ICC: Convictions and
money for victims
22 November 2011 -
11:49am | By International Justice Tribune
== = = = = =
denying impunity v. offering
compensation to their surviving victims
ICC annual budget -
100 million euros; ICC Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) – 1 million euros
The trust fund .. is
to complement Court-ordered reparations in case the accused has no funds.
the scope and what
kind of reparations .. is within the discretion of the Trial Chamber to
determine
other mechanisms of
victims’ reparations (than handing out money) include educational services,
rehab, or medical support
the OTP has to
identify the assets of the suspect then to work together with Registry
= = = = = = =
The lofty ambitions of
the International Criminal Court in The Hague extend not only to denying
impunity for atrocities committed by the powerful, but also to offering
compensation to their surviving victims. But the difference in funding levels
for these two branches of the court's work could not be more stark: The Court's
annual budget - 100 million euros; ICC Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) – 1 million
euros for compensation payments. The Head of the Victim's Fund Pieter de Baan
explains how the system works.
By Richard Walker, The
Hague
Doesn’t a victim's
right to compensation depend on how much money you’ve got? How much money can
you pay in any given case?
Reparations depend on the available resources of the convicted persons. The individual criminal responsibility extends to payment of damages as a result of the harm caused by the actions for which he has been convicted. The trust fund has then several roles to play, one of these roles is to complement Court-ordered reparations in case the accused has no funds.
Reparations depend on the available resources of the convicted persons. The individual criminal responsibility extends to payment of damages as a result of the harm caused by the actions for which he has been convicted. The trust fund has then several roles to play, one of these roles is to complement Court-ordered reparations in case the accused has no funds.
Concerning the amount
of money spent on a particular case, it is difficult to tell right now because
it depends on the outcome of the verdict and the scope of reparations that the
chambers are considering. In some cases there are a certain number of victims
recognised by the court and in other cases there may be 10 times as many
victims.
For instance, in the
case of Lubanga, if he is found guilty, the first group of victims in this case
would be child soldiers. They will look at criteria of eligibility, most
probably not so much the numbers, but the scope and what kind of reparations
would be most appropriate. That’s within the discretion of the Trial Chamber to
determine. From our side, we have an overall reserve of 3,5 million euros for
all the cases. In the next annual meeting in March, the board of directors may
consider increasing the reserve for reparations, which would be the source of
funding for any complementary financing of reparations.
What's the difference
between handing out money and the other mechanisms of victims’ reparations?
To begin with, handing out money is not the only form of reparation; it may even be the last form you might wish to think about. There are other forms of reparations that you can consider, these may include educational services, rehabilitation or medical support. So it doesn’t have to be money necessarily, and in the circumstance of already poor communities, handing out money to certain individuals may cause them more problems than it would resolve.
To begin with, handing out money is not the only form of reparation; it may even be the last form you might wish to think about. There are other forms of reparations that you can consider, these may include educational services, rehabilitation or medical support. So it doesn’t have to be money necessarily, and in the circumstance of already poor communities, handing out money to certain individuals may cause them more problems than it would resolve.
In simple words, we
have two mandates. One is related to a particular crime which is before the ICC
and victims may be entitled to reparations as ordered by the Court. The other
mandate is more generic, not related to a particular case but to victims of
crimes who are found to be within the jurisdiction of the court. That could be
different parts of eastern Congo or northern Uganda or the Central African
Republic - even in those areas where the Prosecutor has decided not to go with his
investigations.
For example, if in one
area a large group of people has been victimised, the prosecutor may decide to
prosecute crimes committed only in a certain place, for various relevant
practical and legal reasons. It doesn’t mean that victims in the other parts of
that area are not victims of the same type of crime.
Thus, the trust fund has the ability with its second mandate to engage with those victims. The difference with judicial reparations is that eligible victims posses a legal right; the TFV’s second mandate addresses the need among victims for assistance. It is complex and the system may be imperfect. However, as it was designed, it still allows the trust fund to engage with a wider group of victims. I think it is fair to say that the people who are currently prosecuted before the ICC mostly do not have fortunes behind them.
Thus, the trust fund has the ability with its second mandate to engage with those victims. The difference with judicial reparations is that eligible victims posses a legal right; the TFV’s second mandate addresses the need among victims for assistance. It is complex and the system may be imperfect. However, as it was designed, it still allows the trust fund to engage with a wider group of victims. I think it is fair to say that the people who are currently prosecuted before the ICC mostly do not have fortunes behind them.
Who decides what
happens to these assets if a conviction is secured?
The ICC has the initiative. If the Judges deem it appropriate, the Office of the Prosecutor has to identify the assets of the suspect then to work together with the Registry work and in collaboration with those countries where these assets are being held to ensure that they are being frozen and seized. This is a very complex and challenging process which the TFV does not have any direct engagement in.
The ICC has the initiative. If the Judges deem it appropriate, the Office of the Prosecutor has to identify the assets of the suspect then to work together with the Registry work and in collaboration with those countries where these assets are being held to ensure that they are being frozen and seized. This is a very complex and challenging process which the TFV does not have any direct engagement in.
Do you conduct needs
assessments? Estimating the number of victims and the resources needed to deal
with their situations?
In the case of Court-ordered reparations, the moment for that is when reparations are being considered by the Chamber, after a conviction. A partnership should develop between the Court and the Trust Fund to identify the most appropriate measures, making use of the frozen assets of the convicted person and the additional those resources that the Trust Fund may be able to provide.
In the case of Court-ordered reparations, the moment for that is when reparations are being considered by the Chamber, after a conviction. A partnership should develop between the Court and the Trust Fund to identify the most appropriate measures, making use of the frozen assets of the convicted person and the additional those resources that the Trust Fund may be able to provide.
