First, let me comment on your initial remark.
Senators travelled to Congo on one occasion, when that investigation was conducted into public development aid in Africa, and they came back safe and sound. The parliamentary group from Great Britain, which has now been in existence since 1994, goes there every year. So it's feasible. The parliamentary groups from Belgium and the Netherlands also travel there easily. I recall that Canada was the first foreign investor in Congo. It has an interest there.
With regard to your point, I don't agree with you on the term "institutionalized rape" that you used. The Congolese are not rapists by nature. However, the example has come from above. The fact that so many rapes have been committed undermines moral and legal order. In that part of Congo, where war has been raging since 1994, society has been broken down to such an extent that, for example, a child soldier who returns to his village with his rifle has more authority and often more means, resources and money than the traditional chief. So when the traditional chief says something to those youths, they beat him. All social and moral order is completely undermined.
I wanted to emphasize one point. You're right: the central government does not concern itself with this issue. The department of communications, for example, very regularly told us certain things when the special rapporteur on sexual violence conducted that on-site visit. What did the minister of communications say? He said that it was false, that the Congolese don't rape and that it was foreigners—the Rwandans, the Ugandans and the MONUC soldiers—who were doing it. There is a lack of any awareness.
For very simple reasons, the hierarchy, the political and military chains of command there, are very closely knit. The politicians, the generals in Kinshasa—they don't conceal this—benefit directly from this insecurity. So they'll protect those members in the field.