Nshimirimana was attacked by Imbonerakure, allegedly led by Théogène Ndorimana. The attack left Nshimirimana severely injured and in police custody, where he was denied medical care (US Country Report, 2019).

Following established laws, acts that endanger life are serious offenses in Burundi, and the penalties can be severe. The following arguments provide an overview of criminal offenses, including homicide, unlawful killings, and acts of violence, and their associated penalties. It’s important to note that these are just some penalties for acts that endanger life in Burundi. The specific penalty imposed in a particular case depends on the facts of the case, such as the intent of the offender and the severity of the harm inflicted.

Burundi’s Penal Code defines murder as the intentional killing of another person (Art. 212), it goes beyond ordinary murder by specifying which types of murder are qualified as a Right to Life (Art. 215). The penalty for the Right to Life violations varies from two months to life imprisonment (Art. 215; Art. 216; Art. 217; Art. 219; Art. 221). Extrajudicial killings are the deliberate murders of individuals by state officials or other actors without any legal process. These unlawful executions, often targeting political opponents, activists, or vulnerable groups, are carried out by those in positions of power, such as government officials, as well as by non-state entities like militias and death squads (Amnesty International, 1993). Notwithstanding, prosecutions may be pursued according to applicable articles, including those about homicide or the unlawful killing of a designated individual. The penalty in such cases would depend on the specific circumstances, but could also include life imprisonment. Coming back to the poor implementation of established laws against the right to life violation, these unlawful killings are not explicitly addressed in a single statute within Burundi’s penal code. There is also a gap within these laws, such as the fact that extrajudicial killings are not specifically addressed in the Burundi penal code.

Burundi’s ambiguous stance on human rights, despite abolishing the death penalty, is evident in its failure to ratify the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This lack of clarity, combined with the absence of strong judicial interpretations of the right to life, has allowed the Burundian justice system to overlook human rights violations. Despite documented cases of extrajudicial killings, disappearances, and torture by organizations like TRIAL International, the Burundian authorities have consistently failed to address these concerns effectively (case of the Family of the late Jackson Ndikuriyo v. Burundi (Communication 473/14) [2022] ACHPR 8 (2 August 2022)). The effectiveness of Article 24’s human rights guarantees in Burundi is questioned by international criticism. A UN committee’s review highlighted concerns about extrajudicial killings and the government’s handling of torture and disappearances. While the government claims to investigate these issues, the committee relies on evidence from NGOs, suggesting a discrepancy between the two accounts. This divergence highlights a fundamental disagreement between the UN and Burundi regarding the state of human rights in the country.

Human rights reports and academic studies cases

Reports and research converge that Burundi’s legal system is plagued by several significant shortcomings that compromise its capacity to safeguard Human Rights and maintain the integrity of the rule of law.

Judicial independence

One major concern is the absence of an official government-funded legal aid program, which places disadvantaged individuals at a severe disadvantage in legal proceedings (Niyonkuru, 2021). This issue is especially acute for low-income populations who lack the financial means to hire legal representation, resulting in unequal access to justice (World Justice Challenge, 2021). This lack of access to legal representation is further exacerbated by a judicial system that has been compromised (Niyonkuru, 2021).

In 2015, a political crisis dealt a severe blow to public confidence in the court system. Alarming reports emerged of judges being subjected to pressure and threats to favor the government, raising red flags about political interference (Trial International, 2020). Such interference compromises the judiciary’s autonomy and objectivity, leading to a perception of partiality. This perception, in turn, dissuades citizens from pursuing legal remedies if they suspect that the courts cannot provide unbiased judgments (Trial International, 2020). Adding to this concern, independent organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have documented instances of government pressure and intimidation directed at judges and lawyers (Human Rights Watch, 2022). This fear of reprisal weakens judicial independence and undermines fair trials (Amnesty International, 2020). When judges cannot act impartially, political considerations may influence legal decisions, further eroding public trust in the justice system.

Access to justice

The legal system in Burundi is multifaceted, incorporating written law, customary law, and informal mechanisms. This presents a unique challenge, particularly for women. Customary law has been known to discriminate against women, and navigating the formal system proves to be difficult as well. As a result, there is confusion and inconsistency in how laws are applied, ultimately leading to the further marginalization of women who already face social barriers that discourage them from pursuing legal claims (Amnesty International, 2020).

Burundi’s legal system faces significant challenges that compromise its capacity to safeguard Human Rights and enforce the rule of law. These shortcomings impose a significant obstacle to justice for Burundian citizens, despite constitutional assurances of fair trials and access to justice. A crucial issue is the selective enforcement of laws, which the International Crisis Group (2019) has documented. The government employs the legal system to suppress opposition and stifle dissent, while those guilty of Human Rights violations go unpunished (Human Rights Watch, 2022). This undermines the fundamental principle of a fair and impartial system, which requires equal application of the law to all.

Corruption

Furthermore, corruption within the legal system weakens its effectiveness. Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index (2022) consistently places Burundi at a low rank, which suggests a high level of perceived corruption. This can create opportunities for exploitation and impede the accessibility of justice. Despite the presence of an anti-corruption unit (Special Anti-Corruption Brigade, 2006; Anti-Corruption Court, 2006), reports suggest that corruption remains a persistent issue, enabling bribery and manipulation of the system.

Legal restrictions

The restrictions imposed on civil society and the curtailment of freedom of expression only serve to worsen existing issues. In 2022, the Special Rapporteur, Mr. Fortuné Gaetan Zongo revealed the limited scope for independent voices, thereby impeding their capacity to scrutinize Human Rights violations and campaign for legal improvements (UN Human Rights Council, 2022). Such restrictions impede open discourse and transparency, both of which are fundamental to a robust legal framework. The justice system appears to be inaccessible and inefficient, with limited resources and an overburdened court system resulting in delays and high costs (Trial International, 2020). This financial burden renders justice unattainable for many citizens, especially those residing in rural areas, discouraging them from seeking legal redress. This perpetuates the cycle of impunity and weakens the rule of law.

In summary, the gaps in Burundi’s legal system pose a significant challenge in safeguarding citizen rights and can even be exploited to suppress opposing voices. This erodes the very foundations of the law and gives rise to instances of Human Rights violations. To establish a fair and secure society in Burundi, it is imperative to tackle these concerns via measures that prioritize impartiality, legal autonomy, and civil freedoms.

Challenges and limitations

Judicial decisions and challenges

Despite current legal provisions, there have been concerns about the implementation and enforcement of Human Rights in Burundi (Niyonkuru, 2017). The country has been the subject of accusations of pervasive human rights violations, characterized by extrajudicial executions, torture, arbitrary arrests, and the suppression of freedoms of expression and association (ICC, 2017). These violations have been documented by various Human Rights organizations and have led to international condemnation (US Country Report, 2023). Furthermore, in 2017, Burundi withdrew from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC) (Human Rights Watch, 2016), making it difficult to hold individuals accountable for Human Rights abuses through international mechanisms (Yudan, 2024; BC-ICC, 2017; Kibangula, 2016). The withdrawal, which was decided by the Republic of Burundi on October 27, 2016, took effect after pre-trial ICC judges authorized the ICC prosecutor to open an investigation into alleged crimes committed in Burundi or by nationals of Burundi outside Burundi (ICC, 2017).

In Burundi, the judiciary system and law enforcement are crucial in preserving the Right to Life. The judiciary’s role is to interpret laws about violence, guarantee fair trials, and establish legal precedents for future cases (Fahed, 2002). For instance, the Germain Rukuki Case (2018) established the Rukuki rights, protecting individuals from self-incrimination during arrest. This ensures a fair trial and reduces the risk of wrongful convictions that could lead to life imprisonment, which may, in turn, lead to torture or death casualty. According to BJSFootnote 2 and The Policy CircleFootnote 3, Law enforcement has to prevent criminal activities, apprehend perpetrators, probe into fatalities, and ensure justice. In this regard, in 2019, Burundi put in place a law concerning the improvement of the public prosecutor’s office, which is the organic law on the missions, organization, and operation of the Superior Council of Public ProsecutorsFootnote 4. Nevertheless, various obstacles impede their effectiveness.

One of the primary hurdles in upholding justice is the issue of judicial independence (Freedom House, 2022). The independence of the judiciary underpins the rule of law and is essential to the functioning of democracy and the observance of human rights. According to Niyongabo and Sindayigaya (2023), there are valid concerns about political interference in trials, which can impede the fair investigation of Human Rights violations, particularly those involving government officials.

Adding to the problem is corruption (Freedom House, 2022) within law enforcement, further undermining the integrity of the system. According to Logan (2017), 40% of surveyed Burundians affirmed that most or all judges and magistrates are corrupt (Wambua and Logan, 2017). Tragically, this creates an environment where violence and killings go unpunished, disregarding the fundamental Right to Life (Trial International, 2017 & 2020). Additionally, political agendas can influence investigations, putting the lives of government critics in jeopardy (Niyonkuru, 2017).

Further, ensuring a delicate balance between the right to self-defense and the Right to Life is a significant challenge for both the judiciary and law enforcement, and the use of force by law enforcement must be carefully scrutinized to ensure it is proportionate and upholds the Right to Life (Murdoch and Roche, 2013).

Another area of concern is the unequal application of the law, necessitating that the judiciary address the possibility of biases in law enforcement practices.Footnote 5 According to Sentamba (2005), insufficient resources pose an added challenge to the effectiveness of the system. Amnesty International (1999) and Human Rights Watch (2023) have also noted that judges lacking proper training may conduct flawed investigations and administer unfair proceedings, resulting in arbitrary arrests and extended detentions that disregard due process.

These challenges have created a state of impunity, where even government officials can evade accountability for their actions. One illustrative case is that of R.F., a victim of rape perpetrated by a Burundian soldier in 2016. Despite a police and prosecutorial investigation, the subsequent trial was characterized by numerous irregularities. Predictably, this overt bias culminated in the soldier’s acquittal in 2017 (TRIAL International, 2020).

Unfortunately, this increase in violence has discouraged victims from seeking legal recourse or reporting crimes. Referring to cases monitored by TRIAL International (2020, p.16), the limited capacity of the Burundian justice system further weakens its ability to protect the Right to Life, with resource constraints leading to delays, prison overcrowding, and ultimately, a weakened ability to protect citizens. Additionally, inadequate training in Human Rights and investigative techniques hinders the effectiveness of law enforcement.

Burundi faces challenges, but positive steps are being taken towards judicial reform. President Ndayishimiye has called for reforms, but the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) (UN-OHCHR, 2021) emphasizes the need for more concrete actions. A clear path forward exists for Burundi if it strengthens judicial independence, a crucial element in ensuring fair trials and perpetrator accountability. Additionally, reforming law enforcement through human rights training, proper investigation procedures, and combating corruption can rebuild public trust in the system. Finally, independent investigations into past human rights violations are necessary to deter future abuses. Burundi’s current framework offers an opportunity to protect the Right to Life, but substantial reforms in independence, training, and accountability are needed to safeguard Burundians.

The implementation gap in Burundi’s human rights framework

Burundi’s commitment to human rights, underscored by the abolition of the death penalty and ratification of key international treaties (ICCPR, ACHPR, CAT, ICESCR), presents a façade of robust legal protection. However, this formal framework starkly contrasts with the lived experiences of its citizens. A profound chasm exists between the letter of the law and its practical application, rendering many legal safeguards strong on paper but distressingly weak in reality. This disconnect is not merely a procedural flaw; it is a critical failure that directly translates into a denial of justice and perpetuates human rights abuses, laying bare the urgent need for substantive reform.

The roots of this gap are deeply embedded in systemic deficiencies within Burundi’s legal and political landscape. The judiciary, intended as a bulwark of justice, frequently buckles under executive overreach, leading to politically motivated prosecutions and undermining its independence (U.S. Country Report, 2022). This is compounded by pervasive corruption, including bribery and nepotism, which erodes public trust and creates an uneven playing field where justice is often for sale (Wambua and Logan, 2017; U.S. Country Report, 2022). Furthermore, the country’s history of political instability and conflict has cultivated a culture of impunity and left a legacy of laws ill-suited to fostering peace (Popplewell, 2018; Uvin, 2009). Weak enforcement mechanisms, insufficient investigations, resource constraints, and the complex interplay between customary and codified laws further exacerbate these challenges, ensuring that accountability remains elusive.

The tangible consequences of these legal failings are borne by the Burundian people, particularly the disadvantaged and those in rural areas. Limited access to legal representation and justice leaves many vulnerable to abuse and unable to assert their fundamental rights. Persistent reports of severe human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and restrictions on civil liberties (Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect, 2024; U.S. Country Report, 2022; ICC, 2017), paint a grim picture of the human cost of this implementation crisis. The Right to Life, though enshrined in law, is thus systematically undermined by a justice system that fails to protect, investigate, or prosecute effectively. This stark reality, where legal protections are often illusory, directly informs the critical need for the recommendations that follow, aiming to bridge this devastating gap between legal promise and the daily struggles for justice and security faced by Burundians.

Conclusion and recommendation

To evaluate the effectiveness of Burundi’s legal framework in protecting the Right to Life, this study examined its constitution, local legal systems, and international treaties. While Burundi has incorporated the Right to Life into its legal framework, the analysis revealed significant gaps in implementation, including limited enforcement mechanisms, a culture of impunity, and deficiencies in the justice system. These shortcomings creating a gap between the legal framework and its practical application support our thesis that Burundi’s legal framework for protecting the Right to Life is inadequate due to weak implementation. To address these shortcomings, Burundi must prioritize accountability for violations, enhance access to justice for all citizens, and address implementation issues. Given these limitations, further research is necessary to strengthen Burundi’s legal protections for the Right to Life. Future research could delve deeper into specific areas of concern, such as how customary law interacts with the formal legal system, the impact of resource constraints on enforcement, or the effectiveness of legal aid programs in protecting vulnerable populations. Additionally, examining the experiences of civil society organizations working on these issues could also provide valuable insights. Despite positive elements, this study demonstrates that significant inadequacies remain in Burundi’s legal framework for protecting the Right to Life.

Areas of concern, impact and recommendations

Areas of concern

Burundi’s legal framework, though seemingly robust, is hindered by a significant gap between its theoretical provisions and practical implementation. The absence of strong enforcement mechanisms and the presence of legal loopholes allow human rights violations to persist, particularly those perpetrated by powerful individuals.Footnote 6 This discrepancy undermines the effectiveness of the legal system in safeguarding the right to life. As a result, the country’s human rights landscape remains marred by impunity, despite the existence of progressive laws. This finding aligns with the observations of Niyonkuru (2017) and Vandeginste (2009), who both emphasize the limited impact of legal safeguards on the country’s human rights conditions.

Burundi faces significant challenges in ensuring a fair and impartial judiciary. Judges often succumb to external pressures or lack the necessary resources to uphold the law consistently (Sentamba, 2005; UN Human Rights Council, 2022). Numerous reports consistently emphasize the lack of judicial independence as a major obstacle to accessing justice (Niyonkuru, 2017). This lack of judicial independence hinders access to justice and undermines the court’s ability to protect human rights. Selective law enforcement, as highlighted by Human Rights Watch in 2022, further erodes public trust in the legal system. The government’s alleged use of the law to target critics while shielding its officials breeds a deep sense of injustice.

Corruption throws another wrench into the system.Footnote 7 Widespread corruption across various levels of government, where bribes are seen as normal for basic services, weakens trust in institutions and the rule of law itself (Rufyikiri, 2016). Even anti-corruption agencies are ineffective due to a lack of proper monitoring (ICG, 2012). Without strong enforcement mechanisms, legal deterrents against corruption lose their power (Burundi penal code, chap 2). Government initiatives like the “zero tolerance”Footnote 8 campaigns have proven ineffective, discouraging citizens from reporting and hindering efforts to build accountability (Nininahazwe, 2018). Finally, restrictions on civil society organisations and Human Rights defenders further weaken the legal framework (Hurtado, 2023; USAID, 2019; Buyse, 2018). Without a free and active civil society, holding the government and right-to-life abusers accountable becomes even more difficult.

Impact of these weaknesses

Weak enforcement mechanisms create a vicious cycle that undermines the legal system in Burundi. Inconsistent enforcement erodes public trust. People lose faith that the law applies equally, and some may resort to vigilantism (Ivanov, 2023). This creates a climate of impunity, where criminals are not held accountable, and Human Rights abuses become more likely. Even well-written laws become meaningless if not enforced, leaving citizens without adequate protection. This cycle is further fueled by corruption. A corrupt legal system discourages investment and development, creating more opportunities for illegal activities and perpetuating the cycle.

A progressive legal framework on paper offers little comfort if not reflected in reality. This gap between ideals and practice creates a situation where rights exist in theory but not in practice. This is particularly troubling for fundamental freedoms like freedom of speech and assembly, creating a chilling effect on democracy and civil society. Loopholes in the law allow individuals to circumvent it with impunity (Nkurunziza, 2022). This weakens the rule of law and creates a perception of a two-tiered system: one for the rich and powerful, and another for everyone else. Loopholes hinder efforts to promote justice and accountability, creating a climate of impunity where people feel they can act without repercussions. An independent judiciary is essential for the rule of law. When the judiciary is not independent, it cannot be an impartial check on government power. This creates an environment where political or other influences can manipulate judicial outcomes. Corruption further erodes public trust in institutions. When people see officials abusing power for personal gain, they lose trust in the government’s ability to serve their interests (Zongo, 2023). This discourages investment, creates an uncertain business environment, and diverts resources away from essential services like education and healthcare.

Burundi needs to strengthen its legal system by improving law enforcement, judicial independence, access to justice, and respect for the rule of law. Currently, weak enforcement mechanisms hinder the legal system’s effectiveness.

Recommendations

Burundi’s weak legal system hinders accountability for crimes and protection of human rights, especially the right to life. To address this, a comprehensive plan is needed to strengthen laws, law enforcement, the judiciary, human rights education, and specific measures to safeguard the right to life. This involves improving the legal framework, enforcement mechanisms, and supporting civil society and public education.

Legal reforms

To better protect human rights, Burundi should revise its penal code to explicitly outlaw extrajudicial killings and consider abolishing the death penalty by ratifying the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Additionally, a comprehensive review of domestic laws is necessary to ensure full compliance with international human rights standards.

Institutional strengthening

To ensure accountability for human rights abuses in Burundi, particularly those affecting the right to life, the government must invest in thorough investigations, impartial prosecutions, and a strong, independent judiciary. Effective witness protection programs are essential to encourage cooperation. Additionally, reconsidering withdrawal from the International Criminal Court (ICC) could enable international oversight and potential prosecution of human rights violations.

Civil society support

Empowering civil society organizations is crucial for documenting human rights violations and advocating for the Right to Life. Law enforcement and judicial personnel require comprehensive training in human rights law and best practices to enhance the justice system’s effectiveness. To achieve lasting peace and stability, Burundi must address the root causes of violence, including economic inequality, political exclusion, and inter-ethnic tensions. Protecting human rights defenders and civil society organizations working to uphold the Right to Life is essential, as they are at the forefront of promoting human rights. Collaborating with international human rights organizations and tribunals can strengthen Burundi’s capacity to investigate and prosecute human rights violations.