Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a Central African country bordering the Republic of the Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia, and Angola, with a short Atlantic coastline. Independent since 1960, the DRC is a member of the African Union and participates in regional and international policy frameworks related to governance, cultural heritage, and restitution.
Capital:
Kinshasa
GPS Coordinates:
-4.3196982,15.3424196
Official Language:
French
Population:
109.3 million (2024)
Field of Practice
PROCHE project collaboration
Objectives:
PROCHE is a project looking into the origins of the works and objects currently in the AfricaMuseum’s collections, the vast majority of which come from Restitution of historical objects between DRC and Belgium. This project involves collaboration between Belgian and Congolese institutions.Led by Célia Charkaoui, the project was launched in the context of the Bill of July 3, 2022 on ‘Recognizing the Alienability of Goods Linked to the Belgian State’s Colonial Past and Determining a Legal Framework for Their Restitution and Return. The project involves collaboration with the Institut des musées nationaux du Congo (IMNC), the academic sector, and other heritage institutions in the DRC to research provenance.
Restitution Measures:
The systematic provenance research creates documentation necessary for identifying objects eligible for restitution under Belgian law.
Framework Limitations:
The project had a limited timeframe (2023-2025), creating pressure to research 83,000+ objects within a short period. Three-month researcher placements may be insufficient for comprehensive provenance investigations of complex colonial-era acquisitions. The project focuses solely on AfricaMuseum collections, excluding Congolese objects in other Belgian institutions or private collections. PROCHE provides research findings but cannot itself execute restitution; outcomes depend on subsequent political decisions and bilateral negotiations between Belgium and DRC governments.
The Colonial Sources (CoSo) Project
Objectives:
The CoSo project aims to develop a digital platform as a gateway to archives and knowledge about the shared Belgian, Burundian, Congolese and Rwandan colonial past. The CoSo portal aims to bring together existing but still fragmented collections and information. The CoSo project involves multiple countries – Belgium, Burundi, the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Rwanda – indicating a comprehensive approach to addressing colonial archives and heritage across the former Belgian colonies. The project represents a significant effort to digitise and make accessible colonial-era archives and documentation that are currently scattered across different institutions and countries, facilitating research and potentially supporting restitution efforts.
Restitution Measures:
None.
Framework Limitations:
CoSo focuses on archival access and educational tools. Restitution is not mentioned as a goal.
Ministerial Committee
Objectives:
The DRC appears to engage in restitution efforts primarily through high-level ministerial involvement rather than dedicated working groups. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Heritage, Yolande Elebe Ma Ndembo, met with experts from the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Tervuren, Celia Charkaoui and Nicolas Nikis. The objective is to develop policies for restitution and repatriation of Congolese heritage and conduct research on Congolese patrimony. This high-level ministerial approach focuses on bilateral diplomatic negotiations and policy development rather than technical working committees.
Restitution Measures:
This is somewhat addressed through direct ministerial meetings with Belgian museum experts to discuss restitution policies and overcome research obstacles through technical agreements. The minister engages in high-level diplomatic channels to establish frameworks for bilateral cooperation on heritage return, working alongside the Belgium-DRC Joint Committee established in 2022.
Framework Limitations:
This ministerial approach depends heavily on the individual minister’s engagement and expertise. Lacking permanent institutional structures or dedicated technical committees, continuity depends on ministerial priorities and political will. This process requires sustained diplomatic engagement and technical agreements that may be vulnerable to changes in political leadership or ministerial appointments.
Restitution Joint Committee
Objectives:
Belgium proposed the establishment of a joint committee composed of experts from both countries on an equal basis, starting in 2022. The two countries are proposed to form a joint research committee to examine belongings that may have been looted during the colonial era.
Restitution Measures:
In February 2022, the AfricaMuseum in Belgium handed over a list of some 84,000 artifacts in its inventory to the DRC. In 2022, Belgium passed a restitution law, allowing for returns to former Belgian colonies once bilateral agreements are concluded.
Framework Limitations:
The committee’s effectiveness depends on bilateral cooperation and political will between both nations. Success relies on completing complex provenance research across 84,000 objects, requiring sustained funding beyond the initial four-year period. The framework addresses only Belgian-held collections, excluding Congolese artifacts in other countries’ museums and private collections.
Comité Consultatif National pour la protection des biens culturels en cas de conflit armé en République Démocratique du Congo (National Advisory Committee for the Protection of Cultural Property in Case of Armed Conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo)
Objectives:
The CCN is part of a collaborative initiative addressing threats to DRC’s cultural heritage, which faces destruction, looting, and trafficking exacerbated by ethnic, political, and socio-economic tensions. The committee focuses on systematic protection measures and capacity building for heritage preservation during conflicts and emergencies.
Restitution Measures:
None.
The project aims to provide basic tools for heritage management, protection, conservation, valorisation and promotion, but restitution is not mentioned as a goal.
The CCN works with international organisations like ICOMOS, with funding from the ALIPH Foundation to train heritage professionals on methodologies and tools for preparing general inventories of heritage sites. These inventories create documentation essential for identifying stolen or trafficked objects and supporting restitution claims. The systematic cataloguing approach provides evidence bases for recovery efforts.
Framework Limitations:
Operating in a conflict-affected environment is significantly challenging. Ongoing ethnic, political, and socio-economic tensions limit access to heritage sites and impede systematic documentation efforts. The committee’s collaborative approach depends on international partnerships and funding, creating sustainability challenges. The CCN’s work focuses on heritage inventory and protection, not specifically restitution.
Institut des Musées Nationaux du Congo (IMNC)
Objectives:
Established by Presidential Ordinance No. 70-089 on March 11, 1970, IMNC is a state-run cultural institution serving as the repository of the Democratic Republic of Congo’s material and intangible cultural heritage. It manages national museums in Kinshasa and provinces, ensuring protection of artworks, monuments, archaeological sites, and objects of public historical interest.
Restitution Measures:
IMNC’s mandate includes preservation, exhibition, and promotion of national museums, positioning it as the primary institutional framework for receiving repatriated cultural objects. Its strategic focus on Heritage, Personnel, and Public engagement creates structured approaches for managing returned cultural patrimony. As the official guardian of Congolese cultural heritage, IMNC provides the institutional infrastructure necessary for processing restitution claims and integrating recovered objects into national collections.
Framework Limitations:
The institute operates within domestic boundaries, lacking direct authority to negotiate international restitution agreements. Its effectiveness depends on government diplomatic initiatives and international cooperation beyond its institutional control. Limited resources and capacity constraints may affect its ability to actively pursue restitution claims or adequately manage large-scale returns of cultural objects from international collections.
The East African Community Customs Management (Amendment) Act 3 of 2019
Objectives:
This Amendment Act modifies the East African Community Customs Management Act 2004, governing customs procedures across EAC Partner States. It establishes updated protocols for cross-border trade and customs administration within the regional economic community.
Restitution Measures:
None.
Section 248A introduces advance binding rulings mechanisms, allowing persons to apply to the Commissioner for pre-import determinations on tariff classification, rules of origin, and customs valuation. The Act makes no explicit mention of cultural property or restitution.
Framework Limitations:
The Act focuses primarily on commercial customs procedures rather than cultural heritage restitution. The Commissioner retains discretionary authority over advance rulings and may refuse applications without specific provisions for cultural property. Section 248A’s scope is limited to standard customs determinations, lacking specialised mechanisms for cultural heritage returns. The framework applies only within EAC Partner States, excluding broader international restitution efforts, and cultural property returns must navigate general trade regulations rather than heritage-specific protocols.
2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage
About:
The 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage is an international agreement to protect and promote non-material cultural heritage; The Intangible Cultural Heritage Convention deals with practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills that communities recognise as their cultural heritage; communities and bearers are key actors for safeguarding and transmission; experts are associated.
Restitution Measures: None.
Framework Limitations: The element must be nominated following widest possible participation of community, group or individuals concerned with their free, prior consent
The Common African Position (CAP) on Restitution of Heritage Resources (2024)
Objectives:
This common position paper builds on the AU Charter for African Cultural Renaissance and AU Model Law on Cultural Property Protection, outlining nine priority areas with recommendations for national, continental, pan-African, and international action levels.
Restitution Measures:
The framework establishes comprehensive priorities including heritage resource restitution, identification and inventories, management systems, education and awareness programs, engagement with regional parliaments and national assemblies, youth and diaspora involvement, media and civil society participation, cooperation and partnership development, and arts/culture/creative industries support. The 9 areas outlined for restitution are as follows: – Priority 1: Restitution of Heritage Resources – Priority 2: Identification and Inventories – Priority 3: Management of Heritage Resources – Priority 4: Education and Awareness – Priority 5: African Regional Parliaments and National Assemblies – Priority 6: Youth and Diaspora – Priority 7: Media and Civil Society – Priority 8: Cooperation and Partnership – Priority 9: Arts, Culture and Creative Industries. These priorities create systematic approaches for addressing restitution across multiple sectors and stakeholder groups.
Framework Limitations:
The document explicitly lacks binding authority and legal power, functioning purely as policy guidance. It cannot compel state action or enforce compliance with its recommendations. Implementation depends entirely on voluntary adoption by individual African states and regional bodies. Without legal mechanisms or enforcement powers, the framework’s effectiveness relies solely on political commitment and available resources. The broad scope across nine priority areas may also create implementation challenges for countries with limited capacity or competing development priorities.
African Union Model Law on the Protection of Cultural Property and Heritage (2022)
Objectives:
This framework supports protection and restitution of Africa’s illicitly acquired and stolen heritage resources by providing guidance for developing or strengthening national legislation on cultural property protection. It serves as a reference document for African states seeking to establish comprehensive heritage protection frameworks.
Restitution Measures:
Article 27 specifically addresses restitution provisions within cultural property protection instruments. The Model Law provides standardized approaches for incorporating restitution mechanisms into national legislation, establishing legal foundations for recovery claims. It was referenced in ECOWAS’s 2019-2023 Regional Action Plan for Cultural Property Return, demonstrating practical application across regional frameworks.
Framework Limitations:
As a model law, it lacks binding legal authority and requires individual state adoption through domestic legislation. Countries and regional communities must independently source all resources needed for implementation, creating significant capacity and funding challenges. The framework cannot enforce compliance or guarantee implementation consistency across different African states. Its effectiveness depends entirely on political will, available resources, and each nation’s legal system capacity to transform model provisions into enforceable domestic laws with practical restitution mechanisms.
AU Charter for African Cultural Renaissance
Objectives:
A commitment by member states to pursue restitution and to put in place infrastructure for the return of belongings and human ancestors.
Restitution Measures:
The Charter contains explicit restitution articles. Article 27 states that States should take steps to put an end to the pillage and illicit traffic of African cultural property and ensure that such cultural property is returned to their country of origin. According to Article 27, States should take the necessary measures to ensure that archives and other historical records which have been illicitly removed from Africa are returned to African governments in order that they may have complete archives concerning the history of their country.
Framework Limitations:
The Charter lacks enforcement mechanisms and procedural structures for claims.
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)
Objectives:
It establishes a universal framework of minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of the Indigenous peoples of the world and it elaborates on existing human rights standards and fundamental freedoms as they apply to Indigenous peoples. Article 34 of the framework endorses the freedom of Indigenous Peoples to determine their institutional structures and their distinctive customs.
Restitution Measures:
Article 11(2) states that States shall provide redress through effective mechanisms, which may include restitution, developed in conjunction with indigenous peoples, with respect to their cultural, intellectual, religious and spiritual property taken without their free, prior and informed consent or in violation of their laws, traditions and customs. The UNDRIP was adopted by the UN General Assembly on September 13, 2007.
Framework Limitations:
Implementation has been challenging, due to discrimination, incompatibility with national laws, lack of involvement in decision-making. The primary limitation is that It is not legally enforceable through international courts.
UNESCO Intergovernmental Committee for Promoting the Return of Cultural Property to its Countries of Origin or its Restitution in case of Illicit Appropriation (ICPRCP) (1978)
Objectives:
This committee operates complementary to the 1970 UNESCO Convention framework, facilitating bilateral negotiations between countries for cultural property return and restitution. With 147 state ratifications as of March 2025, it encourages nations to conclude formal agreements for cultural heritage recovery.
Restitution Measures:
The Committee provides mediation services, technical expertise, and diplomatic channels for negotiating returns. It offers neutral ground for discussions, helping establish protocols for identifying, documenting, and transferring cultural objects. The framework enables systematic approaches to restitution claims while respecting both origin and holding countries’ legal frameworks.
Framework Limitations:
Despite broad ratification, the Committee lacks enforcement powers and relies entirely on voluntary cooperation. Its recommendations are non-binding, limiting effectiveness when countries refuse participation. The framework cannot compel returns or override domestic laws protecting current holders. Additionally, the Committee’s mandate focuses primarily on post-1970 illicit transfers, potentially excluding many colonial-era claims. Success depends heavily on political will, diplomatic relationships, and mutual agreement rather than legal obligation, creating inconsistent outcomes across different bilateral negotiations.
The UNESCO 1970 Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property
Objectives:
The UNESCO 1970 Convention establishes a framework for State Parties to prohibit and prevent illicit import, export and transfer of cultural property.
Restitution Measures:
Article 7 outlines specific restitution procedures: upon diplomatic request from the origin State, another State Party must seize and return stolen cultural property from museums, religious institutions or public monuments within its territory. Key requirements include proper documentation proving the object’s institutional inventory status, and the requesting State must provide supporting evidence for its claim. Importantly, good faith purchasers or legal title holders are entitled to just compensation from the requesting State.
Framework Limitations:
However, international conventions lack binding legal authority unless ratified by individual member states. This means sovereign nations are not mandated to implement these restitution approaches, significantly limiting the Convention’s practical enforcement power. The framework’s effectiveness ultimately depends on voluntary state compliance and domestic legislative implementation rather than international legal obligation.
UNESCO Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of Armed Conflict
Objectives:
The 1954 Hague Convention represents the first universal international agreement exclusively dedicated to protecting cultural property during armed conflict. It safeguards diverse cultural assets including architectural monuments, historical sites, archaeological locations, artworks, manuscripts, books, scientific collections, and objects of artistic, historical, or archaeological significance, regardless of origin or ownership.
Restitution Measures:
The Convention establishes frameworks for returning displaced cultural property to countries of origin following conflicts, creating legal precedents for post-war cultural recovery and mandating occupying powers to prevent cultural property removal.
Framework Limitations:
However, significant constraints exist. The Convention’s effectiveness depends heavily on state ratification and voluntary compliance during active conflicts. Enforcement mechanisms are limited, particularly when dealing with non-state actors or in situations where international legal authority is disputed. Additionally, the framework primarily addresses wartime scenarios rather than broader colonial-era restitution claims, limiting its applicability to contemporary cultural property disputes between nations seeking redress for historical injustices.
