A/HRC/16/68 estimate of the costs entailed. In the plan, the Government fails to define, in a concrete manner, measurable targets to be met and actions to be taken to implement the recommendations. While the document contains some benchmarks, these are not specific and action-oriented enough for implementation to be evaluated. In addition, the provisory cost estimates for the implementation of each recommendation are unclear, given that the facts and figures on which these estimates are based are lacking. Finally, the prioritization of the recommendations lacks precision and a specific timeline. 4. The experts also regret that the Government responded to only two of the 29 urgent appeals and allegation letters sent jointly or individually by four of the seven thematic special procedures mandate holders since they were requested to report on the human rights situation in the country in March 2008.3 III. Development of the human rights situation 5. The overall human rights situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo remains of serious concern, as highlighted in the most recent reports submitted by the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/16/27), the Secretary-General (S/2010/512) and the Group of Experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo of the Security Council Sanctions Committee (S/2010/596), as well as the 13 communications sent by four of the seven thematic special procedures mandate holders since March 2010.4 6. In her report, the High Commissioner noted that the human rights situation in the country had not improved since her previous report. The situation remains extremely worrying, especially in the eastern part of the country, where the United Nations Joint Human Rights Office in the Democratic Republic of the Congo continued to document serious human rights violations and grave breaches of international humanitarian law committed by national security forces and armed groups. Most violations are linked to the conflict and committed in the framework of operations conducted by the national armed forces (Forces armées de la République démocratique du Congo (FARDC)), against armed groups and/or in reprisal against these operations by armed groups, including combatants of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), the Democratic Forces of Liberation of Rwanda (Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (FDLR)) and Mai Mai groups.5 7. The High Commissioner also stressed that sexual violence remains a cause of major concern not only in the eastern part of the country but throughout the rest as well. From 30 July to 2 August 2010, at least 380 women, men and children were raped in 13 villages in Walikale territory, in North Kivu, by a group of armed men belonging to FDLR, members of Mai Mai Cheka and combatants affiliated with a former FARDC member who founded his own armed group in early 2010. Security forces reportedly also committed many rapes during the reporting period.6 The experts note with satisfaction that a number of cases of sexual violence attributed to FARDC members has been investigated and the perpetrators have been prosecuted by military courts. In particular, they welcome the recent decision by a military court in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, which, for the first time, sentenced a high-ranking commander for crimes against humanity for having sent his troops to rape, beat and loot the population in Fizi on 1 January 2011. Besides sending a clear signal that sexual violence in conflict would not be tolerated, this verdict shows that accountability for sexual violence is possible when the political will is there. 3 4 5 6 See Human Rights Council resolutions 7/20 and S-8/1. See in particular A/HRC/16/44/Add.1. A/HRC/16/27; see the summary and para. 3. Ibid., para. 4. 5