Millions of deaths automatically constitute genocide

The gravity of a crime does not automatically qualify it as genocide. The 1948 UN Convention requires proof of specific intent to destroy a protected group — dolus specialis. These crimes are crimes against humanity: equally grave, equally prosecutable today.

Criticising FONAREV is tantamount to opposing reparations for victims

It's the opposite. CAYP itself — founders of the term 'genocost' — denounced FONAREV as a 'farce'. Criticising a fund that retains 97.5% of the money collected is defending the victims. Silently approving it is betraying them.

Independent documentation · 2022–2026

Congolese civilians are dying today.

Q: FONAREV is a reparations fund for victims

Between January 2024 and June 2025, FONAREV raised over USD $212 million. Less than 2.5% — roughly $5 million — reached beneficiaries, in the form of a school renovation and a memorial construction. Over $207 million was redirected toward prestige memorials, concert productions, international travel, and, according to financial investigators, private accounts connected to President Tshisekedi's inner circle.

Q: "The Tutsis" constitute a collectively guilty group for genocide

This formulation — taken from FONAREV's official website — attributes collective guilt to an entire ethnic group spread across three countries. Tutsi people are not a state, an army, or a political organisation. Imputing collective responsibility to millions of civilians based on their ethnicity is the exact mechanism that preceded the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

Q: A genocide must be recognised by the international community

The ICC has been investigating crimes in the DRC since 2004 — over twenty years. It has not issued a genocide determination. The UN Mapping Report (2010) documents serious crimes without retaining this qualification. A genocide ruling requires proof of specific intent to destroy a group — dolus specialis — which no international court has established for eastern DRC.

Q: The GENOCOST narrative presents a complete picture of the conflict

The FDLR — a terrorist organisation designated by the US State Department, whose founding leadership included architects of the 1994 genocide — are not mentioned in FONAREV's official documents. The documented military coordination between the Congolese army and this organisation does not appear. Thirty years of a genocidal militia's presence on Congolese soil are erased from the narrative.

Q: Supporting an armed group is legally equivalent to committing genocide

Supporting an armed group and committing genocide are two legally distinct things. No international court has established this equivalence for the Congolese conflict. The FDLR — present in the DRC for over 30 years, with a founding leadership implicated in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi — constitute, for their part, a documented case systematically ignored by the official narrative.

Their suffering demands honest words, real justice, and money that actually reaches them. This site poses one question: Are FONAREV and GENOCOST truly serving these victims — or exploiting them?

Read the guide

$212M

raised in the name of victims

< 2,5 %

distributed to identified victims

$1,6M

for a single ceremony · August 2, 2025

I — STARTING POINT

A non-negotiable reality

Men, women, and children were killed in North Kivu, South Kivu, Ituri, and beyond. Villages burned. More than seven million people fled their homes. This is not a position — it is a fact.

This site poses a single question: Are FONAREV and GENOCOST truly serving these victims — or are they exploiting them?

II — FONAREV

What is FONAREV?

In plain terms

Imagine a large piggy bank. People are told: 'Put some money in — it's for the war victims in the DRC.' The piggy bank fills up: $212 million.

Now imagine that most of it is used to organise conferences and build monuments. In the end, the victims receive less than 2.5 cents for every dollar raised.

This is FONAREV. A government fund created by presidential decree in 2022. The founders of the term 'Genocost', CAYP, called it a 'farce' in June 2026.

The facts

1FONAREV is under the direct control of the Congolese Ministry of Human Rights — it is not an independent body.
2Of the more than $212 million collected in 2024–2025, less than 2.5% was distributed to identified victims.
3Over $1.6 million spent for the single inauguration ceremony on August 2, 2025.
4Complaint filed in Brussels in September 2025 against the Tshisekedi family for embezzlement of FONAREV funds.
5CAYP — founders of the term 'genocost' — denounce FONAREV as a 'farce' (June 2026).

III — GENOCOST

What is GENOCOST?

In plain terms

The word 'genocost' was coined in 2013 in a London apartment by Congolese activists in the diaspora. This is not a legal ruling. It is a neologism.

Imagine two children in a schoolyard. One has been hit — those responsible have been punished. That's settled. The other says: 'I've been hit too — we're the same.' Without proof. Without an investigation.

The word 'genocide' has a precise definition. Using it without meeting its criteria does not honour the victims — it weakens the protection of all victims of genocide worldwide.

The facts

1Term coined in 2013 by CAYP, the Congolese diaspora in London. No basis in international law.
2The 1948 UN Convention requires dolus specialis — the specific intent to destroy a protected group. No international tribunal has established this for the DRC.
3Conflicting start dates: 1885–1908 — colonial exploitation and mass violence (FONAREV), 1993 (FONAREV), 1996 (Lebrun), 1998 (CAYP). Temporal imprecision is fatal in criminal law.
4The UN Mapping Report (2010) — cited as a basis — calls for an investigation. It is not a verdict.
5First FONAREV definition: 'massacres of Bantu people by Tutsis'. Ethnic framing that reproduces and reverses the logic of the Tutsi Genocide in Rwanda in 1994.
6Scientifically, 'Bantu' is a linguistic classification, not an ethnic one. Kinyarwanda — spoken in Rwanda and by Congolese Tutsi — also belongs to the Bantu language family. Used literally, 'genocide against the Bantu' would therefore include Rwandans and Congolese Tutsi themselves.
7Second FONAREV definition: 'a genocide perpetrated for economic gain'. Under this conception, deaths in the DRC result from economic predation that sacrifices human life for material interests.
8Patrick Fata (Director General of FONAREV): 'We shouldn't talk about the genocide of the Congolese, it doesn't exist.'

IV — Q&A

7 claims · 7 truths

Read each claim on the left, then the factual answer.

TRUTH

Between January 2024 and June 2025, FONAREV raised over USD $212 million. Less than 2.5% — roughly $5 million — reached beneficiaries, in the form of a school renovation and a memorial construction. Over $207 million was redirected toward prestige memorials, concert productions, international travel, and, according to financial investigators, private accounts connected to President Tshisekedi's inner circle.

Source: The Great Lakes Eye; financial investigation reports 2024–2025

TRUTH

This formulation — taken from FONAREV's official website — attributes collective guilt to an entire ethnic group spread across three countries. Tutsi people are not a state, an army, or a political organisation. Imputing collective responsibility to millions of civilians based on their ethnicity is the exact mechanism that preceded the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.

Source: FONAREV, official website (fonarev.cd)

TRUTH

The ICC has been investigating crimes in the DRC since 2004 — over twenty years. It has not issued a genocide determination. The UN Mapping Report (2010) documents serious crimes without retaining this qualification. A genocide ruling requires proof of specific intent to destroy a group — dolus specialis — which no international court has established for eastern DRC.

Source: ICC, DRC situation (opened 2004); UN Mapping Report 2010

TRUTH

The FDLR — a terrorist organisation designated by the US State Department, whose founding leadership included architects of the 1994 genocide — are not mentioned in FONAREV's official documents. The documented military coordination between the Congolese army and this organisation does not appear. Thirty years of a genocidal militia's presence on Congolese soil are erased from the narrative.

Source: UN Group of Experts Reports on DRC 2023–2025; UNSC Resolution 1804

TRUTH

Supporting an armed group and committing genocide are two legally distinct things. No international court has established this equivalence for the Congolese conflict. The FDLR — present in the DRC for over 30 years, with a founding leadership implicated in the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi — constitute, for their part, a documented case systematically ignored by the official narrative.

Source: ICC, jurisprudence on genocide complicity; UN Panel of Experts, 2023–2025 reports

In-depth analysis →

V — THE RIGHT WORDS

Why the right words honour the true victims

In plain terms

If your kitchen burns down, the police call it arson. That precise word triggers laws, courts, and real help. If someone calls it all-out war on families, no one can intervene.

The word 'genocide' works in this way. Its precision triggers specific legal obligations. Diluting it does not serve the victims — it deprives them of protection.

The Lumbala trial in Paris (December 2025) proves that justice for crimes in the DRC is now possible — without an unrecognised concept, thanks to universal jurisdiction.

The facts

1The word 'genocide' creates specific obligations under the 1948 Convention. Diluting it weakens them for all victims of genocide worldwide.
2Crimes against humanity and war crimes are now prosecutable. The Lumbala trial (Paris, Dec. 2025) demonstrated this.
3The inflation of the figures (3 to 15 million) undermines the credibility of all claims, including the most legitimate ones.
4Bemba (Deputy Prime Minister): leader of a militia condemned by the ICC. Lumbala: sentenced in Paris in December 2025. Kinshasa had requested his extradition.
5A government that protects perpetrators and seeks to shield a convicted person from international justice destroys its own moral credibility.

VI — PARTICULARITIES

The particularities of the term 'Genocost'

In plain terms

According to FONAREV, the term 'Geno-cost' designates a genocide perpetrated for economic gain. This concept emphasises the idea that the violence ravaging Congolese territory is not the product of fatality or spontaneous hatred, but the result of economic and financial predation that sacrifices human life.

The facts

1In the case of the genocide against Jews, the perpetrators were the Nazis, targeting a distinct population — with no organised support from Jews themselves. In the DRC, by contrast, many crimes are committed by Congolese against other Congolese.
2Rapes perpetrated by Congolese against Congolese women are regularly documented. Congolese participate in or become complicit in the destruction of their own population, notably through systematic pillaging of the country's wealth.
3This predation deprives the population of considerable resources that could have been devoted to fighting poverty, disease, and the consequences of environmental mismanagement.
4The thousands of deaths resulting from economic exploitation of the DRC by colonial powers or international corporations are well documented. The 'Genocost' concept does not account for them and focuses on a period of approximately thirty years.

Key point

There is no questioning of the need to establish accountability for crimes committed in the DRC. However, the use of the concept of 'Genocost' remains controversial: it is legally imprecise and is instrumentalised for political purposes, notably to implicate Rwanda. This concept tends to blur the distinction between the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda — established in international law — and crimes or conflicts that have not received this qualification. It is also presented as an instrumentalisation of victims of violence in the DRC aimed at denying or relativising the genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda.

This project

GenocostExposed is an independent documentation project, not affiliated with any government, political party, or advocacy organisation. It documents FONAREV's claims against financial investigations, international law, and verified primary sources.

Our method

Every claim is sourced to primary documents — financial investigation reports, UN resolutions, international court records. Where the record is incomplete, we say so.

Full dossier →Timeline →Context →