Court Establishes Reparations Process

By | Published August 13, 2012

Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued a 94 page decision describing the process for victims to collect reparations. The order, issued following the decision to sentence Thomas Lubanga Dyilo to 14 years imprisonment after having been found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity as leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots for conscripting and using child soldiers in his rebel army in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The court ordered that most of the processing of claims be delegated to the Trust Fund for Victims which welcomed its new role in a statement. The trust fund reports that it has €1.2 million in its fund for reparations, and that 85 victims have made application for reparations in the Lubanga case and more than 8,000 victims overall.  All applications are to be turned over to the trust fund, though the court will maintain oversight and approve the details.  The court described “five step process:”

First, the TFV, the Registry, the OPCV and the experts, should establish which
localities ought to be involved in the reparations process in the present case
(focusing particularly on the places referred to in the Judgment and especially
where the crimes committed).  Although the Chamber referred in the Article
74 Decision to several particular localities, the reparations programme is not
limited to those that were mentioned. Second, there should be a process of
consultation in the localities that are identified. Third, an assessment of harm
should be carried out during this consultation phase by the team of experts.
Fourth, public debates should be held in each locality in order to explain the
reparations principles and procedures, and to address the victims’
expectations. The final step is the collection of proposals for collective
reparations that are to be developed in each locality, which are then to be
presented to the Chamber for its approval.

The American Non-Governmental Organizations Coalition for the International Criminal Court, (AMICC) reviewed and discussed the decision here, noting:

The Chamber noted that since Thomas Lubanga was found to be indigent, reparations will be financed by the Trust Fund for Victims, which tends towards collective reparation

Suggestions by victims and victims groups about the form reparations should take seemed to fall into three categories: reparations to empower victims economically and to stimulate local economic development, reparations to help heal the physical and mental health of victims, and symbolically (sic) reparations like a memorial.

The Trust Fund for Victims welcomed its substantial role in the reparations process and hailed the decision as “a historic milestone for victims of international crimes.” The Fund was set up by the ICC’s governing body, the Assembly of State’s Parties (ASP) in 2002 and currently has a total income of $5.5 million. $2.7 million has been set aside for grants in the DRC and Uganda.

Although the Chamber’s decision is not binding on future cases, the principles and procedures set out may be used by future Trial Chambers where they are practicable. It is possible that in a future case, where a defendant has means, a Trial Chamber may order individual reparations, or a combination of individual and collective reparations.

It appears from the decision that the direction of the court is to order collective rather than individual reparations. If the test is whether or not a convicted party has the means to make whole the victims of the kind of mass atrocities that would come before the court, then it is hard to imagine the defendant with the resources to make to make whole hundreds or thousands of victims after having spent some time in pre-trial detention, trial and appeal.

Lubanga was the first person to be tried, convicted and sentenced by the court, as previously described on this blog:

 Lubanga was brought to the court in May of 2006, his trial began in January 2009.  The defense began presenting its case in January 2010.  The case was stopped in 2009 to consider the addition of charges at the request of victims, and for other reasons throughout the trial, failure to disclose evidence by the prosecution, transcription and translation errors, and other issues.  The case was submitted to the court after closing arguments in August 2011.

At one point, the trial chamber ordered Lubanga released, finding that he could not have a fair trial because of the failure of the prosecution to disclose evidence and comply with court orders.  That decision was overturned by the appeals chamber and the trial resumed.

 

Court Video on the Reparations Decision (In French).

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lubanga Found Guilty

By | Published March 14, 2012

By Jvhertum (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Schevenigen Prison in the Netherlands where ICC prisoners spend pretrial detention.


Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court (ICC) today announced a guilty verdict for Thomas Lubanga Dyillo in his war crimes trial in The Hague.  Lubanga was accused of recruiting and conscripting child soldiers as the leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots, (UPC) in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

According to the Lubanga Trial blog:

The ICC judges ruled that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that Lubanga is guilty of the crimes charged. Judge Adrian Fulford, Presiding Judge of the Trial Chamber, in delivering the verdict said that there was reasonable evidence to believe that Lubanga was involved in a recruitment drive for his UPC rebel group and that such drive included conscripting children and using them for combat purposes. The judges also found that Lubanga personally used children as his bodyguards.

Lubanga was the first accused brought into the custody of court. Lubanga was brought to the court in May of 2006, his trial began in January 2009.  The defense began presenting its case in January 2010.  The case was stopped in 2009 to consider the addition of charges at the request of victims, and for other reasons throughout the trial, failure to disclose evidence by the prosecution, transcription and translation errors, and other issues.  The case was submitted to the court after closing arguments in August 2011.

At one point, the trial chamber ordered Lubanga released, finding that he could not have a fair trial because of the failure of the prosecution to disclose evidence and comply with court orders.  That decision was overturned by the appeals chamber and the trial resumed.

The defense has a right to appeal the verdict to the appeals chamber.  Now that there is a verdict, the court may also begin the reparations phase and determine the appropriate amount and form of reparations to the victims recognized and allowed to participate in the case.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

What is Left of the Victims Right to Select Counsel?

By | Published September 26, 2011

Trial Chamber IV of the International Criminal Court, ICC, recently ordered that in the Sudan case currently moving towards trial, two lawyers will be representing all victims at the court.  The case, against alleged rebel leaders Abdallah Banda Aadaker Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jamus, is proceeding to trial on the following charges:

  • violence to life, whether committed or attempted, within the meaning of article 8(2)(c)(i) of the Statute;
  • intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission within the meaning of article 8(2)(e)(iii) of the Statute; and
  • pillaging within the meaning of article 8(2)(e)(v) of the Statute.

The court had previously confirmed the charges, a proceeding roughly equivalent to a probable cause hearing.  The question now, is can two lawyers adequately represent the victims in the case?  A question previously pondered here.   The court in the Bemba case, which has by far the largest number of victims, over 1,600 so far, started the trend by ordering two lawyers from the Central African Republic should be appointed as counsel.

Article 75 of the Rome Statute gave victims a right to seek reparations:

Article 75
Reparations to victims
1. The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims,
including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision
the Court may, either upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances,
determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of,
victims and will state the principles on which it is acting.
2. The Court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying
appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution,
compensation and rehabilitation.
Where appropriate, the Court may order that the award for reparations be made
through the Trust Fund provided for in article 79.
3. Before making an order under this article, the Court may invite and shall take account
of representations from or on behalf of the convicted person, victims, other interested
persons or interested States.
4. In exercising its power under this article, the Court may, after a person is convicted of
a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court, determine whether, in order to give effect
to an order which it may make under this article, it is necessary to seek measures
under article 93, paragraph 1.
5. A State Party shall give effect to a decision under this article as if the provisions of
article 109 were applicable to this article.
6. Nothing in this article shall be interpreted as prejudicing the rights of victims under
national or international law.

Article 68, Paragraph 3 gives the victims a right to participate and to counsel during the proceedings:

Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their
views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings
determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a manner which is not prejudicial to or
inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and
concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the Court
considers it appropriate, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

The ongoing question to be resolved will be, does the court’s practice of appointing very few lawyers prejudice that right?  Will the lawyers who undertake the responsibility be given the resources and opportunities to maintain proper contact with their clients?

The ICC, based in The Hague, Netherlands, has jurisdiction in the 118 nations that have signed on to the Treaty of Rome, or over their citizens, or in case referred to it by the U.N. Security Council, so far Libya and Darfur.  The court investigates charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide occurring within its jurisdiction since the founding of the court which was in 2002.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Are Victims Getting Short Shrift at the ICC?

By | Published July 18, 2011

Radio Netherlands reports that an NGO, REDRESS, believes the court is not focusing enough resources on the needs of victims. The REDRESS statement is available here. According to REDRESS:

Registry officials at the ICC have warned judges that they can’t
process the paperwork to enable victims to take part in crucial Court hearings, because they
simply have too few staff.

Earlier this month (4th July), Trial Chamber I ruled that hundreds of pending applications
from victims wanting to participate in the Callixte Mbarushimana confirmation of charges
hearing would be left out, because the Registry could not meet the deadline to process the
applications that had been set by the Court.

This decision will deny 470 victims who potentially qualify to participate in the case, a voice
during the confirmation of charges hearing, due to take place on 17 August 2011. This is
significant for victims who often perceive the Court as a remote institution and see the
confirmation of charges hearing as the first opportunity for their lawyers to make a
statement on their behalf.

The statement also offers the following comment:

“Victims are paying the price for the failure to properly resource the Registry. Victim participation is one of the most innovative features of the ICC, designed to involve in the justice process those most affected by crimes. Now, victims are finally coming forward to engage with the Court but the Court is not ready or capable to deal with them. If this resource issue is not resolved, victim participation will become a meaningless paper promise,” says Carla Ferstman, REDRESS’ Director.

The statement continued:

Mbarushimana is not the only case affected. In the Ruto case (Kenya) the Registry indicated
that it would only be able to process 400 out of 1800 applications. In the Muthaura case
(Kenya), the Registry also stressed that it would not be able to process all of the applications
from victims. So far, almost 2,000 victims are affected but the problem is likely to worsen in
the resource issue is not addressed.
The Court is finalising its Budget for 2012 which will soon be discussed with States that are
party to the Rome Statute, who are expected to pay. Despite the fact that the Court is now
working on many new investigations, including from Libya, Cote D’Ivoire and Kenya, some
States have been insisting on a ‘zero-growth’ budget from the previous year.
“States have recognised the importance of the Court by continuing to refer it new cases, but
have not matched this with adequate financial support. While recognising the financial
constraints on many States, why create a Court then prevent it from fulfilling its mandate?
Excluding victims from being involved in Court hearings is just another way to say they don’t
matter. This is the wrong signal to send to victims and affected communities.”

This is not the first time the court’s commitment to victim’s issues has been questioned.  Previously, in the Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo case, the court ordered that all recognized victims were to be represented by two lawyers.  Bemba has the largest number of participating victims,  1620 so far.  It is not clear how the two lawyers have an opportunity to establish a relationship with, or adequately represent, all the victims. Recently the Victims section has similarly solicited counsel to apply to be common legal representatives for all the victims in forthcoming Sudan and Kenya cases.

Victim participation in the proceedings is described in Article 68 (3) of the Rome Statute:

Where the personal interests of the victims are affected, the Court shall permit their
views and concerns to be presented and considered at stages of the proceedings
determined to be appropriate by the Court and in a manner which is not prejudicial to or
inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial. Such views and
concerns may be presented by the legal representatives of the victims where the Court
considers it appropriate, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

The question raised by both the Bemba order and the REDRESS statement is how the court will meet those obligations.  Do the current measures and increasing consolidation of representation adequately safeguard the victim’s interests?  What procedures and funds are in place to allow the counsel to adequately represent hundreds or thousands of victims?  Can any one or two lawyers adequately perform that function?

Victims have a right to offer their observations and arguments on motions before the court, offer some evidence and question witnesses.  Victims may also seek reparations from the court if a conviction is entered.  The exact form of those reparations is not yet known.  The first case, against Thomas Lubanga began in 2009 and is not yet completed.

The International Criminal Court sits in The Hague, The Netherlands.  It is a permanent court intended to punish War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity or Genocide occurring within the 115 nations that have ratified the Rome Statute, or situations referred to the court by the United Nations Security Council, as has happened in Darfur, Sudan, and Libya.  Ivory Coast has also accepted the jurisdiction of the court for crimes occurring in Post-Election violence, even though it is not a signatory to the treaty.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Office of the Prosecutor Announces Ivory Coast Investigation

By | Published June 17, 2011

The International Criminal Court (ICC), Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) announced today the opening of an investigation into post-election violence in Ivory Coast.  The ICC, located in The Hague, The Netherlands, has authority to prosecute war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide occurring in nations that have signed on to the treaty creating the court, or if referred by the Security Council of the United Nations, or when, as in Ivory Coast, the country has accepted jurisdiction, even though they are not a member state.

The notice states, in part:

By this notice, the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court informs victims of alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Côte d’Ivoire by any party following the presidential election of 28 November 2010 that he will shortly request authorization from the Pre-Trial Chamber II to open an investigation into such alleged crimes.

The Prosecutor notifies victims of the post-election violence in Côte d’Ivoire that they can send their comments to the Judges of the Pre-Trial Chamber II on whether an investigation on such alleged crimes should be opened. The victims or their legal representatives have 30 days from this notice to make representations to the Pre-Trial Chamber.

Victims who wish to make observations and are seeking to do so are encouraged to contact the Reparations Center for assistance.  The Reparations Center and attorney John L. Fossum are interested in providing assistance to those seeking to participate, share their information or seek reparations.  There is no fee for this service.

Victims have an opportunity at the ICC to participate in ongoing cases by making arguments, presenting evidence, and ultimately seek reparations if there is a conviction.  Reparations and the process are funded by the 114 nations that have ratified the Treaty of Rome, now known as the Rome Statute, the founding document of the International Criminal Court.

 

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Lubanga Disclosure Still an Issue

By | Published December 26, 2010

Trial Chamber I at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague has issued another decision in the ongoing battle over disclosures by the prosecution in the trial of  Thomas Lubanga Dyilo.  Lubanga’s trial commenced in January of 2009, the defense began its case in January 2010.  Testimony was to have been completed by now, but the chamber issued another decision on December 13, 2010 on disclosure.  The prosecution sought court approval for the names and evidence it has already withheld as “work product.”  The court did order the disclosure of some names and information previously withheld from the defense.

The prosecution had argued the notes of the investigators were not discoverable as they were work product.  The court previously issued a ruling evaluating the disclosure obligations of the Office of the Prosecutor in November, shortly after a ruling that prosecutor had violated its obligations.  In July, the trial chamber stayed the proceedings finding that a “fair trial … is no longer possible.” In October  the appeals chamber found that the trial chamber had not exhausted its power to sanction the prosecution for non-disclosure.  The fact that the prosecution did not disclose information it was ordered to disclose was not in dispute, the prosecution claimed it could not disclose the information because of its obligations to the governments and organizations that had provided the information.

The prosecution had been admonished by the trial chamber for failure to comply with disclosure orders in February 2010 for disclosures that should have been made “no later than December of 2009.”  The ongoing disclosure issues in this case highlight a conflict in the concept of the court and the obligations of the parties.  The Office of the Prosecutor is a semi-diplomatic office with obligations to the U.N. and nations which have provided information.  But in order to guarantee a fair trial it must also provide access to that information to the defense. The conflict has been that even when ordered by the court to disclose information, the prosecution argues that it’s diplomatic obligations prevent it from doing so.  Can the court offer fair trials without full disclosure?  The trial chamber has argued that it cannot but was overruled by the trial chamber with an eye towards greater sanctions on the prosecution.

Lubanga is the first case go to trial at the ICC.  He was brought before the court in 2006.  He is alleged to have been the leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots and is accused of conscripting and recruiting child soldiers in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the Rome Statute, the founding treaty of the ICC.  Lubanga is a citizen of the Democratic Republic of Congo.  The ICC has jurisdiction in the 114 nations that have ratified the Rome Treaty, or over their citizens who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity or genocide as defined by international law.

If there is a conviction in this case, the court could move on to the reparations phase where the victims of war crimes or crimes against humanity could seek orders of the court to make reparations from the funds of Lubanga, or from the trust fund for victims.  The ICC is the first international tribunal to offer a process for reparations and what form those reparations orders will take is still an open question.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Updates on Kenya Cases at the ICC

By | Published December 11, 2010

The Voice of America (VOA) has posted an article about the International Criminal Court (ICC) indictments in the post-election violence in Kenya arguing the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) will have problems delivering the indictments by December 17 as previously announced.  The VOA says that the OTP is having difficulty in getting the statements of security chiefs who are insisting they should give their statements to Kenyan judges not to OTP investigators.

The ICC has exercised jurisdiction over the 2008 post-election violence in Kenya with the approval of the Kenyan government.  The current difficulties indicate that there is at least some dissent in Kenya, and many think the prosecutions should occur in Kenya and not in The Hague.

The Episcopal Church in Kenya has urged cooperation with the ICC.  Reuters reports the OTP remains on schedule to issue indictments against at least six accused in the next week.

The ICC has jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide in the 114 countries that have ratified the ICC treaty, or committed by their nationals if those crimes can not or will not be prosecuted by national authorities.  Kenya has accepted that crimes within the jurisdiction of the court occurred in  Kenya in 2008 and invited the court’s investigation.  People who were harmed as victims in the post-election violence may be eligible to participate in the cases as victims and ultimately seek reparations from those convicted or from the Trust Fund for Victims.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Fourth DRC Suspect Arrested in France

By | Published October 11, 2010

The fourth person accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Callixte Mbarushimana has been arrested in France.  Mbarushima is listed as the Executive Secretary of the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda, (FDLR) and is accused of six counts of war crimes and was arrested outside his home in Paris to fact charges at the International Criminal Court, (ICC) in The Hague, Netherlands.

The warrant naming Mbarushimana was unsealed after his arrest, raising the question  of how many other sealed indictments and warrants await public disclosure.  The ICC press release on the arrest of Mbarushimana is available here. Bloomberg news covered the story here.

According to a fact sheet released by the ICC:

 In sealed documents submitted to the ICC
judges on 20 August 2010, the Office of the
Prosecutor (OTP) presented evidence against
Mr. Callixte MBARUSHIMANA, Executive
Secretary of the FDLR, charging him with 6
counts of war crimes and 5 counts of crimes
against humanity.
 The Court’s Pre‐Trial Chamber I issued a
sealed arrest warrant on 28 September 2010.
 On 11 October 2010, the French authorities
executed the arrest warrant and arrested Mr.
Callixte MBARUSHIMANA in Paris, France.

The fact sheet describes the allegations as follows:

 Mr. Callixte MBARUSHIMANA is accused
of being among the top FDLR leaders that, at
the end of 2008 and over the course of 2009,
agreed to conduct widespread and systematic
attacks against the civilian population in order
to create a humanitarian catastrophe. He is
also accused of agreeing to conduct and
personally conducting an international
campaign intended to persuade the DRC and
Rwanda Governments and the international
community that the FDLR could not be
defeated militarily and thereby to extort from
them concessions of political power for the
FDLR in Rwanda as a condition for the FDLR
to stop committing atrocities against civilians.
 The OTP accuses Mr. Callixte
MBARUSHIMANA, as part of the FDLR
leadership, of having used violence against
civilians as their main bargaining tool in their
international campaign to attempt to extort
from Rwanda and the international
community political power for the FDLR.
 The OTP accused Mr. Callixte
MBARUSHIMANA of being responsible for
the crimes committed by the FDLR in pursuit
of this goal as contributor to the commission
of crimes by the FDLR, a group acting with a
criminal common purpose.
 As such, the OTP alleges that Mr. Callixte
MBARUSHIMANA is responsible for the war
crimes of (1) attacks against the civilian
population; (2) destruction of property; (3)
murders or willful killings; (4) rape; (5)
inhuman treatment; and (6) torture, and the
crimes against humanity of (1) murders; (2)
torture; (3) rape; (4) inhumane acts; and (5)
persecution.

Mbarushmina is the first accused at the ICC to face charges for crimes alleged to have been committed in the Kivus provinces of the DRC.  The three accused from the DRC who are presently at the ICC are in trial.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo former head of the Union of Congolese Patriots was brought to the court in 2006, his trial began in January 2009, with the defense case beginning in January 2010.  His trial was adjourned for failure by the prosecutor to disclose the identity of an investigator, but is expected to resume shortly.

Germain Katanga and Matthieu Ngdolo Chui are also from the DRC and are being tried together.  Their trial commenced on November 24, 2009.  Katanga and Chui are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity including, using child soldiers, sexual slavery, attacking civilians, rape and pillaging.

Those are the only cases to come to trial in the history of the ICC.  A third trial, that of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, of the Central African Republic accused of rape and murder as crimes against humanity and rape, murder and pillaging as war crimes is awaiting the end of the  Lubanga trial in order to start trial.

The ICC began in 2002 when the 60th nation ratified its treaty, as of November 1, there will 114 nations that have ratified the treaty and subjected their citizens to the jurisdiction of the ICC.

Three citizens of Sudan, which is not a state’s party to the ICC have appeared before the court voluntarily to face charges.  The first, Bahr Idriss Abu-Garda had his case dismissed at the confirmation of charges hearing.  Two others, Abdallah Banda Abakaer Nourain and Saleh Mohammed Jerbo Jermus are awaiting the confirmation of charges hearing after appearing voluntarily in June of 2010.

There are outstanding warrants for the arrest of Omar Hassan Al-Bashir, the president of Sudan for genocide and war crimes, Ahmed Harun, minister of Humanitarian Affairs in Sudan and the leader of the Janjaweed Militia, Ali Kushayeb. The case against Al-Bashir is the most controversial, having raised concerns about the indictments of sitting heads of state. Al Bashir is the first sitting head of state to be indicted for war crimes or crimes against humanity by an international tribunal.

There have been public indictments issued from investigations in Uganda, and the prosecutor has announced the indictments will be published in the next few months in the investigations into post-election violence in Kenya.

The prosecutor of the ICC, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has also said there may be investigations into crimes within the jurisdiction of the court in Afghanistan, Colombia,  Georgia, and  Guinea.  At the moment, the only publicly disclosed investigation are from five contiguous countries in Africa, DRC, Central African Republic, Kenya, Uganda and the Darfur region in Sudan.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

International Criminal Court Issues Another Warrant for Sudanese President Bashir

By | Published July 12, 2010

The International Criminal Court (ICC) Pretrial Chamber I has issued another arrest warrant for the President of Sudan, Omar Al-Bashir.  This decision follows an earlier direction from the appeals chamber, detailed here, that determined that the Pre-Trial Chamber had used the wrong standard in failing to indict Bashir for genocide.

Bashir is the first sitting head of state to be indicted by an international tribunal and have a warrant issued for his arrest, he now also bears the distinction of being the first person to be indicted for genocide by the International Criminal Court and the first person for whom an arrest warrant for genocide was issued.  There are now two arrest warrants out for Bashir.  The ICC’ press release is available here.

The situation in Darfur was referred to the ICC by the U.N. Security Council. Sudan is not a signatory to the  ICC treaty.  Bashir and the minister of Humanitarian Affairs in Sudan, Ahmad Harun are the Sudanese government officials who have been indicted.  Ali Kushayab, reputed head of the Janjaweed militia has also been indicted.  None of those three have appeared before the court.  Three other accused from Sudan have appeared voluntarily before the court.  Of the three who have voluntarily appeared, one,  Bahar Idriss Abu Garda had his case dismissed at the confirmation of charges hearing.  The other two are awaiting their confirmation of charges hearings.

Sudan was referred to the ICC for investigation of crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide.  Several victims have been granted the right to participate in these cases when they commence.  Persons who are victims of war crimes have a right to participate in the ICC cases and to seek reparations if there is a conviction.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 6 Comments

Victims Motivated by a Desire to be Heard

By | Published July 2, 2010

In an interview with the Open Society Institutes blog on the Lubanga Trial, Paolina Massidda of the International Criminal Court’s Office of Public Counsel for Victims has stated that the victims participating in the Lubanga Trial are interested in telling their stories, not in collecting reparations.  The interview is available here.

The International Criminal Court (ICC), created by the Treaty of Rome, has a unique process where the victims of war crimes are eligible to seek reparations for the harms they have suffered.  The ICC has determined that the victims are allowed an opportunity to participate in the cases as they proceed and to seek reparations after a conviction.  The reparations are to be paid by a fund supported by fines paid by those convicted and by contributions from the 111 governments which are the state’s parties to the court.

Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was the first person to be brought before the ICC.  He was the leader of the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) in the Democratic Republic of Congo and is accused of war crimes including conscripting and using child soldiers in his army.  Lubanga was brought to the court in 2007, his trial commenced in January 2009, the defense began presenting its case in January of this year.

Posted in International Criminal Court | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment
« Older
Easy AdSense by Unreal

Switch to our mobile site