The ICJ's case page records that the Democratic Republic of the Congo instituted proceedings against Rwanda on 26 June. Congo's application concerns the conflict in eastern DRC and alleges violations attributable to Rwanda from 1996 to the present. Reuters reported the same day that Congo accused Rwanda of breaching conventions including those on genocide, racial discrimination and torture, and asked the court to order Rwanda to stop the alleged violations and award reparations to Congo and victims.
Those are allegations, not findings. The legal value of the filing is that it frames Congo's long-running accusation against Rwanda through specific treaty gateways. The ICJ cannot simply hear any dispute between two states because the facts are grave. It must have jurisdiction through consent, treaty clauses or another accepted legal route.
That is why the old case matters. In Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo, new application 2002, the ICJ said in 2006 that it lacked jurisdiction over Congo's claims against Rwanda. The court's record of that case shows the earlier application was dismissed before the merits were reached. In plain terms, Congo did not lose because the court found Rwanda's conduct lawful; it lost because the court said it had no power to adjudicate the dispute.
The new filing is designed to avoid that dead end. By invoking treaties that contain compromissory clauses, Congo is trying to give the court a jurisdictional hook that the earlier case lacked. The legal test will be technical, but its political consequence is straightforward: without jurisdiction, the case will not become a merits judgment on Rwanda's alleged role in eastern Congo.