Victims’ Participation Under the Rome Statute

Safferling, Christoph; Petrossian, Gurgen

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-80177-9_3

Victims’ Participation Under the Rome Statute

Christoph Safferling³ &
Gurgen Petrossian³

Chapter
First Online: 17 September 2021

530 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines in more detail the aspects of victims’ participation at the International Criminal Court. It starts with the drafting history of the Rome Statute and the negotiations during the international conference in Rome on the participation of victims. It presents the cases that have already taken place before the International Criminal Court and the victims who have participated or been involved in international criminal justice. This chapter then provides an overview of the practical aspects of victims’ participation, starting with the application and identification processes. It compares the specifics of the Rome Statute with the existing international practice and draws on the various rights of victims during different stages of the procedure. It differentiates between different types of victims in accordance with the crime, i.e. victims of genocide, of crimes against humanity, and of war crimes. This chapter also contains the perspectives of various interest groups within the International Criminal Court on the participation of victims, such as the defence counsel, the Office of the Prosecutor, Chambers, Registry etc.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 169.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Members of the Working Group: Mr. Crawford, Chairman, Mr. Thiam, ex officio member as Special Rapporteur on the Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, Mr. Kabatsi, ex officio as General Rapporteur, Mr. Al-Baharna, Mr. Al-Khasawneh, Mr. Arangio-Ruiz, Mr. Bennouna, Mr. Bowett, Mr. de Saram, Mr. Eiriksson, Mr. Elaraby, Mr. Fomba, Mr. Guney, Mr. He, Mr. Idris, Mr. Rao, Mr. Razafindralambo, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Rosenstock, Mr. Tomuschat, Mr. Vereshchetin, Mr. Villagran-Kramer, Mr. Yankov.
2.
UNGA, A/RES/48/31, Report of the International Law Commission on the work ofits forty-fifth session 9 December 1993.
3.
ILC, A/CN.4/L.491/Rev2 14 July 1994, Commentary Article 25 to 47 in A/CN.4/L.491/Rev.2/Add.2 18 July 1994.
4.
A/RES/48/31, 9 December 1993.
5.
Comments and observations received from Governments Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:-1993 Document:-vol. II(1) Topic: Draft code of crimes against the peace and security of mankind (Part II)- including the draft statute for an international criminal court.
6.
International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights, Article 14.
7.
A/CN.4/458 and Add.1-8 Observations of Governments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:- 1994 Document:vol. II(1).
8.
Article 46 – Protection of the accused, victims and witnesses.
9.
A/CN.4/458 and Add.1-8 Observations of Governments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:- 1994 Document:vol. II(1).
10.
Report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, A/50/22, New York, 1995.
11.
Report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, A/50/22, New York, 1995 para. 117.
12.
International Commission of Jurists: The International Criminal Court, Third ICJ Position Paper, August 1995.
13.
International Commission of Jurists: The International Criminal Court, Third ICJ Position Paper, August 1995.
14.
Bonneau et al. (2014), p. 39.
15.
A/CONF.183/2/Add.1, 14 April 1998.
16.
Non-Paper/WG.4/N. 19, 13 August 1997, see Annex A, Compilation of the Preparatory Works for the Drafting of Article 43/6) and Article 68 of the Rome Statute, https://www.icc-cpi.int/RelatedRecords/CR2007_04932.PDF, last visited on 12 December 2020.
17.
Kristie (2004), pp. 15–16.
18.
Glasius (2006), p. 27.
19.
Pace and Thieroff (2002), p. 394.
20.
International Commission of Jurists: The International Criminal Court, Third ICJ Position Paper, August 1995.
21.
International Commission of Jurists: The International Criminal Court, Third ICJ Position Paper, August 1995.
22.
Human Rights Watch, Commentary for the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, August 1996, Article 25.
23.
Human Rights Watch, Commentary for the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, August 1996, Article 43.
24.
Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice in the International Criminal Court ‘Summary of Recommendations Composition & Administration of the Court Crimes Against Humanity’ (1998), p. 3.
25.
Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court.
26.
Bonneau et al. (2014), p. 153.
27.
Bonneau et al. (2014), p. 153.
28.
Bassiouni (2006), p. 244.
29.
Bonneau et al. (2014), p. 111.
30.
A/CN.4/448 and Add.1.
31.
A/CN.4/452 and Add.1-3 Comments of Governments on the report of the Working Group on the question of an international criminal jurisdiction Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:-1993 Document:- , vol. II(1).
32.
A/CN.4/458 and Add.1-8 Observations of Governments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:- 1994 Document:- , vol. II(1).
33.
A/CN.4/458 and Add.1-8 Observations of Governments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:- 1994 Document:- , vol. II(1).
34.
A/CN.4/458 and Add.1-8 Observations of Governments on the report of the Working Group on a draft statute for an international criminal court Extract from the Yearbook of the International Law Commission:- 1994 Document:- , vol. II(1).
35.
Report of the Ad hoc Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, A/50/22, New York, 1995, 188.
36.
UNGA A/RES/50/46, Establishment of an international criminal court, 18 December 1995.
37.
Working Paper, submitted by France, UN Doc. A/AC.249/L.3 (6 August 1996), http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/AC.249/L.3, last visited on 12 December 2020.
38.
Working Paper, submitted by France, UN Doc. A/AC.249/L.3 (6 August 1996), Article 50 (1).
39.
Working Paper, submitted by France, UN Doc. A/AC.249/L.3 (6 August 1996), Article 50 (3).
40.
Fernández de Gurmendi (2002), p. 221.
41.
A/AC.249/1997/WG.4/DP.3.
42.
A/AC.249/1998/L.13, 4 February 1998, 123.
43.
A/AC.249/1998/L.13, 4 February 1998, 123.
44.
Australia, Austria, Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Croatia, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Lesotho, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Samoa, Slovakia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago (representing 12 Caricom states), Uruguay, Venezuela. See, Bassiouni (1999), pp. 443–468, 455.
45.
Glasius (2006), p. 22.
46.
Schabas (2007), p. 15.
47.
Glasius (2006), pp. 22–26.
48.
Glasius (2006), pp. 22–26.
49.
Muttukumaru (2002), p. 266.
50.
In May 1998 REDRESS published a booklet including the main principles for reparation and recommendations to the Rome Diplomatic Conference. REDRESS, Reparation for Victims in the International Criminal Court: Principles, Commentary, and Recommendations for the Rome Diplomatic Conference. London, June 1998.
51.
A/AC.249/1998/L.13 4 February 1998.
52.
CICC Report ‘Report on the March-April 1998 Session of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’ March 16–April 3, 1998.
53.
CICC Report ‘Report on the March-April 1998 Session of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court’ March 16–April 3, 1998.
54.
A/CONF.183/2.
55.
A/CONF.183/C.1/WGPM/L.63/Rev.1, 11 July 1998, n1.
56.
Bonneau et al. (2014), pp. 157–158.
57.
A/RES/40/34.
58.
For the first time in December 2015 Japan agreed to pay one-time 8.3 million US-Dollars for common projects with South Korea. Not only survivors, mainly the so called comfort women, criticised that agreement, also UN authorities, see the statement by the UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner.
59.
Bonneau et al. (2014), pp. 157–158.
60.
Ferencz (1998), p. 203 et seq.
61.
Article 75 had previously different numbers during the negotiation process: Article 45 G (1996 PrepCom Report, Vol. II), Article 45 bis (December 1997), Article 66 (after December 1997), Article 66 in Zutphen Draft Statute, Article 73 in PrepCom Draft Statute.
62.
PrepCom Report A/CONF.183/2/Add.1, 14 April 1998.
63.
Fiona McKay and Michael O’Flaherty from REDRESS and the victims’ rights working group were supported by Dr. Yael Daniele, victimologist and director of the group project for holocaust survivors and their children, as well as David Donat-Cattin from ELSA.
64.
Bonneau et al. (2014), p. 156.
65.
NGOs accredited to participate in the Rome Conference, see UN A/CONF.183/INF3, 5 June 1998, see also: Bassiouni (1999), pp. 443–468, 455.
66.
Gender crimes and victims’ participation were mainly drafted by NGOs, see Petrossian (2019b), p. 85.
67.
ABA Resolution, recommendation on the International Criminal Court was passed by the American Bar Association’s House of Delegates on February 2, 1998, p. 6.
68.
‘Preparatory committee on establishment of International Criminal Court concludes work by adopting draft Statute’ (19980403) press release L/2864 3 April 1998.
69.
‘Preparatory committee on establishment of International Criminal Court concludes work by adopting draft Statute’ (19980403) press release L/2864 3 April 1998.
70.
Dakar Declaration for the establishment of an International Criminal Court, 6 February 1998.
71.
Dakar Declaration for the establishment of an International Criminal Court, 6 February 1998.
72.
Amnesty International “The international criminal court: Making the right choices - Part IV”, IOR 40/04/98 March 1998.
73.
Bottigliero (2004), pp. 213 et seq.
74.
Bottigliero (2004), p. 213.
75.
Muttukumaru (2002), pp. 262–270.
76.
ICC, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, 2013, Rule 94–99.
77.
ICC, Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17-7-Red, Public redacted version of “Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to Article 15”, 20 November 2017, ICC-02/17-7-Conf-Exp (20 November 2017) paras. 16–18.
78.
The date the Rome Statute entered into force for Afghanistan.
79.
ICC, Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-01/17, Public redacted version of “Registry’s Request for Extention of Notice Period and Submissions on Aspects Related to the Article 15(3) Process” (7 November 2017) paras. 13–14, ICC, Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17, Order to the Victims Participation and Reparation Section Concerning Victims’ Representations (9 November 2017) para. 12.
80.
ICC, Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17, Final Consolidated Registry Report on Victims’ Representations Pursuant to the PTC’s Order ICC-02/17-6 of 9 November 2017 (20 February 2018) para. 29.
81.
ICC, Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (12 April 2019).
82.
ICC, Situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, ICC-02/17OA4, Judgment on the appeal againstthe decision on the authorisation of an investigation into the situation in the Islamic Republic ofAfghanistan (5 March 2020).
83.
Potier (2001), pp. 13–14; Companjen and Polese (2012), pp. 88–89.
84.
ICC, Situation in Georgia, ICC-01/15, Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to Article 15 (13 October 2015) paras. 22–23.
85.
Leach (2012), pp. 328–329, ICC, Situation in Georgia, ICC-01/15, Decision on the Prosecutor’s request for authorisation of an investigation (27 January 2016) paras. 12–13, 22–24.
86.
Ian Traynor, Luke Harding, Helen Womack, Georgia and Russia declare ceasefire, The Guardian, 16 August 2008, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/aug/16/georgia.russia2, visited on 12 December 2020.
87.
The victims are not the participants but important source of information at the stage of preliminary examination, see Bergsmo et al. (2016), p. 735.
88.
See ICC, Situation in Georgia, ICC-01/15, Report on the Victims’ Representations Received Pursuant to Article15(3) of the Rome Statute, (4 December 2015).
89.
See ICC, Situation in Georgia, ICC-01/15, Report on the Victims’ Representations Received Pursuant to Article15(3) of the Rome Statute, (4 December 2015) para. 4.
90.
Cf. ICC, Situation in the Republic of Cote D’Ivoire, ICC-02/11, Report on Victims’ Representations (29 August 2011) para. 94.
91.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Warrant of Arrest for Jean-Pier Bemba Gombo replacing the Warrant of Arrest issued on 23 May 2008 (10 June 2008).
92.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Pursuant to Article 61 (7) (a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (15 June 2009).
93.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (21 March 2018).
94.
ICC, Situation in the Central African Republic II, ICC-01/14, Public, with public annex Decision Assigning the Situation in the Central African Republic II to Pre-Trial Chamber II (18 June 2014).
95.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Yekatom and Ngaïssona, ICC-01/14-01/18-403-Red-CorrCorrected version of Public Redacted Version of ‘Decision on the confirmation of charges against Alfred Yekatom and Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona’ (14 May 2020).
96.
See ICC, Situation in the Republic of Cote d’Ivore, ICC-02/11, Request of authorisation of an investigation pursuant to Article 15 (23 June 2011) paras. 10–15.
97.
ICC, Situation in the Republic of Cote d’Ivore, ICC-02/11, Corrigendum to “Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Côted’Ivoire”, (15 November 2011) paras. 179, 212.
98.
ICC, Situation in the Republic of Cote d’Ivore, ICC-02/11, Decision on the VPRS request for an extension of time to report on victims’ representations pursuant to Regulation 35 of the Regulations of the Court (28, July 2011) para. 6.
99.
ICC, Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivore, ICC-02/11, Report on Victims’ Representations (29 August 2011) para. 72.
100.
ICC, Situation in the Republic of Côte d’Ivore, ICC-02/11, Warrant of Arrest for Laurent Koudou Gbagbo (23 November 2011).
101.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Laurent Gbagbo (12 June 2014).
102.
Kambale and Rotman (2004), p. 3.
103.
See Justice in the Democratic Republic of Congo: A background, Following the commencement of the second trial at the ICC concerning the situation in the DRC, the Hague Justice Portal looks at the background to the country’s troubled history, 17 December 2009, http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/index.php?id=11284, Autesserre (2006), p. 7; Moffett (2014), p. 240, see also Human Rights Watch, Ituri, “Covered In Blood” Ethnically Targeted Violence In Northeastern DR Congo, July, 2003.
104.
ICC, Siuation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1 VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS, 5 (17 January 2006) paras. 28–46.
105.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-228-tEN, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of a/0001/06, a/0002/06 and a/0003/06 in the case of the Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and of the investigation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (28 July 2006), see also ICC, Situation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-103, Prosecution’s Application for Leave to Appeal PTC I’s Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS 6, ICC-01/04, 23 January 2006 (23 January 2006).
106.
ICC, Situation in the DRC, ICC-01/04, Décision sur les demandes de participation à la procédure déposées dans le cadre del’enquête en République démocratique du Congo par a/0004/06 à a/0009/06, a/0016/06à a/0063/06, a/0071/06 à a/0080/06 et a/0105/06 à a/0110/06, a/0188/06, a/0128/06 à a/0162/06, a/0199/06, a/0203/06, a/0209/06, a/0214/06, a/0220/06 à a/0222/06, a/0224/06,a/0227/06 à a/0230/06, a/0234/06 à a/0236/06, a/0240/06, a/0225/06, a/0226/06, a/0231/06 à a/0233/06, a/0237/06 à a/0239/06 et a/0241/06 à a/0250/06 (24 December 2007), ICC, Situation in DRC, ICC-01/04-505, Decision on the applications for participation filed in connection with the investigation in the Democratic Republic of Congo by Applicants a/0047/06 to a/0052/06, a/0163/06 to a/0187/06, a/0221/06, a/0225/06, a/0226/06, a/0231/06 to a/0233/06 (4 July 2008).
107.
See ICC, Situation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-556, Appeals Judgment on victim participation in the investigation stage of the proceedings in the appeal of the OPCD against the decision of PTC I of 7 December 2007 and in the appeals of the OPCD and the Prosecutor against the decision of PTC I of 24 December 2007 (19 December 2008).
108.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on Confirmation of Charges (29 January 2007).
109.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (14 March 2012).
110.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Warrant of Arrest (2 July 2007).
111.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Warrant of Arrest (30 September 2008).
112.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (7 March 2014).
113.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06, Warrant of Arrest (22 August 2006).
114.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application under Article 58 (13 July 2012).
115.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statuteon the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Bosco Ntaganda (9 June 2014).
116.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Mbarisheima, ICC-01/04-01/10-1, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest (28 September 2010).
117.
ICC, Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09, Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to Article 15 (26 November 2009), paras. 4–6, due to the international mediation efforts a power-sharing agreement was signed between the government and the opposition.
118.
ICC, Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09-19, Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya (31 March 2010).
119.
ICC, Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09-4, Order to the Victims Participation and Reparation Section concerning Victims’ Representations Pursuant to Article 15 (3) of the Statute (10 December 2009) para. 9.
120.
ICC, Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09-24, Decision on Victims’ Participation in Proceedings Related to the Situation in the Republic of Kenya (3 November 2010) paras. 18–23.
121.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey, Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute (23 January 2012).
122.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ruto, Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11, Public redacted version of Decision on Defence Applications for Judgments of Acquittal (5 April 2016).
123.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey, Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11-460, Decision on victims’ representation and participation (3 October 2012) paras. 25–30.
124.
Mark Tran, Mali: a guide to the conflict, The Guardian, 16 January 2013, see below, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jan/16/mali-guide-to-the-conflict#102, visited on 12 Decemer 2020.
125.
Alexander Göbel, Mali: Der lange Weg in die Krise, tagesschau.de, 1 November 2012, see below https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/mali-hintergrund100.html, visited on 12 December 2020.
126.
ICC, Situation in Mali, Article 53(1) Report (16 January 2013) para. 2.
127.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi (24 March 2016).
128.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15, Judgement and Sentence (27 September 2016).
129.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18, Warrant of Arrest for Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud (27 March 2018).
130.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18, Decision Establishing the Principles Applicable to Victims’ Applications for Participation (24 May 2018).
131.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18-761-Corr-Red, Rectificatif à la Décision relative à la confirmation des charges portées contre Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud (13 November 2019).
132.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Harun, Ali Kushayb, ICC-02/05-01/07, warrant of arrest for Ahmad Harun (27 April 2007).
133.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09, Second Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest (12 July 2010).
134.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Banda, ICC-02/05-03/09, Corrigendum of the “Decision on the Confirmation of Charges” (7 March 2011).
135.
ICC, Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04, Warrant of Arrest for Dominic Ongwen (8 July 2005).
136.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen, PTC II, Report of the Registry on the voluntary surrender of Dominic Ongwen and his transfer to the Court.
137.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen (23 March 2016).
138.
ICC, Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04-01/05, Warrant of Arrest for Joseph Kony issued on 8 July 2005 as amended on 27 September 2005 (27 September 2005).
139.
ICC, Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04-01/05, Application for Unsealing of Warrants of Arrest Issued on 8 July 2005, and Other Related Relief (9 September 2005).
140.
ICC, Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04-01/05, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for unsealing of the warrants of arrest (13 October 2005).
141.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/05, Decision initiating proceedings under Article 19, requesting observations and appointing counsel for the Defence (21 October 2008).
142.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/05, Decision on the admissibility of the case under Article 19(1) of the Statute (10 March 2009).
143.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/05 OA 3, Judgement on the appeal of the Defence against the “Decision on the admissibility of the case under Article 19(1) of the Statute” of 10 March 2009 (16 September 2009).
144.
Not only the citizens or residents, but also for foreigners dealing with the justice or administration system of the Member States.
145.
Bassiouni and Schabas (2016), p. 133; Bassiouni (2013), p. 659; Kaul (2014), p. 63.
146.
See ICC, Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations, pp. 18–21.
147.
See FIDH, Victims’ Rights before the ICC, p. 8.
148.
One for natural persons and one for the legal persons.
149.
See ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18, Registry Observations on Aspects Related to the Admission of Victims for Participation in the Proceedings (9 May 2018) paras. 5–7.
150.
Fardel and Olarra (2017), p. 17.
151.
In Contrast the victims at the ECCC may apply by five pages long application only until the conclusion of judicial investigation pursuant to Rule 23 bis (2) Internal Rules and in STL the deadline for submitting the nine pages long applications for the participation by the Judges in the Pre-Trial pursuant to Rule 51(B)(iii) STL RPE.
152.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-933, Décision relative au traitement des demandes de participation (26 February 2009) para 27, ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-875, Decision Setting a Time-Limit for the Submission of New Victims’ Applications for Participation (7 September 2010) para 9, ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-1590-Corr, Corrigendum to the Decision on 401 Applications by Victims to Participate in the Proceedings and Setting a Final Deadline for the Submission of New Victims’ Applications to the Registry (21 July 2011) para 25.
153.
See e.g. Fardel and Olarra (2017), p. 21, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-474, Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the PTC Stage of the Case (13 May 2008) para 189, ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-103-tEN-Corr, Decision on Victim Participation (12 September 2008) p. 5, ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-305, Decision Concerning the Time Limit for the Submission of New Victim Applications (2 December 2008) para 1, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-933, Décision relative au traitement des demandes de participation (26 February 2009) para 27, ICC, Prosecutor v. Abu Garda, ICC-02/05-02/09-55-RSC, Decision on the Designation of a Single Judge on Victims’ Issues and on the Deadline for the Filing of Applications for Participation (19 August 2009) p. 6.
154.
This means that the requirements of Regulation 86 (2) RoC were not sufficiently elaborated.
155.
ICC, Situation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-418, Decision on the Requests of the OPCV (10 December 2007) para 16.
156.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18, Decision Establishing the Principles Applicable to Victims’ Applications for Participation (24 May 2018) paras. 36–40.
157.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18, Decision Establishing the Principles Applicable to Victims’ Applications for Participation (24 May 2018) paras. 34–36.
158.
Resolution ICC-ASP/10/Res.5, para. 49.
159.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-86, Second decision on issues related to the victims’ application process (5 April 2012) para. 16.
160.
Determination whether the applicant can be qualified as a victim under the Rule 85 RPE.
161.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-67, Decision Establishing Principleson the Victims’ Application Process (28 May 2013) paras. 17–25.
162.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-67, Decision Establishing Principleson the Victims’ Application Process (28 May 2013) para. 22.
163.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’Application Process (4 March 2015) para. 16.
164.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18, Decision Establishing the Principles Applicable to Victims’ Applications for Participation (24 May 2018) para. 22.
165.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11, Decision on issues related to the victims’ application process (6 February 2012), ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-86, Second decision on issues related to the victims’ application process (5 April 2012) para. 17.
166.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11, Decision on issues related to the victims’ application process (6 February 2012), ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-86, Second decision on issues related to the victims’ application process (5 April 2012) para. 18.
167.
Redress (2015), p. 41.
168.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Kenyatta, Muthaura, Ali, ICC-01/09-01/11-249, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings (26 August 2011) para. 24, ICC, Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey, Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11-249, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings (8 August 2011) para. 25.
169.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18, Decision Establishing the Principles Applicable to Victims’ Applications for Participation (24 May 2018) paras. 34–36, see also ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18-119-Red-tENG, Decision on the Registry’s Reports concerning Victim Participation (11 September 2018) paras. 29–31.
170.
Safferling (2012), p. 165.
171.
Safferling (2011a), p. 206.
172.
Bassiouni (2013), p. 123.
173.
Moffet (2016), p. 91.
174.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008 (11 July 2008) paras. 1, 32.
175.
Cp. ECtHR, Tanase v. Moldova, 7/08, GC, Judgment (27 April 2010) para. 104, ECtHR, Burden v. U.K. GC, Judgment (29 April 2008) para. 33.
176.
ECtHR, Burden v. U.K. GC, Judgment (29 April 2008) para. 32, see also STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, STL-1101/PT/PTJ, Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings (8 May 2012) para. 45.
177.
The Trial Chamber noticed in the “Decision on ‘indirect victims’” from 8 April 2009 that this category of victims should be excluded: “The charges confirmed against the accused in this case are confined to the conscription, enlistment or use of children to participate actively in hostilities. Indirect victims, therefore, are restricted to those whose harm is linked to the harm of the affected children when the confirmed offences were committed, not those whose harm is linked to any subsequent conduct by the children, criminal or otherwise. Although a factual overlap may exist between the use of the child actively to participate in hostilities and an attack by the child on another, the person attacked by a child soldier is not an indirect victim for these purposes because his or her loss is not linked to the harm inflicted on the child when the offence was committed”, para. 52, ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, Decision on Indirect Victims (8 April 2009) para. 50.
178.
Cp. indirect perpetration (mittelbare Täterschaft) in Brammsen, Apel (2008), p. 256.
179.
ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, Appeal Judgment, Supreme Court Chamber (3 February 2012) para. 417.
180.
The Indirect victims should proof prima facie the close relationship with the direct victim.
181.
Olásolo (2012), Edna and Bienkowska (1993), p. 155, see also Bassiouni (2013), p. 123, if the primary income earner is disappeared or unable to work because of injuries sustained, then certainly the family suffers loss as well, or individuals who are injured trying to pull a victim from harm’s way, loss of employment, or imprisonment for challenging authorities for persecuting a targeted group.
182.
ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, Appeal Judgment, Supreme Court Chamber (3 February 2012) para. 417.
183.
See ECtHR, Shesti Mai Engineering OOD and Others v. Bulgaria, 17854/04, Judgment (20 September 2011), para. 114, ECtHR, Andrejeva v. Latvia, 55707/00, Judgment (18 February 2009) para. 111, ECtHR, Nikolova and Verlichkova v. Bulgaria, 7888/03, Judgment (20 December 2007) para. 82, ECtHR, Kadikis v. Latvia, 62393/00, Jugdment (4 August 2006) para. 67, ECtHR, Van Geyseghem v. Belgium, 26103/95, Judgment (21 January 1999) para. 40, ECtHR, Podkolzina v. Latvia, 46726/99, Judgment (9 July 2002) para. 49, see also Altwicker et al. (2016), pp. 14–15; Ichim (2015), pp. 25–26, IACtHR, Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname, Judgment (10 September 1993) paras. 96–97, IACtHR, Heliodoro Portugal v. Panama, Judgment (12 August 2008) para. 180, Rivier (2010), p. 757.
184.
ICC, Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04-101, Decision on Victims’ Applications for participation a/0010/06, a/0064/06 to a/0070/06, a/0081/06 to a/0104/06 and a/0111/06 to a/0127/06 (10 August 2007) para. 14.
185.
Since 1 January 2017.
186.
Possibly, also additional cases, see STL, Public Redacted Version Of “Decision On The Prosecutor’s Connected Case Submission Of 30 June 2011” Of 5 August 2011, 16 September 2019.
187.
In the negative, it excludes victims’ participation in proceedings the outcome of which does not affect their interests; in the positive, it grounds the right of the victims to participate before the Court once the other criteria have been met, see in Rojo (2017), p. 520.
188.
Schabas (2010), p. 401.
189.
Moore (2008), p. 186.
190.
So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any human being whom the law regards as capable of rights and duties. Any being that is capable is a person, whether a human being or not and not being that is not so capable is a person, even though he be a man. Persons are the substances of which rights and duties are the attributes. It is only in this respect that persons possess juridical significance, and this is the exclusive point of view from which personality receives the legal recognition; see Garner (2011), p. 654.
191.
Some authors in the field of international law are not agree with the thesis that the individuals are the principal subjects of the international law. See Kelsen (1952), p. 97; Boczek (2005), p. 75; Lauterpacht and Lauterpacht (1975), p. 487; Aust (2009), pp. 12–13.
192.
Laucci (2014), p. 524.
193.
IACtHR, Aloeboetoe et al. v. Suriname, Judgment (10 September 1993) para. 54, IACtHR, Case of Garrido and Baigoma v Argentina, Judgement (27 August 1998) para. 50.
194.
ICC, Situation in Darfur, ICC-02/05-111-Corr, Corrigendum to Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of Applicants a/0011/06 to a/0015/06, a/0021/07, a/0023/07 to a/0033/07 and a/0035/07 to a/0038/07 (6 December 2007); ICC, Situation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-423-Corr-tENG, Corrigendum to the “Decision on the Applications for Participation Filed in Connection with the Investigation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by a/0004/06 to a/0009/06, a/0016/06 to a/0063/06, a/0071/06 to a/0080/06 and a/0105/06 to a/0110/06 (1 February 2008) para 24–25, ICC, Prosecutor v. Kenyatta, Muthaura, Ali, ICC-01/09-01/11-249, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings (26 August 2011) para. 47.
195.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, Fourth Decision on Victims’ Participation (12 December 2008) paras. 39–52.
196.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-2065-Anx2-RSC, Order issuing confidential and public redacted versions of Annex A to the “Decision on the applications by 7 victims to participate in the proceedings” of 10 July 2009 (23 July 2009) p. 15 annex 2, the participation of the person, who has already filed an application may be continued after the death of the applicant by the appointed family member, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1737, Motifs de la deuxième décision relative aux demandes de participation de victimes à la procédure (22 December 2009), paras. 30–32.
197.
ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC, Judgment (26 July 2010) para. 641, ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007/ECCCffC, Decision on Motion Regarding Deceased Civil Party, E2/5/3 (13 March 2009) paras. 10–12, ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, Appeal Judgement (3 February 2012) paras. 410–413.
198.
See also IACtHR, Gomez-Paquiyauri Brothers v. Peru, Judgment (8 July 2004), Gal (2011), p. 117.
199.
See also Leveau (2013), p. 39.
200.
Chaikel (2015), see also Drumbl (2012), p. 127; Rikhof (2011), pp. 180–181.
201.
See Amann (2016), pp. 269–271; Amann (2013), p. 422; Rikhof (2011), p. 180; Seyfarth (2013), p. 123.
202.
See Birchall et al. (2011), pp. 10–12; Nilsson (2013), p. 1153.
203.
See Fatou Bensouda, a Draft Policy on Children, ICC-CPI-20160622-PR1224, this was mostly based on the existing codifications in internationally law, especially UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN Resolution, 2005/20 Guidelines on Justice in Matters involving Child Victims and Witnesses of Crime.
204.
See also Olásolo (2008), p. 149, Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey and Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, (5 August 2011) para. 43.
205.
See ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the applications by victims to participate in the proceedings (15 December 2008) para. 67–68.
206.
Committee on the Rights of the Child, General Comment N. 6 (2005), 1 September 2005, CRC/GC/2005/6, paras. 3, 7 and 8. Although this General Comment applies to children who have crossed an international border, the Committee has acknowledged that there are many similar challenges related to internally displaced unaccompanied and separated children and encourages States Parties to adopt the relevant aspects of the General Comment in relation to internally displaced unaccompanied and separated children para. 5.
207.
Pérez-León Acevedo (2014), p. 341
208.
This was not considered by the RPE of STL.
209.
STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, STL-1101/PT/PTJ, Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings (8 May 2012) para. 31.
210.
See the Preamble of ICCPR.
211.
ECtHR, Ernewein v. Germany, 14849/08, Decision (12 May 2009) para. 2(a), the Court has submitted in the decision that the legal person may invoke a violation only of its own rights but may not complain about a violation of its members’ rights since Article 35 does not provide for individuals to institute a kind of actio popularis for the interpretation of the Convention, see also van Kempen (2010), p. 3.
212.
See IACoHR, Metropolitan Nature Reserve v. Panama, Report 88/03 (22 October 2003) para. 29–30, IACoHR, Janet Espinoza Feria et al. v. Peru, Annual Report (10 October 2002) para. 35, IACoHR, Bendeck-Cohdinsa v. Honduras, Report N 106/99 (27 September 1999), para. 17.
213.
IACoHR, Mevopal S.A. v. Argentina, Report 39/99 (11 March 1999) para. 17.
214.
See Ambos (2016), p. 174; Safferling (2012), p. 169.
215.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15, Public redacted version of Decision on Victim Participation at Trial and on Common Legal Representation (8 June 2016) para. 23.
216.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, Fourth Decision on Victims’ Participation (12 December 2008) paras. 53–56, ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15, Public redacted version of Decision on Victim Participation at Trial and on Common Legal Representation (8 June 2016) para. 2, ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) para. 89, ICC, Prosecutor v. Banda, ICC-02/05-03/09, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Hearing on the Confirmation of the Charges (29 October 2010) paras. 44–49.
217.
See also Eckelmans (2013), p. 199; de Brouwer and Heikkilä (2013), p. 1301.
218.
See also Novic (2016), p. 204.
219.
Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Explanatory Memorandum by the Tribunal’s President, 12 April 2012, para. 19 (“President’s Explanatory Memorandum”), STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, STL-1101/PT/PTJ, Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings (8 May 2012) para. 30.
220.
Rights-focused.
221.
Injury-focused.
222.
ICC, Siuation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1 VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS, 5 (17 January 2006) para. 81.
223.
In contrast the ECCC does not distinguish the notion of harm between natural and legal persons.
224.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008 (11 July 2008) para. 31.
225.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008 (11 July 2008) para. 32.
226.
ILC Commentary to the Articles on the Responsibility of the States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, p. 92.
227.
IACtHR, Ivcher-Bronstein v. Peru, Judgment (6 February 2001) para. 122, IACtHR, Indigenous Community Yakye Axa v. Paraguay, Judgment (17 June 2005) para. 174.
228.
STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, STL-1101/PT/PTJ, Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings (8 May 2012) para. 69.
229.
ICC, Situation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1 VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS, 5 (17 January 2006) para. 132.
230.
ECtHR, Ayder and Others v. Turkey, 23656/94, Judgment (8 January 2004) paras. 141–146.
231.
ICC, Situation in Darfur, ICC-02/05-111-Corr, Corrigendum to Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of Applicants a/0011/06 to a/0015/06, a/0021/07, a/0023/07 to a/0033/07 and a/0035/07 to a/0038/07 (6 December 2007) paras. 40–48.
232.
See Bassiouni (2013), p. 123.
233.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Banda, ICC-02/05-03/09, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Hearing on the Confirmation of the Charges (29 October 2010) para. 28, ICC, Prosecutor v. Abu Garda, ICC-02/05-02/09, Public Redacted Version of “Decision on the 52 Applicationsthe Pre-Trial Stage of the Case” for Participation (9 October 2009) paras 93–96.
234.
STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, VPU Submission on legal issues pursuant to the Pre-Trial Judge’s Decision of 5 April 2012 (23 April 2012) paras 18–20. The Victim Participation Unit of the STL is the opinion that economic loss may also arise due to a) physical injuries sustained during the attack, psychological harm incurred as a result of the attack or c) damage or destruction of real property as well as personal property.
235.
ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, Appeal Judgement (3 February 2012) para. 415, ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC, Judgment (26 July 2010) para. 641.
236.
Pilloud et al. (1987), p. 646, para. 2065, see also Lenzerini (2013), pp. 41–42.
237.
ICC OTP, Situation in Mali, Article 53(1) Report, 16 January 2013, p. 31, para. 155.
238.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-T, Judgment (26 February 2001) para. 361.
239.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-T, Judgment (26 February 2001) para. 360, see also ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-T, Appeal Judgment (26 January 2005) paras. 86–92.
240.
See Nuzhat (2008).
241.
See also ICTY, Prosecutor v. Strugar, IT-01-42-T, Judgement (31 January 2005) paras. 277–281.
242.
Boothby (2012), pp. 233–235, See also Lane (1999), pp. 174–175.
243.
International Committee of the Red Cross, Draft Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, Commentary, p. 22.
244.
Cp. Pilloud et al. (1987), p. 114.
245.
Black’s Law Dictionary, Hospital.
246.
See the definition designed by Global Humanitarian Assistance, A Development Initiative, in: http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/data-guides/defining-humanitarian-aid/, last visited on 12 December 2020.
247.
See US Legal Definitions at http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/physical-harm/, last visited on 12 December 2020.
248.
ICC, Siuation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1 VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS, 5 (17 January 2006) para. 147, basing on the judgment ECtHR, Selmouni v. France, 25803/94, Judgment (28 July 1999) para. 123.
249.
ICC, Situation in Darfur, ICC-02/05-111-Corr, Corrigendum to Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of Applicants a/0011/06 to a/0015/06, a/0021/07, a/0023/07 to a/0033/07 and a/0035/07 to a/0038/07 (6 December 2007) para. 40.
250.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07-712, Public Redacted Version of the “Decision on the 97 Applications for Participationat the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case (10 June 2008) paras. 71, 115.
251.
STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, STL-1101/PT/PTJ, Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings (8 May 2012) para. 66. It mostly upheld that physical harm does not have to be life-threating or permanent, but on the same time must be of such nature and gravity as to interfere with the health, well-being or comfort of the victim, see also Morisson Pountney (2014), pp. 163–164.
252.
ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, Appeal Judgement (3 February 2012) para. 415.
253.
Sandick (2012), p. 105.
254.
Below mental disorders, psychiatric trauma, such as post-traumatic stress-disorder, see ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, Appeal Judgement (3 February 2012) para. 415.
255.
Moffett (2014), p. 137.
256.
ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, Appeal Judgement (3 February 2012) para. 417.
257.
ECCC, Case of Kamg Guek Eav (Case 001), 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, Appeal Judgement (3 February 2012) para. 417.
258.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, Decision on Indirect Victims (8 April 2009) para. 50.
259.
Basing on ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, Judgement on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008 para. 32, see also broader interpretation by the ECCC considering the siblings and also spouses as the close personal relationship, ECCC, Case of Nuon Chea (Case 002), 002119-09-2007-ECCC-OCIJ, Order On Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants From Current Residents Of Kratie Province (9 September 2010) para. 15, referring also to Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law para. 8, Prosecutor v. Lubanga (n 498) para. 32, IACtHR, Villagrán Morales et al. v. Guatemala, Judgment (26 May 2001) para. 68, IACtHR, Myrna Mack Chang v. Guatemala, Judgment (25 November 2003) paras. 232, 244.
260.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1813, Decision on Indirect Victims (8 April 2009) para. 50.
261.
STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al, STL-1101/PT/PTJ, Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings (8 May 2012) para. 78.
262.
See Safferling (2003), p. 368.
263.
Safferling (2012), p. 165.
264.
Kiza (2006), p. 82.
265.
As it was already explained above, not every legal person may claim for the victimhood, cf. Elander (2018), p. 51.
266.
Findlay (2013), p. 308.
267.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Msksic, Radic, Sljivancanin, IT-95-13/1, Review of the Indictment Pursuant to Rule 61 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (3 April 1996) para. 32, Swaak-Goldman (2000), p. 155.
268.
UN,GA A/RES/60/147, 21 March 2006.
269.
See ECtHR, Klass and Others v. Germany, 5029/71, Judgment (6 September 1978) paras 37–38, ECtHR, Marckx v. Belgium, 6833/74, Judgment (13 June 1979) paras. 27–28, ECtHR, Vijayanathan and Pusparajah v. France, 17550/90 17825/91, Judgment (27 August 1992) para. 46, ECtHR, Open Door and Dublin Well Woman v. Ireland, 14234/88 14235/88, Judgement (29 October 1992) para. 44.
270.
de Casadevante Romani (2012), p. 93.
271.
See Peters (2016), p. 271; Funk (2015), pp. 119–121.
272.
See the first stages of the investigations in Groome (2014), pp. 117–118.
273.
Safferling (2011b), pp. 82–83.
274.
ICC, Siuation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1 VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS, 5 (17 January 2006) para. 63 ICC, Situation in DRC, ICC-01/04OA4 OA5 OA6, Judgment on victim participation in the investigation stage of the proceedings in the appeal of the OPCD against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 7 December 2007 and in the appeals of the OPCD and the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 24 December 2007 (19 December 2008) para. 56, ICC, PTC, Situation in Kenya, ICC-01/09, Decision on Victims’ Participation in Proceedings Related to the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, (10 November 2010) para. 9.
275.
ICC, Siuation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1 VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS, 5 (17 January 2006) paras. 66–68.
276.
Zegveld (2009), p. 375, see also ICC, Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04, Public Redacted Version Decision on victims’ applications for participation a/0010/06, a/0064/06 to a/0070/06, a/0081/06 to a/0104/06 and a/0111/06 to a/0127/06, (10 August 2007) para. 84.
277.
Chung (2008), p. 471.
278.
ICC, Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04, Decision on Victim’s Participation in Proceedings Related to the Situation in Uganda (9 March 2012) para. 12.
279.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on victims’ participation, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, (18 January 2008), paras. 92–95.
280.
E.g. If the crime alleged meets the jurisdictional requirements and the PTC determines that a harm has occurred, then the PTC has to determine that the harm has a causal connection to the alleged crime before the Court, see Kelly (2013), p. 51.
281.
ICC, Situation in Darfur, ICC-02/05-177, Judgment on victim participation in the investigation stage of the proceedings in the appeal of the OPCD against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 3 December 2007 and in the appeals of the OPCD and the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 6 December 2007 (2 February 2009) para. 57.
282.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) para. 95.
283.
ICC, Situation in Kenya, ICC-01/09-24, Decision on Victims’ Participation in Proceedings Related to the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, (3 November 2010) para. 15.
284.
ICC, Situation in Kenya, ICC-01/09-24, Decision on Victims’ Participation in Proceedings Related to the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, (3 November 2010) para. 16.
285.
ICC, Situation on the Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, the Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Cambodia, ICC-01/13-18, Decision on the Victims’ Participation (24 April 2015) para. 12.
286.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) paras. 92–95, Olásolo (2008), p. 148.
287.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008 (11 July 2008) paras. 62, 65–66.
288.
Kelly (2013), p. 51, ICC, Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04, Public Redacted Version Decision on victims’ applications for participation a/0010/06, a/0064/06 to a/0070/06, a/0081/06 to a/0104/06 and a/0111/06 to a/0127/06, (10 August 2007) paras. 11–12,
289.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008 (11 July 2008) para. 65, ICC, Prosecutor v. Kenyatta, ICC-01/09-02/11-267, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings (28 August 2011) para. 60, Eckelmans (2013), p. 201.
290.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) Judge Blattmann’s dissenting opinion, para. 21, ICC, Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana, ICC-01/04-01/10-351, Decision on the 138 Applications for Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings (11 August 2011) paras. 21–22.
291.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008 (11 July 2008) para. 65, see also Baumgartner (2008), p. 423.
292.
Gillett (2009), p. 38.
293.
Boas et al. (2008), p. 139.
294.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Niyitegeka, ICTR-96-14, Appeal Judgement (9 July 2004) para. 53, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Krstić, IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgment (19 April 2004) Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, para. 95, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Jelisić, IT-95-10, Appeals Judgement (14 December 1999) Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Wald, para. 2, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Stakić, IT-97-24, Judgement (31 July 2003) para. 502, ICTR, Prosecutor v. Musema, ICTR-96-13-T, Judgement and Sentence (27 January 2000) para. 981.
295.
Boas et al. (2008), p. 201.
296.
See Safferling (2011b), p. 165, the political groups are excluded as they are classified as a mobile groups, Schabas (2016), p. 135, ICTR, Prosecutor v. Musema, ICTR-96-13-T, Judgement and Sentence (27 January 2000) para. 162, see also Petrossian (2019b), p. 106.
297.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Semanza, ICTR-97-20-T, Judgment (15 May 2003) para. 317, ICTR, Prosecutor v. Kajelijeli, ICTR-98-44A, Judgment (1 December 2003) para. 811, ICTY, Prosecutor v Brđanin, IT-99-36, Judgment (1 September 2004) para. 684.
298.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Niyitegeka, ICTR-96-14, Judgment (16 May 2003), para. 410, Prosecutor v Brđanin (n 640) para. 700.
299.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Niyitegeka, ICTR-96-14, Appeal Judgment (9 July 2004) para. 53.
300.
Simon (2007), p. 37.
301.
Cp. The approaches of Lemkin and Lauterpacht about the Genocide and Crimes against Humanity in Sands 2018.
302.
Cf. Barth (2013), p. 260.
303.
Kirsch (2009), p. 119.
304.
Cp. Safferling (2011a), pp. 183–184; Neubacher (2005), p. 113; de Guzman (2010), p. 129.
305.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Baglishema, ICTR-95-lA-T, Judgment (7 June 2001) para. 77, ICTR, Prosecutor v. Rutanganda, ICTR-96-3, Judgment (6 December 1999) para. 69.
306.
Cp. Werle and Jeßberger (2014), para. 880, some crimes consider the group victimisation, others such as rape or murder are directed against an individual.
307.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4, Judgment (2 September 1998) para. 595, ICTR, Prosecutor v. Semanza, ICTR-97-20-T, Judgment (15 May 2003) para. 326, see also Robinson (1999), p. 46.
308.
Only with regard to those crimes for which this is expressly required, that is, for Article 5(h), concerning various types of persecution, siehe ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tadic, IT-94-1, Appeal Judgment (15 July 1999) paras. 283, 292, 305, in Hall and Stahn (2016), p. 173, see also ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-T, Appeal Judgment (26 January 2005) para. 186, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Blaskic, IT-95-14, Judgement (3 March 2000) paras. 244, 260 see Hall & Ambos (2016), p. 173.
309.
See also de Guzman (2010), p. 132.
310.
As a policy or plan, see ICTR, Prosecutor v. Kayishema and Ruzindana, ICTR-95-1, Judgment (21 May 1999) para. 122–123, ICTR, Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR-96-4, Judgment (2 September 1998) para. 580.
311.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (15 June 2009) para. 132.
312.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-424, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo (15 June 2009) para. 134.
313.
ILC, Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind with commentaries, 1996, para. (8), p. 48.
314.
See also Boot (2002), p. 497, Safferling (2011b), p. 96, ICTY, Prosecutor v. Krstić, IT-98-33-A, Appeal Judgment (19 April 2004) para. 500, cp also Boas et al. (2008), p. 65.
315.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, IT-98-32, Judgement (29 November 2002) para. 227.
316.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kunarac et al., IT-96-23 & 23/1, Appeal Judgement (12 June 2002) para. 116.
317.
See Safferling (2011a), p. 198.
318.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Kordic and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-T, Appeal Judgment (26 January 2005) para. 302–303, in Bassiouni (2011), p. 444.
319.
See Hall and Stahn (2016), p. 204.
320.
Kieler (2003), p. 22.
321.
Flores (2006), p. 49.
322.
Petrossian (2019a), p. 143.
323.
See d Brouwer (2005), p. 57.
324.
The Commentary of 1991 ILC Draft Code, 2 YbILC (1991) 104, which refers to both individuals and groups of individuals, p. 268, Hall and Stahn (2016), p. 220.
325.
de Guzman (2010), p. 134.
326.
Safferling (2011a), p. 203.
327.
Safferling (2011b), p. 222, cp. Werle, Jeßberger (2014), p. 409, cp. Bock (2013), p. 270.
328.
Several offenses overlap with or are even largely identical to another offense. Cottier (2016), p. 317.
329.
ICC Resolution RC/Res. 6 on 11 June 2010.
330.
Such as; a) invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof; b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State; c) The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State; d) An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State; e) The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement; f) The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State; g) The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.
331.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-933, Decision on the treatment of applications for participation (26 February 2009) para. 10, “in the interest of the proper administration of justice, victims authorised to participate in the proceedings at the pre-trial stage must, in principle, and subject to the considerations set forth below, automatically be authorised to participate in the proceedings at the trial stage, without the need for their applications to be registered and assessed a second time”.
332.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Prosecutor’s 25 August Observations on the Application for Participation of Applicants a/0047/06 – a/0052/06 (6 September 2006) para. 10, ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-824, Judgment on the appeal of Mr. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the decision of PTC I entitled “Décision sur la demande de mise en liberté provisoire de Thomas Lubanga Dyilo” (13 February 2007) ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-623, Decision on the Participation of Victims in the Appeal against the “Decision on theInterim Release of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo and Convening Hearings with the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Portugal, the Republic of France (27 November 2009) Dissenting Opinion of Judge Sang-Hyun Song, see also Donat-Cattin (2016), p. 1695, para. 22.
333.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ruto, Kosgey, Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11-249, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings (8 August 2011) para. 101.
334.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-1199-Red, Decision on the Legal Representatives forVictims Requests to Present Evidence and Views and Concerns and related requests (6 March 2018) paras. 17–25.
335.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) para. 96, see also Bock (2010), pp. 449–451.
336.
In case of casuistic approach the victims are forced to apply for the participation in each judicial procedural activity, which will lead to ineffective and to inefficient operation of the Court, ICC, Situation in Darfur, ICC-02/05-121, Decision on the Requests for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Application for Participation of Victims in the Proceedings in the Situation (5 February 2008) p. 6, compare with ICC, ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) paras. 94–100.
337.
See Vasiliev (2008), p. 636 et seq.
338.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) para. 97, Kelly (2013), p. 54.
339.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788, Decision on the Modalities of Victim Participation at Trial (22 January 2010) para. 58.
340.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-474 Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case (15 May 2008) paras. 31–44, ICC, Prosecutor v. Abu Garda, ICC-02/05-02/09, Decision on the 34 Applications for Participation at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case (25 September 2009) para. 3.
341.
ICC, Situation in Darfur, ICC-02/05-113, Decision on the Requests for Leave to Appeal the Decision on the Application for Participation of Victims in the Proceedings in the Situation (5 February 2008) pp. 6–7, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-474 Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case (15 May 2008) paras. 45–46.
342.
Cf. Trumbull (2008), pp. 800–801; Bachvarova (2017), pp. 110–115.
343.
FIDH, Five Myths about Victim Participation in ICC Proceedings, p. 11.
344.
Donat-Cattin (2016), p. 1696, para. 23.
345.
See. Bachvarova (2017), p. 142.
346.
Rombouts (2004), p. 188.
347.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-2138, Decision on the supplemented applications by the legal representatives of victims to present evidence and the views and concerns of victims (22 February 2012) para. 55, ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-2220, Decision on the presentation of views and concerns by victims/0542/08,a/0394/08anda/0511/08 (24 May 2012), see also The Victims’ Court, Human Rights Center, 2015, p. 21.
348.
ICC, Siuation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1 VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS, 5 (17 January 2006) paras. 57–60.
349.
ICC, Situation in DRC, ICC-01/04OA4 OA5 OA6, Judgment on victim participation in the investigation stage of the proceedings in the appeal of the OPCD against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 7 December 2007 and in the appeals of the OPCD and the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 24 December 2007 (19 December 2008) paras. 55–57.
350.
Kelly (2013), p. 55.
351.
Inadmissible evidence, prejudicial or sensationalist statements of the victims etc, see Dué (1966), pp. 821–822.
352.
See Zagar (2018), p. 306; Zappala (2010), p. 146; McAsey (2011), p. 118.
353.
See also Rule 140 (2) (d) RPE and Donat-Cattin (2016), p. 1698, para. 27.
354.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-462-tEN, Decision on the arrangements for participation of victims a/001/06m 1/0002/06 and 1/0003/06 at the confirmation hearing (22 September 2006) p. 7.
355.
ICC, Situation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-135-tEN, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for Leave to Appeal the Chamber’s Decision of 17 January 2006 on the Application for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS1,VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS5 and VPRS6, (31 March 2006) para. 38.
356.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-2027, Second order regarding the applications of the legal representatives of victimsto present evidence and the views and concerns of victims (21 December 2011) para. 11.
357.
See Stewart (2014), p. 2.
358.
Through video-link, or in writing.
359.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-2138, Decision on the supplemented applications by the legal representatives of victims to present evidence and the views and concerns of victims (22 February 2012), ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-449, decision on victims’ participation in trial proceedings (2 February 2015) para. 39, compare with ICC, Prosecutor v. Banda, ICC-02/05-03/09-545, Decision on the participation of victims in the trial proceedings (20 March 2014) para. 20.
360.
See Garbett (2017), p. 201.
361.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-807-Corr-Anx, Corrigendum to Decision on the participation of victims in the trial and on 86 applications by victims to participate in the proceedings (12 July 2010) para. 27.
362.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-2138, Decision on the supplemented applications by the legal representatives of victims to present evidence and the views and concerns of victims (22 February 2012) para. 12.
363.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-2027, Second order regarding the applications of the legal representatives of victimsto present evidence and the views and concerns of victims (21 December 2011) para. 12.
364.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-2220, Decision on the presentation of views and concerns by victims /0542/08,a/0394/08 and a/0511/08 (24 May 2012) para. 13 and only after long “negotiations” with the Court was the direct participation of the victims possible.
365.
See the dual status of the victim.
366.
Garbett (2017), p. 201.
367.
Rule 90 (2) RPE ICC, cf. Magsam (2014), p. 187.
368.
See ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1328, Order on the organisation of common legal representation of victims (22 July 2009) paras. 10–18.
369.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1328, Order on the organisation of common legal representation of victims (22 July 2009) paras. 10–18.
370.
Hirst (2017), p. 145; Kelly (2013), p. 52.
371.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1328, Order on the organisation of common legal representation of victims (22 July 2009) para. 11, ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1211, Decision on the role of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims and its request for access to documents (6 March 2008) para. 30.
372.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-513, Registry’s Report on Consultations with Victims Pursuant to Decision ICC-01/04-02/06-449 (16 March 2015).
373.
Legal Professionals, International Criminal Court, see at https://www.icc-cpi.int/get-involved/Pages/legal-professionals.aspx, last visited on 12 December 2020.
374.
See in this regard different approaches to appointment of CLRVs or OPCVs in different cases in Human Rights Watch, Who Will Stand for Us, Victims’ Legal Representation at the ICC in the Ongwen Case and Beyond, 2017, pp. 14–20, Vasiliev (2015), p. 1182, ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-1005, Decision on common legal representation of victims for the purpose of trial (12 November 2010) paras. 11–13, ICC, Prosecutor v. Ruto, Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11-330, Decision on the “Motion from Victims a/0041/10, a/0045/10, a/0051/10 and a/0056/10 requesting the PTC to Reconsider the Appointment of Common Legal Representative Sureta Chana for All Victims” (9 September 2011) paras. 9–12, ICC, Prosecutor v. Banda, ICC-02/05-03/09-337, Decision on common legal representation (25 May 2012).
375.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Ruto, Sang, ICC-01/09-01/11-1930, Decision on the Common Legal Representative for Victims’ Request for viva voce Presentation of Views and Concerns by the Victims (20 July 2015) para. 7.
376.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-138, Decision on victims’ participation and victims’ common legal representation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings (4 June 2012) para. 38.
377.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-749, Decision on the Legal Representative of Victims’ access to certain confidential filings and to the case record (19 January 2015) para. 15, ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-369, Decision on issues concerning victims’ participation (15 December 2015) para. 3.
378.
See Peters (2016), pp. 273–275; Evans (2012), p. 86, compare the rights of victims in Bohacik (2010); Moffett (2015), p. 266.
379.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1497, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr. Germain Katanga against the Oral Decision of Trial Chamber II of 12 June 2009 on the Admissibility of the Case (25 September 2009) para. 12, ICC, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18, Observations on behalf of victims from Tula Toli, 18 June 2018 in regard to Situation in Myanmar-Bangladesh (18 June 2018), ICC, Prosecutor v. Gadaffi, Observations on behalf of victims on the “Admissibility Challenge by Dr. Saif Al-Islam Gadafi pursuant to Articles 17(1)(c), 19 and 20(3) of the Rome Statute” (28 September 2018), ICC, Prosecutor v Muthuara, Kenyatta, Ali, Observations on the “Directions on the submission of observations pursuant to Article 19 (3) of the Rome Statute and rule 59 (3) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence” (3 February 2012) paras. 6–9, Schabas (2016), pp. 492–493; de Brouwer and Heikkilä (2013), p. 1321.
380.
See ICC, Situation on the Registered Vessels of the Union of the Comoros, the Hellenic Republic and the Kingdom of Cambodia, ICC-01/13-18, Decision on the Victims’ Participation (24 April 2015) paras. 10–13, ICC, Situation on Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia, ICC-01/13-27-Red, Observations on behalf of victims in the proceedings for the review of the Prosecutor’s decision not to initiate an investigation (23 June 2015).
381.
Accessible to everyone.
382.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-384-Corr, Corrigendum to the second decision on victims’ participation at the confirmation of charges hearing and in the related proceedings (6 February 2013) paras. 49–52, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-474 Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case (15 May 2008) paras. 127–133, 140, ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-211 Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings (15 January 2014) paras. 85–87.
383.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-384-Corr, Corrigendum to the second decision on victims’ participation at the confirmation of charges hearing and in the related proceedings (6 February 2013) paras. 53–58, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-474 Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case (15 May 2008) para. 140, ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-211 Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings (15 January 2014) para. 88, ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-369, Decision on issues concerning victims’ participation (15 December 2015).
384.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-384-Corr, Corrigendum to the second decision on victims’ participation at the confirmation of charges hearing and in the related proceedings (6 February 2013) paras. 59–60, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-474 Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case (15 May 2008) para. 134, 142, ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-211 Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings (15 January 2014) para. 96.
385.
In compare to Gbagbo case the PTC issued in the Decision about the modalities at the stage of confirmation of Hearing in the case of Katanga a more substantial role to the victims in the proceedings, see also Moffett (2015), p. 264.
386.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-474 Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case (15 May 2008) para. 139, taking into account the manner of questioning, see ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-2127, Decision on the Manner of Questioning Witnesses by the Legal Representatives of Victims (16 September 2009) paras. 26–30.
387.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-474 Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case (15 May 2008) paras. 107–114, the Chamber also noted that according to Article 61 (7) RS the power of PTC is confined to “requesting the consideration by the Prosecutor of the opportunity to provide additional evidence, in contrast to Article 69(3) RS which gives the competent Chamber “the authority to request the submission of all evidence that considers necessary for the determination of the truth, see ICC, Policy Paper on Victims’ Participation, p. 17.
388.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008 (11 July 2008) paras. 3–5, see also Gosnell (2016), p. 125.
389.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1432, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008 (11 July 2008) para. 4, ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) paras 108–110, ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-2032, Order issuing public redacted version of the “Decision on the request by victims a/ 0225/06, a/0229/06 and a/0270/07 to express their views and concerns in person and to present evidence during the trial” (9 July 2009) cf. with ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06-1780-Conf, Public redacted version of ‘Decision on the request by the Legal Representative of the Victims of the Attacks for leave to present evidence and victims’ views and concerns’ (15 February 2017).
390.
Almost the same activities for the legal representative may be granted also at the trial stage to the legal representative under the criteria if the personal interests of the victim may be affected, see e.g. access by victims to confidential documents in the record in ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) paras. 105–107, ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-807-Corr-Anx, Corrigendum to Decision on the participation of victims in the trial and on 86 applications by victims to participate in the proceedings (12 July 2010) para. 41, Prosecutor v. Banda, ICC-02/05-03/09-545, Decision on the participation of victims in the trial proceedings (20 March 2014) paras. 34–39.
391.
See ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07, Directions for the conduct of the proceedings and testimony in accordance with rule 140 (1 December 2009) paras. 45–48, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-2288, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Katanga Against the Decision of Trial Chamber II of 22 January 2010 Entitled “Decision on the Modalities of Victim Participation at Trial” (16 July 2010) paras. 111–114, ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, Decision on the Legal Representatives for Victims Requests to Present Evidence and Views and Concerns and related requests (6 March 2018) paras. 17–19.
392.
Prosecutor v. Banda, ICC-02/05-03/09-545, Decision on the participation of victims in the trial proceedings (20 March 2014) para. 25, ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-807-Corr-Anx, Corrigendum to Decision on the participation of victims in the trial and on 86 applications by victims to participate in the proceedings (12 July 2010) para. 33.
393.
ASP, Court’s Revised strategy in relation to victims, 14–22 November 2012, p. 11, See also Eckelmans (2013), p. 217.
394.
See Klamberg (2017), pp. 606–607.
395.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15-190-Conf, Public redacted version of “Submissions of the Legal Representative of Victims on the principles and forms of the right to reparation” dated 2 December 2016 (3 January 2017), ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07-3702, Observations des victimes sur la valeur monétaire des préjudices allégués? (30 September 2016).
396.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, Annex 1 to the Transmission of the Public Version of one Expert’s Report pursuant to the Trial Chamber’s Order of 11 July 2017 (27 April 2017).
397.
See ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01-/15-236, Judgment on the appeal of the victims against the “Reparations Order” (8 March 2018).
398.
Bachvarova (2017), p. 146 et seq.
399.
Cohen (2009), p. 351.
400.
(1) Security measures, (2) no additional rights, (3) communication between the Registry and victim-witnesses should be neutral, direct and continuous.
401.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1379, Decision on certain practicalities regarding individuals who have the dual status of witness and victim (6 June 2008) paras. 52–78.
402.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07, Directions for the conduct of the proceedings and testimony in accordance with rule 140 (1 December 2009) paras 25–28.
403.
Bachvarova (2017), p. 191 et seq., see also ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08-807-Corr-Anx, Corrigendum to Decision on the participation of victims in the trial and on 86 applications by victims to participate in the proceedings (12 July 2010) paras. 50, 54.
404.
ICC, Representing Victims before the International Criminal Court, A manual for legal representatives, p. 31.
405.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, Decision on victims’ participation (18 January 2008) para. 137.
406.
ICC, Situation in the DRC, ICC-10/04, Decision on the Defence request for leave to appeal regarding the transmission of applications for victim participation (6 Novmber 2006) para. 4.
407.
Reyes (2017), p. 182.
408.
See also Article 53 (1)(c) RS.
409.
ICC, Situation in DRC, ICC-01/04-556, Judgement on victim participation in the investigation stage of the proceedings in a the appeal of the OPCD against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 7 December 2007 and in the appeals of the OPCD and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Pre Trial Chamber I of 24 December 2007 (19 December 2008) paras. 48, 58.
410.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-462-tEN, Decision on the arrangements for participation of victims a/001/06m 1/0002/06 and 1/0003/06 at the confirmation hearing (22 September 2006) p. 7.
411.
See Khan (2016), p. 1202, OPCD is not an organ of the Court.
412.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07, Defence observation of the 12 applications for participation as victims (7 March 2008), ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, Defence Observations regarding victims’ participation and scope thereof (29 January 2009), ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, Defence’s Observations on 336 Victims’ Applications for Participation (11 November 2015).
413.
See Fardel and Olarra (2017), p. 28 and compare with Jacobs (2017), p. 573.
414.
E.g. the defence team may use the participation of the victims which is related to the charges brought against the accused, but the participation of those victims may verify that the committed crimes are not related to the accused himself in the course of proceedings.
415.
Hafetz (2018), p. 87.
416.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07-3660-Red 08-03-2016, Defence Observations on the Victims Applications for Reparation (8 March 2016) paras. 13–20, e.g. the Defence argued on that the convicted may not expected to provide a house build of significantly different and more expensive material than that of original straw home lost or damaged in the couse of the attack.
417.
E.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15-192-Red, General Defence observations on reparations (2 December 2016) para. 41, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, ICC-01/04-01/07-3711, Defence Observations on the Monetary Value of the Alleged Harm (30 September 2016) paras 12–13.
418.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, 8 June 2018 (Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III’s “Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute) Separate opinion Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert and Judge Howard Morrison, para. 30, van den Wyngaert (2011), p. 495.
419.
Moffett (2014), p. 97.
420.
Moffett (2014), p. 97, see ICC, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-9, Submissions on Behalf of the Victims Pursuant to Article 19(3) of the Statute (30 May 2018).
421.
Van den Wyngaert (2011), p. 481.
422.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-933, Decision on the treatment of applications for participation (26 February 2009) para. 10.
423.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Decision on the Participation of Victims in the Appeal of Mr Katanga Against the “Decision on the Modalities of Victim Participation at Trial” (24 May 2010) para. 5, see also Eckelmans (2013), p. 219.
424.
The Registry was reorganised in 2016, see ICC, Comprehensive Report on the Reorganisation of the Registry of the International Criminal Court, August 2016.
425.
See e-Court System, ICC, Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana, ICC-01/04-01/10-118, Annex 1 to the Registry Report on the eCourt Protocol (21 April 2011) para. 30.
426.
ICC, Comprehensive Report on the Reorganisation of the Registry of the International Criminal Court, August 2016, pp. 35–38, ICC, ASP Audit report of the ReVision project of the International Criminal Court’s Registry, fifteenth session, 16–24 November 2016, p. 2, J. Eesterday, Major Changes at the ICC: the Registry’s ReVision, 24 August 2015, ijmonitor.org.
427.
See ASP, Resolution ICC-ASP/12/Res.1, 27 November 2013, H, para. 3.
428.
See the comments of FIDH to the Registrar, FIDH Comments on the ICC Registrar’sReVision proposals in relation to victims 18 November 2014, Fardel and Olarra (2017), p. 14.
429.
ICC, ASP Report on the review of the organisational structure of the Registry Outcomesof Phase 4of the ReVision Project, Decisions on the structure of the Registry, ICC-ASP/14/18, 4 May 2015, para. 6.
430.
ICC, ASP Report on the review of the organisational structure of the Registry Outcomesof Phase 4of the ReVision Project, Decisions on the structure of the Registry, ICC-ASP/14/18, 4 May 2015, para. 4 (i).
431.
ICC, Registry ReVision Project, Basic Outline of Proposals to Establish Defence and Victims Offices, pp. 4–5.
432.
ICC, Registry ReVision Project, Basic Outline of Proposals to Establish Defence and Victims Offices, p. 3.
433.
ICC, ASP, Report on participation of and reparations to victims, ICC-ASP/3/21, 25 August 2004, paras. 3, 8–10.
434.
ICC, Review Committee Response in Relation to the OPCV Interlocutor, Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice, p. 8.
435.
E.g. Regulation 37 (RoP), “Victims questioned by the Office shall be informed of the procedures for participation andaccess to reparations under the Statute, and of the existence and role of the Victims Participationand Reparations Section of the Registry”, Regulation 86 (9) RoC, “There shall be a specialised unitdealing with victims’ participation andreparations under the authority of the Registrar. This unit shall be responsible forassisting victims and groups of victims”.
436.
See narrow in ASP, Report on participation of and reparations to victims, ICC-ASP/3/21, 25 August 2004, p. 2.
437.
See the critics and identified problems of the PIDS/PIOS at ICC, ICC, Comprehensive Report on the Reorganisation of the Registry of the International Criminal Court, paras. 515–516.
438.
See McKay (2008), pp. 1–2.
439.
ICC, Chamber Practice Manual, May 2017, p. 20 (i).
440.
See ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, ICC-01/12-01/18, Registry Observations on Aspects Related to the Admission of Victims for Participation in the Proceedings (9 May 2018) para. 5.
441.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision setting a time-limit for the submission of new victims’ applications for participation (7 September 2010) para. 8, ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, 3 September 2015, Decision concerning the procedure for admission of victims to participate in the proceedings in the present case for the participation in the confirmation hearings (ICC-02/04-01/15) para. 4, in the Al Hassan case the victims had to apply until 24 August 2018.
442.
See e.g. ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15-275, First Registry Report on Applications for Individual Reparations (10 August 2018), ICC, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Seventh Transmission to Trial Chamber II of Confidential Applications for Reparations and the Report Thereon (15 June 2017), ICC, Situation in Uganda, Eighteenth Periodic Report of the Registry on the Applications Received by the Victims Participation and Reparations Section in the Situation in Uganda (11 May 2018).
443.
See narrower in Vasiliev (2015), p. 1151.
444.
Since 2015 the Victims and Witness Unit was restructured to Victim and Witness Section under External Division of External Operations, see ICC, Comprehensive Report on the Reorganisation of the Registryof the International Criminal Court, p. 151. Reyes (2017), p. 174, ASP, Report on activities and programme performance of the International Criminal Court for the year 2015, 14 September 2016, para. 181, ASP Report on activities and programme performance of the International Criminal Court for the year 2014, 4 May 2015, para, 172, see also Schabas (2016), p. 357.
445.
Cody (2016), p. 304.
446.
Cody (2016), pp. 305–310.
447.
ICC, Comprehensive Report on the Reorganisation of the Registry of the International Criminal Court, p. 151.
448.
ASP, Report on activities and programme performance of the International Criminal Court for the year 2017, para. 148.
449.
ICC, Situation in the DRC, ICC-01/04-423-Corr-tENG, Corrigendum to the “Decision on the Applications for Participation Filed in Connection with the Investigation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo by a/0004/06 to a/0009/06, a/0016/06 to a/0063/06, a/0071/06 to a/0080/06 and a/0105/06 to a/0110/06 (1 February 2008) p. 52.
450.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Bemba, ICC-01/05-01/0, Fifth Decision on Victims’ Issues Concerning Common Legal Representation of Victims (16 December 2008) paras. 13–16, ICC, Prosecutor v. Katanga, Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1328, Order on the organisation of common legal representation of victims (22 July 2009) para. 17.
451.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Kenyatta, Muthaura, ICC-01/09-02/11, Decision appointing a common legal representative of victims (20 November 2012) paras. 5–8.
452.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Gbagbo, ICC-02/11-01/11-384-Corr, Corrigendum to the second decision on victims’ participation at the confirmation of charges hearing and in the related proceedings (6 February 2013) para. 61 ICC, Prosecutor v. Ntaganda, ICC-01/04-02/06, Decision Concerning the Organisation of Common Legal Representation of Victims (2 December 2013) para. 26.
453.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-350, Decision on contested victims’ applications for participation, legal representation of victims and their procedural rights (27 November 2015) paras. 21–23.
454.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Al Mahdi, ICC-01/12-01/15, Public redacted version of ‘Decision on Victim Participation at Trial and on Common Legal Representation of Victims’ (8 June 2016) para. 30.
455.
Hirst (2017), p. 152.
456.
See ICC, Review Committee Response in Relation to the OPCV Interlocutor, Women’s Initiative for Gender Justice, p. 12.
457.
See Resolution ICC-ASP/1/Res.6.
458.
See Peschke (2013), p. 319.
459.
Kirsch and Holmes (1999), p. 12.

References

Altwicker TH, Altwicker A, Peters A (2016) Measuring violations of human rights: an empirical analysis of awards in respect of non-pecuniary damage under the European Convention on Human Rights. Heidelberg J Int Law. ZaöRV 76:1–51
Google Scholar
Amann DM (2013) Children and the first verdict of the international criminal court. Wash Univ Global Stud Law Rev 12:411–430
Google Scholar
Amann DM (2016) Children. In: Schabas W (ed) The Cambridge companion to international criminal law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 253–274
Google Scholar
Ambos K (2016) Treatise on international criminal law, 1st edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Aust A (2009) Handbook of international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Autesserre S (2006) Local violence, national peace? Postwar ‘settlement’ in the eastern D.R. Congo (2003–2006). Afr Stud Rev 49(3):1–29
Article Google Scholar
Bachvarova T (2017) The standing of victims in the procedural design of the international criminal court. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden
Book Google Scholar
Barth B (2013) Victims of genocide and crimes against humanity. In: Bonacker T, Safferling C (eds) Victims of international crimes: an interdisciplinary discourse. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 253–262
Chapter Google Scholar
Bassiouni CM (1999) Negotiating the Treaty of Rome. Cornell Int Law J 32:443–468
Google Scholar
Bassiouni CM (2006) International recognition of victims’ rights. Hum Rights Law Rev 6:203–279
Article Google Scholar
Bassiouni MC (2011) Crimes against humanity: historical evolution and contemporary application. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Bassiouni CM (2013) Introduction to international criminal law. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden
Google Scholar
Bassiouni CM, Schabas W (2016) The legislative history of the international criminal court: second revised and expanded edition. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden
Book Google Scholar
Baumgartner E (2008) Aspects of victim participation in the proceedings of the International Criminal Court. Int Rev Red Cross 90(870):409–440
Google Scholar
Bergsmo M, Pejic J, Zhu D (2016) Article 15. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the international criminal court: a commentary. Beck, München
Google Scholar
Birchall E, Francq E, Pijnenburg A (2011) The international criminal court and reparations for child victims of armed conflict. Reparations Unit, Briefing Paper 4
Google Scholar
Boas G, Bischoff JL, Reid NL (2008) International criminal law practitioner library. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Bock S (2010) Das Opfer vor dem Internationalen Strafgerichtshof. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Bock S (2013) Victims of civil wars. In: Bonacker T, Safferling C (eds) Victims of international crimes: an interdisciplinary discourse. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 263–277
Chapter Google Scholar
Boczek BA (2005) International law: a dictionary. Scarecrow Press, Lanham
Google Scholar
Bohacik B (2010) Report on the standing and rights of victims in criminal proceedings. European Committee on Crime Problems
Google Scholar
Bonneau K, Benedetti F, Washburn JL (2014) Preliminary material. In: Bonneau K, Benedetti F, Washburn JL (eds) Negotiating the international criminal court: New York to Rome, 1994-1998. Brill, Leiden, pp 145–168
Google Scholar
Boot M (2002) Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes: Nullum crimen sine lege and the subject matter jurisdiction of the international criminal court. Intersentia, Anwerpen
Google Scholar
Boothby WH (2012) The law of targeting. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Bottigliero I (2004) Redress for victims of crimes under international law. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht
Book Google Scholar
Brammsen J, Apel S (2008) Anstiftung oder Täterschaft?: “Organisationsherrschaft” in Wirtschaftsunternehmen. ZJS 3:256–265
Google Scholar
Catani L (2012) Victims at the international criminal court: some lessons learned from the Lubanga Case. J Int Crim Just 10(4):905–922
Article Google Scholar
Chaikel D (2015) The ICC’s child soldier provisions: time to close the three-year gap. ijmonitororg
Google Scholar
Chung C (2008) Victims’ participation at the internatinal criminalcourt: are concessions of the court clouding the promise? J Int Hum Rights:459–545
Google Scholar
Cody S, Koenig A, Stover E (2016) Witness testimony, support, and protection at the ICC. In: Clarke, Knottnerus AS, de Volder E (eds) Africa and the ICC. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 301–322
Chapter Google Scholar
Cohen M (2009) Victims’ participation rights within the international criminal court: a critical overview. Denv J Int Law Policy 37:351–377
Google Scholar
Companjen F, Polese A (2012) Subtle line between self-defence and war. In: Mahapatra DA (ed) Conflict and peace in Eurasia. Routledge, Abingdon, pp 88–102
Google Scholar
Cottier M (2016) Article 8. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the international criminal court: a commentary. Beck, München
Google Scholar
de Brouwer A-M (2005) Supranational criminal prosecution of sexual violence: The ICC and the practice of the ICTY and the ICTR, School of human rights research series, vol 20. Intersentia, Antwerpen
Google Scholar
de Brouwer A, Heikkilä M (2013) Victim issues: participation, protection, reparation and assistance. In: Sluiter G (ed) International criminal procedure: principles and rules. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1299–1374
Google Scholar
de Casadevante Romani CF (2012) International law of victims. Springer, London
Book Google Scholar
de Guzman M (2010) Crimes against humanity. In: Schabas W (ed) Routledge handbook of international criminal law. Routledge, London, pp 121–138
Google Scholar
Donat-Cattin D (2016) Article 68. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. Beck, Munich
Google Scholar
Drumbl MA (2012) Reimagining child soldiers in international law and policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Dué P (1966) Prejudicial publicity versus the rights of the accused. La Law Rev 26:818–847
Google Scholar
Eckelmans F (2013) ICC’s practice on victim participation. In: Bonacker T, Safferling C (eds) Victims of international crimes: an interdisciplinary discourse. T. M. C. Asser Press, pp 189–222
Chapter Google Scholar
Edna E, Bienkowska E (1993) Victim participation in proceedings and satisfaction with justice in the continental systems: the case of Poland. J Crim Just 21(1):47–60
Article Google Scholar
Elander M (2018) Figuring victims in international criminal justice: the case of the Khmer Rouge tribunal. Routledge, London
Book Google Scholar
Evans C (2012) The right to reparation in international law for victims of armed conflict. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Fardel M, Olarra NV (2017) The application process: procedure and players. In: Tibori-Szabó K, Hirst M (eds) Victim participation in international criminal justice. International criminal justice series, vol 11. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 11–43
Google Scholar
Ferencz B (1998) International criminal courts: the legacy of Nuremberg. Pace Int Law Rev 10(1):203–235
Google Scholar
Fernández de Gurmendi S (2002) International criminal procedures. In: Lee LR (ed) The international criminal court: the making of the Rome Statute; issues, negotiations, results. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 175–188
Google Scholar
Findlay M (2013) Enunciating genocide: crime, rights and the impact of judicial intervention. In: Rothe DL, Meernik JM, Ingadóttir T (eds) The realities of international criminal justice. BRILL, Leiden
Chapter Google Scholar
Flores A (2006) The Rome Statute’s sexual related crimes: an appraisal under the light of international humanitarian law. Humanitäres Völkerrecht 19:39–51
Google Scholar
Funk TM (2015) Victims’ rights and advocacy at the international criminal court. Oxford Universtiy Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Gal T (2011) Child victims and restorative justice: a needs-rights model, interpersonal violence. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Garbett C (2017) The international criminal court and restorative justice: victims, participation and the processes of justice. Restorative Just 5(2):198–220
Article Google Scholar
Garner BA (2011) Garner’s dictionary of legal usage, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Google Scholar
Gillett M (2009) Victim participation at the international criminal court. Aust Int Law J 16:29–46
Google Scholar
Glasius M (2006) The international criminal court: a global civil society achievement. Routledge, London
Book Google Scholar
Gosnell C (2016) Damned if you don’t: liability for omission in international criminal law. In: McDermott Y, Schabas W, Hayes N (eds) The Ashgate research companion to international criminal law: critical perspectives. Routledge, Abingdon, New York, pp 101–132
Google Scholar
Groome D (2014) Evidence in cases of mass criminality. In: Mylonaki E, Bantekas I (eds) Criminological approaches to international criminal law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 117–158
Chapter Google Scholar
Hafetz J (2018) Punishing atrocities through a fair trial: international criminal law from Nuremberg to the age of global terrorism. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Hall C, Ambos K (2016) Article 7. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the international criminal court: a commentary. Beck, München
Google Scholar
Hall CK, Stahn C (2016) Article 7. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: a commentary. Beck, Munich
Google Scholar
Hirst M (2017) Legal representation of participating victims. In: Tibori-Szabó K, Hirst M (eds) Victim participation in international criminal justice. International criminal justice series, vol 11. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 111–170
Google Scholar
Ichim O (2015) Just satisfaction under the European Convention on Human Rights. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Jacobs D (2017) A tale of four illussions: the right of the defense before international criminal tribunals. In: Rohan CM, Zyberi G (eds) Defense perspectives in international criminal justice. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 561–586
Chapter Google Scholar
Kambale P, Rotman A (2004) The international criminal court and Congo
Google Scholar
Kaul HP (2014) Der Beitrag Deutschlands zum Völkerstrafrecht. In: Safferling C, Kirsch S (eds) Völkerstrafrechtspolitik: Praxis des Völkerstrafrechts. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 51–84
Chapter Google Scholar
Kelly M (2013) The status of victims under the Rome Statute of the international criminal court. In: Bonacker T, Safferling C (eds) Victims of international crimes: an interdisciplinary discourse. T. M. C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 47–66
Chapter Google Scholar
Kelsen H (1952) Principles of international law. Originally published: New York: Rinehart & Company, Inc Reprinted 2003, 2012 by The Lawbook Exchange, Clark
Google Scholar
Khan K (2016) Article 32. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the international criminal court: a commentary. Beck, München
Google Scholar
Kieler M (2003) Tatbestandsprobleme der sexuellen Nötigung, Vergewaltigung sowie des sexuellen Mißbrauchs widerstandsunfähiger Personen, vol 52. Tenea-Verlag, Berlin
Google Scholar
Kirsch P, Holmes JT (1999) The Rome conference on an international criminal court: the negotiating process. Am J Int Law 93:2–12
Article Google Scholar
Kirsch S (2009) Der Begehungszusammenhang der Verbrechen gegen die Menschlichkeit. Frankfurter kriminalwissenschaftliche Studien, vol 115. Peter Lang, Frankfurt
Google Scholar
Kiza E (2006) Victimisation in wars: a framework for further inquiry. In: Turković K, Ewald U (eds) Large-scale victimisation as a potential source of terrorist activities: importance of regaining security in post-conflict societies. IOS Press, pp 72–88
Google Scholar
Klamberg M (2017) Article 81. In: Klamberg M (ed) Commentary on the law of the international criminal court. FICHL publication series N. 29, Torkel Opsahl Academic
Google Scholar
Kristie B (2004) The role of NGOs in the establishment of the international criminal court. Dialogue: Acad Soc Sci Aust 2(1):11–22
Google Scholar
Lane C (1999) Hospitals. In: Gutman R (ed) Crimes of war. Norton
Google Scholar
Laucci C (2014) The annotated digest of the international criminal court. Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Google Scholar
Lauterpacht H, Lauterpacht E (1975) International law: being the collected papers of Hersch Lauterpacht. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Google Scholar
Leach P (2012) South Ossetia. In: Wilmshurst E (ed) International law and the classification of conflicts. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 317–355
Google Scholar
Lenzerini F (2013) The role of international and mixed criminal courts in the enforcement of international norms on the protection of cultural heritage. In: Francioni F, Gordley J (eds) Enforcing international cultural heritage law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 40–64
Chapter Google Scholar
Leveau F (2013) Liability of child soldiers under international law. Osgoode Hall Rev Law Policy 4:36–66
Google Scholar
Magsam D (2014) Die Opfer in völkerstrafrechtlichen Prozessen in Deutschland. In: Safferling C, Kirsch S (eds) Völkerstrafrechtspolitik: Praxis des Völkerstrafrechts. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 181–189
Chapter Google Scholar
McAsey B (2011) Victim participation at the international criminal court and its impact on procedural fairness. Aust Int Law J 5:105–125
Google Scholar
McKay F (2008) Victim participation in proceedings before the international criminal court. Hum Rights Brief 15(3):2–5
Google Scholar
Moffett L (2014) Justice for victims before the international criminal court. Routledge, Abingdon, New York
Book Google Scholar
Moffett L (2015) Meaningful and effective? Considering victims’ interests through participation at the international criminal court. Crim Law Forum 26(2):255–289
Article Google Scholar
Moffett L (2016) Justice for victims before the International Criminal Court. In: Routledge research in international law. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London
Google Scholar
Moore B (2008) Courting history: the landmark international criminal court’s first years. HRW
Google Scholar
Morisson H, Pountney E (2014) Victim participation at the special tribunal for Lebanon. In: Alamuddin А (ed) The special tribunal for Lebanon: law and practice (Oxford monographs in international humanitarian and criminal law). Oxford Univеrsity Press, Oxford, pp 153–176
Chapter Google Scholar
Muttukumaru C (2002) Reparation to victims. In: Lee LR (ed) The international criminal court: the making of the Rome Statute; issues, negotiations, results. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 262–270
Google Scholar
Neubacher F (2005) Kriminologische Grundlagen einer internationalen Strafgerichtsbarkeit: Politische Ideen- und Dogmengeschichte, kriminalwissenschaftliche Legitimation, strafrechtliche Perspektiven. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen
Google Scholar
Nilsson A (2013) Children and youth in armed conflict. The Raoul Wallenberg Institute human rights library volume 43/I-43/II. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden
Google Scholar
Novic E (2016) The concept of cultural genocide: an international law perspective. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Nuzhat M (2008) Defining “charity” and “charitable purposes” United Kingdom. Int J Not-for Profit Law 11
Google Scholar
Olásolo H (2008) Essays on international criminal justice. Hart Publishing, London
Google Scholar
Pace WR, Thieroff M (2002) Participation of non-governmental organisations. In: Lee LR (ed) The international criminal court: the making of the Rome Statute; issues, negotiations, results. Kluwer Law International, The Hague, pp 391–399
Google Scholar
Pérez-León Acevedo J P (2014) Victims’ Status at International and Hybrid Criminal Courts
Google Scholar
Peschke K (2013) The role and mandates of the ICC trust fund for victims. In: Bonacker T, Safferling C (eds) Victims of international crimes: an interdisciplinary discourse. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 317–327
Chapter Google Scholar
Peters A (2016) Beyond human rights: the legal status of the individual in international law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Petrossian G (2019a) Elements of superior responsibility for sexual violence by subordinates. Manitoba Law J 42:123–152
Google Scholar
Petrossian G (2019b) Staatenverantwortlichkeit für Völkermord. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin
Book Google Scholar
Pilloud C et al (1987) Commentary on the Additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Nijhoff, Leiden
Google Scholar
Potier T (2001) Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia: a legal appraisal. Kluwer Law International, Alphen aan den Rijn
Book Google Scholar
Redress (2015) Victim participation in criminal law proceedings. Redress, The Hague
Google Scholar
Reyes YA (2017) The protection of victims participating in international criminal justice. In: Tibori-Szabó K, Hirst M (eds) Victim participation in international criminal justice. International criminal justice series, vol 11. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 171–204
Google Scholar
Rikhof J (2011) Child soldiers: protection or responsibility. In: Cook DT, Wall J (eds) Children and armed conflict: cross-disciplinary investigations. Studies in childhood and youth. Palgrave Macmillan, London, pp 171–189
Chapter Google Scholar
Rivier R (2010) Inter-American mechanisms. In: Crawford J et al (eds) The law of international responsibility. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 739–762
Google Scholar
Robinson D (1999) Defining “Crimes Against Humanity” at the Rome Conference. Am J Int Law 93:43–57
Article Google Scholar
Rojo EC (2017) Personal interests of victims. In: Klamberg M (ed) Commentary on the law of the international criminal court. FICHL publication series N. 29, Torkel Opsahl Academic
Google Scholar
Rombouts H (2004) Victim organisations and the politics of reparation: a case-study on Rwanda. Intersentia, Mortsel
Google Scholar
Safferling C (2003) Das Opfer völkerrechtlicher Verbrechen. Zeitschrift für die gesamte Strafrechtswissenschaft:352–384
Google Scholar
Safferling C (2011a) The role of the victim in the criminal process. ICLR 11:183–215
Article Google Scholar
Safferling C (2011b) Internationales Strafrecht, Strafanwendungsrecht - Völkerstrafrecht - Europäisches Strafrecht. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Google Scholar
Safferling C (2012) International criminal procedure. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Sandick PA (2012) Speechlessness and trauma: why the international criminal court needs a public interviewing guide. Northwest J Int Hum Rights 11:105–125
Google Scholar
Schabas W (2007) An introduction to the international criminal court, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Book Google Scholar
Schabas W (2010) The international criminal court: a commentary on the Rome Statute. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Book Google Scholar
Schabas W (2016) Article 6. In: Triffterer O, Ambos K (eds) Rome Statute of the international criminal court: a commentary. Beck, München
Google Scholar
Seyfarth L (2013) Child soldiers to war criminals: trauma and the case for personal mitigation. Chi-Kent J Int Comp Law 14:1–30
Google Scholar
Simon TW (2007) The laws of genocide: prescriptions for a just world. Praeger Security International
Google Scholar
Stewart J (2014) Fair trial rights under the Rome Statute from a prosecution perspective: ICTR Symposium
Google Scholar
Swaak-Goldman O (2000) Crimes against humanity. In: McDonald GK, Swaak-Goldman O (eds) Substantive and procedural aspects of international criminal law. The experience of international and national courts. Kluwer Law International, Leiden
Google Scholar
Trumbull CP (2008) The victims of victim participation in international criminal proceedings. Mich J Int Law 23:777–826
Google Scholar
van den Wyngaert C (2011) Victims before international criminal courts: some views and concerns of an ICC trial judge. Case West Reserve J Int Law 44(1):475–496
Google Scholar
van Kempen PH (2010) Human rights and criminal justice applied to legal persons. Protection and liability of private and public juristic entities under the ICCPR, ECHR, ACHR and AfChHPR. Electron J Comp Law 14:1–32
Google Scholar
Vasiliev S (2008) Article 68 (3) and personal interests of victims in the emerging practice of the ICC. In: Sluiter G, Stahn C (eds) The emerging practice of the international criminal court. BRILL, Leiden, pp 635–690
Google Scholar
Vasiliev S (2015) Victim participation revised: what the ICC is learning about itself. In: Stahn C (ed) Law and practice of the international criminal court. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 1133–1201
Google Scholar
Werle G, Jeßberger F (2014) Principles of international criminal law. Oxford University Press
Google Scholar
Zagar M (2018) A defendant’s right to a fair trial and improvement of the victim’s status in the proceedings before international criminal jurisdictions. In: Lorenzmeier S, Sancin V (eds) Contemporary issues of human rights protection in international and national settings. Nomos, Hart Publishing, Baden-Baden, Oxford, pp 289–308
Chapter Google Scholar
Zago G (2014) The role of victims at the international criminal court, legal chalanges from the tension between restorative and retributive justice. Diritto Penale Contemporaneo, Milan
Google Scholar
Zappala S (2010) The rights of victims v. the rights of the accused. J Int Crim Just 1:137–164
Article Google Scholar
Zegveld L (2009) Compensation for the victims of chemical warfare in Iraq and Iran. In: Ferstman C, Goetz M, Stephens A (eds) Reparations for victims of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity: systems in place and systems in the making. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, pp 369–384
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

School of Law, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
Christoph Safferling & Gurgen Petrossian

Authors

Christoph Safferling
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Gurgen Petrossian
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Safferling, C., Petrossian, G. (2021). Victims’ Participation Under the Rome Statute. In: Victims Before the International Criminal Court. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80177-9_3

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-80177-9_3
Published: 17 September 2021
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-80176-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-80177-9
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics