Common law (adversarial systems)
Victims may report the offence & have limited role as a
witness (big issue is not to interfere w equality of arms), in some instances may submit victim impact statements
â Compensation is obtained through a separate civil law claim
Civil law (inquisitorial systems)
Greater scope for participation âin their own rightâ as full fledged
participants
no bifurcation of parties, so victims can help assist
Scandaviann: sui generis participants in their own right, extensive involvement
German: victims on the side of prosecution, act as auxiliary prosecutor
French: criminal trial conducted as usual, but there will be civil parties - partie civile with private interests and reparations are included within thecriminal process
Evolution of victim participation: Nuremberg
No form of participation or reparation other than ability to testify as a witness
Live testimony did not have to be included because of the amount of documentation/paper testimony left by the Nazis
-> victims had a very very minor role
post 1985 Victim's Declaration and Van Boven/Bassiouni Principles, which although they are non-binding instruments, encouraged making systems more victim friendly & prevent secondary victimisation by governing access to justice and fair treatment of victims
Evolution of victim participation: ICTY/R
Ad hoc tribunals did not really allow for victim participation, other than in the role of witnesses
so only if able to provide legal information/aid the legal process â adversarial system
once that process was finished, no aftercare system to help protect them
Criticized by formed pres of ICTY, argued for inclusion of victim reparations, never implemented because it was rejected
this mandate was highly criticized because victims sidelined when objective of statute was to "bring justice to the victims"
especially relevant at ICTR -> Rwanda civil law system; so victims were accustomed to taking a more active role (so felt almost abused by adversarial process)
MICT art. 18: important terminology â trials be conducted with âfull respect for the rights of the
accused and due regard for the protection of victims and witnessesâ, because in ICC 64(2)
still, even at the ICC, still a trend that victim participation is subject to the right of the accused and a fair trial
Evolution of victim participation: ICC
Extensive provisions on victim participation â incl. representation & reparations (improved, but still always balanced against the rights of accused)
Move away form purely retributive justice paradigm â novel system in comparative law terms
Most progressive but also the most vague due to the degree of discretion afforded to the Chamber (decisions made on case-by-case basis)
Can initiate proceedings regarding protective measures and reparations - in all other proceedings, they are participants whose involvement is dictated by Art. 68(3) - prioritises the rights of the accused
Art. 64(2) âThe Trial Chamber shall ensure that a trial is fair and expeditious and is conducted with full respect for the rights of the accused and due regard for the protection of victims and witnessesâ
Art. 68 RS
Protection of Victims and Witnesses and their participation in the proceedings
68(3) â all other forms of participation
Criticism ICC victim participation
Criticisms:
Inefficient and unsustainable â exemplified in the existing backlog
A potentially harmful experiment in a still fragile system (see Zahar and Sluiter, âInternational Criminal Law: A Critical Introductionâ)
Victim participation risks upsetting the balance between the parties, and may infringe upon the rights of the accused
Regime is insufficient and does not adequately meet the rights and interests of victims
Since the ICC Victim Participation system
ECCC â participate as civil parties and may claim moral and collective reparations
STL â participatory rights with civil claims being raised before national courts
KSC â participate, have legal representation and may obtain reparations from the convict
Extraordinary African Chambers in Senegal â may participate and obtain reparations as civil parties
ICC Victim Participation: Protection and Special Assistance legal framework
Art. 68(1)-(2): âappropriate measures to protect the safety, physical and psychological well-being, dignity and privacy of victims and witnessesâ in particular those of SGBC / violence against childrenâ
Must not be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused
May âconduct any part of the proceedings in camera or allow the presentation of evidence by electronic or other special means.
RPE 17: Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU)
Outlines the functions of the VWU; including providing adequate protective and safety measures & medical, psychological and other appropriate assistance
RPE 87: âChamber may order measures to protect a victim, a witness or another person at risk on account of testimony given by a witnessâ pursuant to article 68(1)-(2)
Important because if key witness and they withdraw testimony, case can fall asart
Includes redactions, pseudonyms, closed sessions, testimony by special means
Those with dual status may not retain their anonymity vis-Ă -vis the defence â must assume a more active role when presenting their views and concerns to the Chamber
Chambers will adopt least intrusive measures possible
relocation is always considered as a last resort (concerns on behalf of person/family but also the state)
Factors that might change victim protection/vulnerability
Likelihood of exposure makes them vulnerable to reprisals
Security/privacy concerns or a generally volatile security situation
Age, gender, health and crime of which they are a victim (especially SGBC) may add to their vulnerability
4 STEP PROCESS FOR VICTIM PARTICIPATION ICC
victim fulfils rule 85 definition of a victim
that they satisfy art 68(3) criteria
that they successfully complete their application form under rule 89 (admission or vetting process)
appropriate forms of participation are determined in light with the need to uphold a fair trial, timely proceedings, and the rights of the accused.
Step 1: Definition of Victim under the ICC
Rule 85(a)
1. âVictimsâ â natural persons who have suffered harm as a result of the commission of any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court
natural persons can be organisations that suffered direct harm
Covers all purposes: protection, participation & reparations
Draws almost verbatim from wording of 1985 UN Victims Declaration (in which harm includes physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights)
Bemba: ânatural personsâ includes the deceased (person is victim is direct, family/next of kin is indirect victim)
2. âHarmâ â hurt, injury, and damage â determination of sufficient evidence done on case-by-case basis & based on prima facie standard (not high)
Lubanga: must be personal (direct or indirect) and have a causal link to the specific charges of the case
Ntaganda: kinship to direct victims must be shown by those that suffered indirect harm, and any alleged must arise from an incident falling within the parameters of the confirmed charges
Step 2: Qualifying for Participation under Art. 68(3)
Criteria:
qualify as victims (as defined by r.85) & causal link to harm & crime is established
personal interests are affected (undefined, vary and shift throughout the course of the proceedings)
that the procedural stage is appropriate for participation (meaning for the expression of their views and concerns)
that the manner of participation is not prejudicial or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and a fair/impartial trial will not be compromised (Chamber must ensure victimâs rights are protected while not enabling a âsecond prosecutionâ)
Note: âthe court shall permitâŠâ = case-by-case basis (up to chamber, uncertainty)
Step 3: Admission or Vetting Process of Applications
Admission under Art. 68(3) and r.89: incl. collection, translation, redaction and judicial vetting of applications
Evidentiary standard for admission:
Prima facie â corroboration not required but must provide proof of identity (Chamber quite lenient because post-conflict areas)
Yekatom & Ngaissona: flexible approach adopted at the initial stages, but when deciding on admission the Chamber adopted a strict assessment of harm â limits of the leeway allowed in a prima facie demonstration are determined on case-by-case basis (qualification basically redacted)
Streamlining efforts (because this biggest area of victim participation that can be streamlined):
Kenya cases: âdifferentiated approachâ w/ registration in the Registry database â inconsistent with r.89
Ongwen: Chamber vets all applications, but the Registry adopts a more prominent role in conducting eligibility assessments and recommending next steps
Ntaganda: r.89 procedure is not absolute & is subject to other Statute provisions which uphold expediency â limited parties submissions regarding applications to those that could not be easily resolved by the Registry & thus divided into 3 victim groups
Yekatom & Ngaissona: Registry instructed to classify applications into 3 groups (those who did, did not, and may qualify)
Rule 89 procedure
Applications verified by Registry & VPRS â transmitted to Chamber which implements necessary redactions â submitted to parties for observations â eligibility then determined by Chamber
Step 4: Forms of Participation under Art.68(3)
Art. 68(3) & Rules 89-92: âgeneral regimeâ implemented at the discretion of the Chamber
Sui generis âparticipantsâ (all stages)
Witnesses, with a dual status as victims (applicable at trial)
Parties in reparation proceedings (Art. 75 & 82(4))
Specific forms of participation under Art. 68(3)
Investigations
Victims cannot trigger an investigation - may only provide information, support the Prosecutor (under Art.15) and be considered by the Chamber in their authorisation decision - see Situation in DRC
Representations
During authorisation process â Art.15(3) & Rule 50(1)/(4)
May participate in a review of the OTPs decision not to investigate/prosecute â Rule 92(2)
Observations
During jurisdiction/admissibility proceedings â limited role provided by Art.19(3) & Rule 59 â see Katanga and Ngudjolo, Ruto et al, Gbagbo and Al Senussi (particularly relevant for admissibility â gravity)
Sharing views
Rule 93 - A Chamber may seek the views of victims or their legal representatives participating pursuant to rules 89 to 91 on any issue
Right to be heard on specific issues
Rules 72(2), 119(3) and 143 â in camera hearings to decide whether evidence regarding consent is admissible or relevant / conditional release if the victim could be at risk / hearings on matters related to sentence/ reparations (particularly relevant for provisional release
91(3)(b): can question witnesses (through legal representative)
Evidence Submission
Chambers have allowed victims to tender evidence pertaining to the guilt or innocence of the accused, as well as to challenge the admissibility of evidence
on the basis of Art 69(3), see Lubanga
Chamberâs duty to determine the truth â and the fact that Art. 68(3) does not
mention any substantive limits as to what may be submitted
Questioning witnesses
May participate, through their legal representatives, by asking witnesses questions and by submitting written observations or submissions - Rule 91(3)(b) in accordance with Art.68(3) criteria
Victims may provide context, cultural and local background information â helps in interpretation of evidence & does not infringe upon the rights of the accused
Active Modalities Participation expressly foreseen for LRVs
Opening and closing statements (confirmations, trial).
Attendance, written submissions, access to documents (any refusal of access to case record must have factual/legal basis).
Questioning witnesses, experts or the accused: upon leave and subject to partiesâ responses.
Present âviews and concernsâ in person.
Leading evidence re: guilt/innocence + challenge admissibility.
"General regimeâ victim participation must be assessed w/ regard to the interests of victims an rights of the accused & involves a balancing act against the right to be tried without undue delay, the equality of arms, and an impartial trial
Meaning the Chamber MUST:
Determine the appropriate stage(s) for victims to present their views/concerns
Ensure the manner is not prejudicial with the rights of the accused and a fair/impartial trial (Art.66(2) burden of proof)
Protect the safety, dignity, privacy and wellbeing of victims pursuant to Art. 68(1)
Article 15
Victim Participation 1: Investigations
Implicitly allows for victims to be taken into consideration by the Prosecutor
Art.15(3) + Rule 50(1)/(4), & Rule 92(2)
Victim Participation 2: Representations
During authorisation process
Participate in review not to investigate/prosecute
Art.19(3) & Rule 59
Victim Participation 3: Observations
(Limited) During jurisdiction/admissibility proceedings
Rule 93
Victim Participation 4: Sharing Views
A Chamber may seek the views of victims (or their legal representatives participating pursuant to rules 89 to 91)
Rules 72(2), 119(3) and 143
Victim Participation 5: Right to be heard on specific issues
in camera hearings to decide whether evidence regarding consent is admissible or relevant /
conditional release if the victim could be at risk / hearings on matters related to sentence/ reparations
On the basis of Art.69(3), Art. 68(3) no substantive limits
Victim Participation 6: Evidence Submission
this is not the same as expressing "views and concerns" but allowed under 69(3) in the context of evidence (so not directly under participation of victims, but by extension)
Affirmed in Lubanga
Developed in Katanga: Must consider whether the testimony relating to the conduct of the accused (i) affects victim's personal interests, (ii) is relevant to the issues of the case, (iii) is necessary for the determination of the truth, and (iv) whether the testimony would be consistent with the rights of the accused and a fair and impartial trial
in the case of either inculpatory/exculpatory evidence: order disclosure sufficiently in advance, so accused has right to prepare defense
Al Hasan: Similar reasoning to Katanga & noted that the ICC statutory framework does not automatically confer a right to present
evidence âincumbent on victims acting through LRVs to submit motivated requests
Rule 91(3)(b) in accordance with Art.68(3) criteria
Victim Participation 7: Questioning witnesses
May participate, through their legal representatives, by asking witnesses questions and by submitting written observations or submissions - Rule 91(3)(b) in accordance with Art.68(3) criteria
Victims may provide context, cultural and local background information â helps in interpretation of evidence & does not infringe upon the rights of the accused
Katanga and Ngudjolo: Not an unqualified right â must submit a request for each witness stating (1) the relevance of the question, which had to either (2) clarify/supplement evidence
Ntaganda: More restrictive view, request had to specifically outline the topics which would be questioned
Consequences of uncertain victim participation at the ICC
Unrecognized victims â application in vain and disappointment in ICJ
certain victims that have qualified, unable to participate, because no causal link to crime because no investigated anymore
Participating victims â potential frustration of expectations
right to legal representation expectation dissapointed (when suddenly 1000 vicims represented by 1 person)
Defendant - unforeseeable participation (tension with fair trial rights)
impact statemenents, effects on sentencing and confirmation of charges
Art. 68(3) + Rule 90
Legal Representation
Art. 68(3) mentions legal representation as a right of participating victims, and r.90 defines the scope and parameters
Victimsâ freedom to choose their LRV has been limited - CLRs are appointed for sake of efficiency, despite potential conflicting interests
Only legally represented victims have access to hearings, or have the ability to question witnesses, experts and the accused (Ongwen: 4107 victims represented by 2 CLR)
OPVC
Office of Public Counsel for Victims:
Supports and provides legal research assistance to LRVs and victims & may appear before the Chamber on specific issues
May serve as LRVs or CLRs under r.90(3) or as counsel for unrepresented victims - allowed âwhere the interests of justice so requireâ (ICC Reg.80)
Criticisms Legal Representation ICC
No unqualified right to an individual attorney
practically impossible for 1 CLR to express all the views of thousands of victims; risk of destabilising proceedings because can shift focus away from the accused; equality of arms but if victims taking more active role on the side of prosecution it creates imbalance
Geographical distance
or efficient/meaningful communication, being geographically close & understanding culture is inherently important..."victims views and needs to protect local traditions...must be taken into account"
Those âregisteredâ as participants are not judicially vetted to appear before the court (entirely reliant on LRV)
only legally respresented victims have access to proceedings & materials
registered as participants but do not want to appear, do not have the same rights
Comparison ICC with the ECCC
Art. 33(new) on the Law on the Establishment of the ECCC: âThe trial court shall ensure that trials are fair and expeditious and are conducted in accordance with existing procedures in force, with full respect for the rights of the accused and for the protection of victims and witnessesâ
Rule 23 of ECCC Internal Rules: victims participate as a partie civile
May request investigation action (Rule 55.10); question witnesses (Rule 91.2) and the accused (Rule 90.2); and also appeal the verdict, along with the Prosecutorâs appeal (Rule 105.1)
Have access to the whole case file
May request collective and moral reparations from the convicted person (Rule 23 quinquies)
Have the ability to file complaints â information may be used in investigations / complainants do not participate in hearings and may not request reparations, but may give evidence or testify as witnesses
Application in practice: Amendment of relevant provisions in 2010 to ensure effective proceedings of Case 002 (4000 victims, 2 CLRs)- new Rule 23.3 allowed all civil parties be gathered in a single, consolidated group at trial represented by two lawyers designated by the court.
Victims and ICJ: Rationales for inclusion in criminal proceedings
Based on our conceptualisation of crime & who it affects: public (no role)/ private (exclusive role) / both (role in
achieving restorative justice, results in enhanced procedural standing)
Restorative justice theories put the victim at the centre â ICJs positive effects can only be established if it benefits those
that have suffered most
Justice For â Raison dâĂȘtre - recognition, accountability through prosecution and punishment
In the Name of â Source of legitimacy - uncontroversial interest of ICL
For the Benefit â Impact â retribution, restoration, reconciliation, reparations
(of Victims)
Victims and ICJ: Challenges & Criticisms
Mass victimisation â increased complexity, managerial & financial restraints
Focus and prioritisation of the rights of the accused and principle of fair trial (inherent clash between victim participation & right to a fair trial)
Promises, expectations and risks â false hopes
Victims and ICJ: Challenges & Criticisms â Kendall & Nouwen Article
Juridified & Abstract Victimhood
Juridifcation leads to narrowing of group to victims considered âlegally relevantâ. Participation limited by: causes; temporal, geographical, and personal parameters; case selection; and procedural conditions
âThe Victimâ â untouchable entity which corresponds to no one individual. Source of legitimacy (âmoral currencyâ) & rhetoric allows the role of actual victims to be overstated
Victims are inherently political persons who interests & views do not fit easily into the courtroom, resulting in suppression in order to not âdestabiliseâ the process â increases the gap between the people & their representative
Victims and ICJ: Challenges & Criticisms â Coleman Article
Tension between Presumption of Innocence & Victim Participation at ICC
Label affects the burden and standard of proof â element of prejudgment which implies guilt. Suggestion: do not link the events to criminal activity
Victimhood connected to a crime can lead to lack of recognition if a conviction isnât secured
Tension with rights of the accused stems from the Chamberâs discretion to decide the modalities of participation on a case-by-case basis - rules for victim participation should be better defined