Side Event – “10 Years After the War: Victims of the Georgia Situation” (co-hosted by Georgia, the Netherlands, and Justice International)

Overview by Kathryn Gooding, Research Associate PILPG NL

This side-event was held by the Open Society Georgia Foundation, Justice International, The Georgian Center for Psychosocial and Medical Rehabilitation of Torture Victims, and Georgian Coalition for the ICC.

Nika Jeiranashvili of Justice International introduced the ICC’s Georgia Situation, which concerns the alleged crimes committed in the course of the international armed conflict between Georgia and Russia in 2008 over South Ossetia. He noted that this conflict resulted in the torture and death of civilians, and the ethnic cleansing of 28,000 Georgians. It also led to the annihilation of their villages, and has led to the occupation of 20% of Georgian territory. The ICC carried out a preliminary investigation for eight years and in October 2015, the prosecutor requested authorisation proprio motuto lead an investigation. 

The scope of the Prosecutor’s investigation is to look into crimes allegedly committed during the 2008 conflict. The investigation is looking into allegations of murder, forcible transfer of populations, persecution, sexual violence and the arbitrary detention of civilians which could constitute crimes against humanity. The investigation is also looking into allegations of attacks against civilians, willful killing, pillage, destruction of property, attacks against peacekeepers, and the torture of prisoners of war which could constitute war crimes. These allegations concern the territory in and around South Ossetia, involving Georgian, Russian and South Ossetian forces. 

Nika Jeiranashvili continued by noting a number of the challenges facing the ICC investigation. First, no one knows what is happening on the ground, because there is an informational vacuum as to what steps have been taken in the investigation. Also, there is the non-cooperation of Russia, which means a lack of access to the conflict zone, the non-execution of arrest warrants, political pressure, and interference. There has also been a significant time-delay between the cessation of hostilities and the commencement of the investigation, of about eight years. The security situation on the ground is also precarious, with allegations of continued cases of torture and murder, which creates difficulties for the security of victims and witnesses. There is also a lack of international support for NGOs involved in the investigation efforts. 

A number of Georgian NGOs created a report, “August Ruins” to explore violations of fundamental human rights and international humanitarian law to submit to the European Court of Human Rights. Specifically, the report looks at the socio-economic issues of the victims, and also it aimed to raise awareness among victims about the ongoing legal processes, as victims have no information regarding the ICC and the ongoing investigation. The NGOs visited internationally displaced persons camps (IDP), and estimated that there are about 20,000 victims. They met with the victims in the camps and distributed leaflets to provide information regarding the ICC to the victims. They carried out many investigations with victims for the report, and many victims expressed that they did not think that the ICC would be able to hold Russia to account for the crimes committed against them.

Major socio-economic problems were indicated by the report, such as problems related to housing conditions in IDP settlements, lack of clean water, lack of access to medical services, and a lack of employment opportunities, which has left the IDPs in dire living conditions and poverty. 

The Georgian Coalition for the ICC also created a report to support the investigation for the Office of the Prosecutor. Half of the victims interviewed had not heard of the ICC, and  any information that they had about the ICC was extremely limited. Only 3% of the victims had actually met with ICC staff, therefore the NGOs emphasise that more work is needed in terms of awareness-raising activities and public information activities on the part of the ICC. Also in terms of the expectations of the victims of the ICC investigation, a large number of victims did not believe anything would come out of the investigation, and that they do not believe that anyone from Russia will be punished as a result of this investigation. 

A number of recent developments are worrying the Georgian NGOs. The ICC investigation has been highly politicised by domestic Georgian politics, and there has been ‘fake news’ spreading regarding the investigation. The Georgian NGOs asked the court to make a statement to explain to the public what is actually happening, in an attempt to depoliticize the investigation, however the Court remained silent and ignored the developments on the ground. The Georgian NGOs claim that the ICC is at risk of losing legitimacy because of this.

In light of this, the NGOs strongly encouraged the Court to do effective outreach to Georgian society at large. The Court must closely monitor the process and developments on the ground. 

A number of questions were posed to the panel. One question concerned more concrete measures that the Court could take to effectively outreach to Georgian society, without being drawn into politicised debates. Nika Jeiranashvili mentioned problems with the ICC field office. He said that the head of the field office only speaks Russian and this is deeply problematic, as many of the victims have had crimes committed against them by Russian forces. Therefore, he advised that there should be a head of field officer that can speak Georgian to ensure sensitivity in meeting with victims and that victims feel that the ICC is acting impartially. He also argued that the ICC should have meetings with Georgian media, and appear on Georgian television shows to ensure that accurate, non-political, information is being spread to the population at large. He argued that at the moment, the fact that the ICC is ignoring the situation on the ground damages the situation in Georgia. 

Side Event – “El rol de América Latina y el Caribe ante la Corte Penal Internacional: contribución y compromisos a los 20 años de la adopción del Estatuto”

(co-hosted by Costa Rica and Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CICC)))

Overview by Juan Manuel Martinez Rojas, Research Associate PILPG NL

Main Highlights: 

• The relationship between the Latin America and the Caribbean region with the ICC it’s closer than ever before. There is an increased interest from the ICC in the region and several cooperation efforts in the multilateral relationship.

• Some States parties from the Latin America Region feel underrepresented in the organs of the ICC despite having contributed with the first prosecutor and other managerial positions.  

Descriptive Summary of the Event: 

The event was organized by the Coalition for the ICC and Costa Rica. Ambassador Sergio Ugalde from Costa Rica saluted the public and highlighted the significant contributions from Latin America to this court despite the criticism of it being an European centered court. He stressed that the region has the highest percentage of ratification from all regions of the world. He finds this system of criminal justice relevant to the world and to his region because Latin America acknowledges the relevance of complementarity which strengthens the regional judicial systems. He considers that there’s still room to grow and several challenges, but the region is heading in the right direction. He highlighted the fact that the region has contributed with precedents in the ASP, the first prosecutor of the ICC, and he claimed that the region has been a relevant players for the development of the ICC.

He pointed out big challenges for the ICC because powerful actors have been questioning the current legal order based on rules and agreements and the ICC has become a target for these powers. This issue demands, in his words, the full support and commitment with the ICC, particularly from Latin America. He finalized his statement talking about the issue of gender balance as a relevant one nowadays. He salutes the work of the region but he believes that it has to carry on in this matter.

After the Ambassador, Michelle Reyes from CICC took the floor and affirmed the significance of holding the side-event in the framework of the 20thanniversary of the Rome Statute. She highlighted that small and medium democracies, especially the Latin American countries, have been crucial for the Court’s development. For her, the region has a foundational role in the elaboration of the Rome Statute and has worked hard in advocacy for universality. She noted the high levels of local implementation of the Rome Statute.  

Then, Mariana Pena from the Open Society Justice Initiative talked about the current situation of the ICC and its relationship with Latin America. She confirmed that the region has significant contributions in the process of creation, ratification and establishment of the ICC. But also, she said that the times have changed with the work of the ICC and it is expanding from Africa going to East Europe, Middle East and Asia, and also to Latin America. She pointed out a huge change in the international order but a survival of the Latin American motto: ‘never again’. She thinks that region does not want international crimes to be committed again in Latin America nor any region of the world. 

She stressed that there is a growing role of the Latin American countries in The Hague’s working groups for the ICC. Despite this, she thinks that the ICC is far away from the region, and the region is far away from the ICC. Whilst there have been some efforts from Latin American universities, she considers that the relationship between the ICC and the region is still distant in terms of knowledge and awareness about the Court and its work. For her, there is a reality: there is not sufficient knowledge of our region, our legal system and our culture within the ICC. She highlighted the fact that people from the region mainly have to learn French or English to access the ICC framework. Regarding the attacks the ICC has recently received, she stressed the region can play a leadership role. She sustains that despite its long-lasting support to the ICC, Europe nowadays seems refusing to confront those main powers that direct the attacks.

She finished her intervention talking about the next Prosecutor election. She mentioned that the Open Society Justice Initiative has worked on that matter and participated in The Hague Working Group. She said that her organization has suggested the creation of an Election Committee formed by 7 to 9 experts that are able to assess the candidatures. She believes that a crucial factor for the election should be the knowledge of investigations and criminal prosecution and also the management skills of the candidacy. She mentioned that the previous election was criticized due the little time for consults and that this Committee, if created, would need funding and she said that the current budget does not include any financing for this. 

Antonia Pereira de Sousa from the ICC External Relations and Cooperation Officer said that there is a need to reinforce universality, since there are still several countries that have not yet signed nor ratified the Rome Statute. She stressed that from last year there is a reinforced relationship between the Court and the region through several multilateral discussions and technical missions. She further mentioned the increased laws on the framework for cooperation, for instance the ones from Dominican Republic, Costa Rica and Chile. She affirmed that the ICC Registry wants to support these processes through their experience with other states. She highlighted the importance of focal points or periods of cooperation, in quick and simplified processes. She finally remarked that it is important to reinforce the geographic representation in the Registry. 

Felipe Michelini, President of the Council of the Trust Fund for Victims started his intervention recognizing the civil society as a key player in this system. He stressed that the contribution to the Rome Statute from the region has been clearly demonstrable as 28 states from the Latin America and Caribbean region have ratified the Statute and the region has had several managerial positions in the ICC and has contributed through legal doctrine, activists and the role of their diplomats.  Despite positive elements, he highlighted the low regional contributions to the Trust Fund and the region’s endemic history of human rights violations, such as violence against women or the eternal discrimination against youth and children. For him, the Rome statute is important because it has raised the standards terms of in rejecting and judging genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. He finished his intervention by affirming that the language is a key issue and that despite of that there are contributions in terms of academy and professionalism in favour of the ICC.

Finally, Judge Luz del Carmen Ibañez addressed the public and she talked about the dream of international justice from a Latin American woman’s perspective. She noted that there’s a prominence of the western European approach of the legal interpretation. She said that victims’ representation and reparations are lacking.  She said that the region has an enormous legal and scholar production about the victim’s participation and reparations. This focus can also be seen in the Interamerican Human Rights System. For her, the ICC is a teenager: vulnerable and problematic. And in her opinion, the role of Latin America towards maturity of the ICC is leadership. To do this, she proposed: (1) intense development of positive complementarity through an outreach effort by the ICC and the use of the Spanish language, (2) equal geographical representation in the ICC staff, (3) contributions from the Latin American legal system in reparations and victim participation, and (4) empowering Spanish as way to enriching the ICC. 

Following the speakers from the panel, some Latin American States made declarations. Ecuador mentioned the organization of the ‘The ICC and South America’ Seminar in Quito. The Quito Declaration was an important expression of the support from the region to the ICC. Ecuador has ratified its commitment and support to the ICC in its fight against impunity. Brazil also mentioned the Quito Seminar finding it to be constructive and discussing the need for more geographic representation at the ICC. Brazil also mentioned that the delegation is proposing a debate in the omnibus negotiators to increase that representation also in the ICC Bureau. Chile focused on the autonomy of judges and the requirement of confidence from States.

The questions at the end of the session included how to manage the expectations of victims, to which Judge Ibanez noted the prioritization of dignity, truth, and justice before reparations. Richard Dicker of Human Rights Watch also noted the contribution of Latin America to the Rome Statute due its legitimacy and experience in dealing with transitional issues. He argued that the region could also contribute to the future of the ICC by emphasizing its justice claim and credibility. 

Side Event – “Prosecution of War Crimes in Iraqi Kurdistan: the ISIS case and the Saddam Hussein” Case (hosted by the Kurdish National Coalition for the ICC)

Overview by Sally Eshun, Intern PILPG NL

This side event held in Arabic focused on the crimes committed in Iraq against the Kurdish people both by Iraqi forces under the command of Saddam Hussein and the terrorist group Islamic State (ISIS/Da’esh), from a national perspective. An Iraqi judge on the panel remarked that since the military coup in 1958, Iraq has remained unstable with a fragile democracy. Sentencing laws have been weak as have been human rights records. According to him, special or military courts were mainly handling politically motivated cases and lacked impartiality. The Iraqi judge remarked that there have been efforts to establish a special tribunal for crimes committed in the autonomous region of Kurdistan but that due to prior experience and the potential of the court becoming too politicized, that idea was dropped. There were three avenues, which were considered when the discussion was revolving around establishing an international court. The possibility of doing it with UN-backing was hindered due to the U.S.-veto in the UN Security Council. The international community also rejected the option of a hybrid court like the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) or the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). 

Eventually, the Iraqi judge elaborated, a national court took on cases concerning the alleged crimes by also applying laws that were according to International Criminal Law standards. One of these cases included Saddam Hussein as defendant for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide and military personnel close to him. The judge explained that he resigned before the first verdict of these trials was announced because of political involvement in the court proceedings and due to the fact that the death penalty was an option for sentencing. Ultimately he noted that he regrets not being able to give victims the justice they deserve.

Following, a former labor minister of the Kurdistan region commented on how the ICC is needed to act as a watch-dog for crimes committed. He found it unfortunate that the international community does not pay as much attention to the situation in Kurdistan, as it is needed and sees no real effort by the ICC to hold individuals accountable for the crimes committed in Kurdistan. This was the generally agreed upon by the other participants of this panel. The panel noted that the victims are the ones bearing the consequences for the inaction of the ICC and the world community but they also acknowledged the limited range of possibilities of the Court since Iraq is not a state party. 

Informal Consultations of the Omnibus Resolution

Overview by Abby Roberts, Research Associate PILPG NL

Highlights: 

• There was a general consensus on the clauses concerning the recruitment of staff to balance geographic representation and gender distribution, the importance of the independence of the Court, and noting the ICC’s activated jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.

• Further discussion will take place this weekend between parties on numerous clauses that will be brought up in the next meeting on Monday 11 December. 

The informal consultations for the Omnibus Resolution entailed the discussion on the revised draft of the resolution and the newly proposed clauses.

The debate opened with the discussion of clauses 104-106 which are a part of the section of Recruitment of Staff and concern geographic representation and gender distribution. The facilitator opened the discussion on these clauses by noting a previous proposals submitted by Bangladesh regarding its concerns about the current state of representation and distribution and explained that the proposal had been partially incorporated into these clauses.  Bangladesh was the first speaker and emphasized the need to address inequalities and geographic representation and gender distribution within the ASP. Bangladesh was in favor of these clauses, but will be monitoring the situation and will submit a stronger proposal in the future if it feels not enough progress is being made.

The next topic of debate was a proposal submitted by Austria which expressed its support regarding the independence of the Court and resolved to stand against impunity. There was a general consensus regarding the inclusion of the substance of the proposal, but some debate regarding the wording. 

The next clauses up for discussion were 12 bis and 12 ter on the ICC’s activated jurisdiction over the crime of aggression. There was a general consensus regarding the content of the clauses, but debate was centered around where they should be placed. Brazil suggested creating a new chapter regarding the 20th anniversary of the Rome Statute where the clauses would be placed. Spain suggested that the clauses were placed in Section T regarding the Review Conference. The facilitator recommended further outside discussion on this so the group could come to an agreement when the topic is picked back up on Monday. The subsequent debate had to do with clauses 12 quarter - 12 octies, regarding whether the phrase ‘takes note’, ‘takes note with appreciation’, or ‘welcomes’ should be used. Ecuador led the charge for changing the wording to ‘welcomes’, as it felt that ‘takes note’ was not strong enough. This topic will also be taken back up on Monday.

The next proposal discussed was clause 91 ter alt submitted by France, which requested the Bureau to submit a report assessing the schedule, location, and length of the ASP. Germany proposed an addition to this clause which would shorten the ASP to five working days.  Brazil and Belgium expressed their concern regarding the impact this would have on the workload of the Bureau. The United Kingdom supported France and Germany’s proposals but suggested that the ASP be one working week instead of five working days, as long as there are no judicial elections. Portugal supports the proposals by France and the UK but notes that they cannot prejudge what the substantive debate will be and needs to keep in mind the civil society considerations when limiting the ASP to five days. This proposal will also be brought up for discussion on Monday. 

The last topic of debate was clauses 9 bis - 9 quarter, which concerned the differentiation between public and private meetings of the ASP. Liechtenstein spoke first on this topic and suggested just recalling rule 42 rather than including these paragraphs. They also suggested that, if they are kept, the paragraphs be moved into the section on the participation of states parties. They don’t see the sufficient link between the substance of these paragraphs and universality, which is their current section. Colombia believed that the paragraphs should remain in universality section as keeping them public encourages participation. Germany noted there are concerns about inclusiveness and encouraging participation and noted that allowing observer states to be in the room is a necessity. Germany noted that they are exclusive in the Bureau when it comes to certain court proceedings and meetings, but other than that they are open. Austria did not see the need for three paragraphs when the topic was already endorsed in clause 138; they also agreed with the proposal by Liechtenstein. The United Kingdom believed these are important paragraphs that relate to universality and it is important that observer states and civil society are on equal footing. They also believe it is important to reference rule 42. The facilitator encouraged more dialogue on this topic as this will also be brought up again on Monday 10 December. 

Side Event – “The case for survivor-centered justice: Policy issues and challenges” (hosted by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation)

(co-hosted by Costa Rica, Liechtenstein and the Netherlands)

Overview by Isabella Banks, Research Associate PILPG NL

Highlights:

• Since the Rome Statute entered into force, both States Parties and victims have had outsized expectations about what the International Criminal Court (ICC) can achieve.

• The ICC can and should listen to victims and take their views into consideration by democratizing their participation in international criminal justice. 

• Incorporating a retributive element to traditional and restorative approaches to justice may make them more appropriate and meaningful for victims of atrocity crimes, according to Dr. Roestenburg. 

• Financial and psychological empowerment can help survivors of sexual violence overcome stigma and become agents of change.

Hosted by the Institute for Justice and Reconciliation (IJR) and moderated by Project Officer Niv Bachu, this side event aimed to explore challenges related to survivor-centered justice. These include questions such as: What differentiates a victim from a survivor? What should be done with perpetrators who are also survivors? Is prosecution the most effective tool available to survivors of mass atrocity? How can civil society practically and effectively administer justice to survivors of mass atrocity?

Ms. Bachu introduced the speakers: Phakiso Mochochoko, Head of the Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division at the ICC; Dr. Helen Hintjens, Assistant Professor at the Institute of Social Studies; Ingrid Burtenberg, Senior Researcher at the IJR; and Malini Laxminarayan, Programme Officer at the Denis Mukwege Foundation in The Hague.

Before giving the speakers the floor, Ms. Bachu provided background on information the IJR. The IJR was launched in Cape Town, South Africa in 2000, in the wake of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Today the institute explores projects and partnerships that help to build fair, democratic, and inclusive societies in Africa. Its mission is to enable communities to promote reconciliation and apply human-centered approaches to socio-economic justice.

Mr. Mochochoko spoke first. In his role as division head at the ICC, Mr. Mochochoko focuses on cooperation as well as complementarity. As someone who was closely involved in negotiating the Rome Statute, he shared that he was struck by how early in the process the notion of complementarity was agreed upon by the States Parties. It helped to assuage widespread state concerns about sovereignty and the implications of a supranational body.  He explained that the principle of complementarity is applied in two ways: 1) in preliminary examinations to assess admissibility; and 2) in the investigations, to coordinate with national systems and try to ensure that lower-ranking perpetrators are prosecuted in addition to the high-level perpetrators that the ICC focuses on.

Mr. Mochochoko explained that complementarity has so far not operated in the way that is supposed to according to the Statute. He stressed that the question should not be “what is the ICC doing about this?” but rather “what are the national institutions doing about this?” In other words, the ICC has been treated as a court of first instance when it should be a court of last resort. He pointed out that no one imagined the issue of self-referrals, and called upon the international community to return to the principles envisaged in the Rome Statute.

He added that with regard to the criticism received about the duration of preliminary examinations, the ICC tries to encourage states to actively investigate and prosecute as is envisaged under complementarity but that it has not been particularly successful in this. He outlined a number of challenges: 1) lack of political will on the part of states; 2) lack of state resources, which the ICC cannot assist with; 3) state claims of lack of capacity, which the ICC also cannot assist with. The ICC is currently urging states to enhance their own judicial capacity through bilateral agreements or rule of law programs – something that Ms. Bachu pointed out the IJR may be able to assist with. He concluded with the remark that states do not seem to understand how complementarity is intended to work.

Dr. Mark Kersten spoke next, focusing on participation and engagement with victims in international criminal justice. From the outset, he noted that he does not purport to speak on behalf of victims and survivors. He argued that the ICC can and should listen to victims and take their views into consideration by democratizing their participation in international criminal justice. He criticized the tendency to speak about victims as a singularity with singular desires, noting the wide range of victims’ views towards the ICC. He stated that more attention should be paid to the core motivations of these individuals and that the reality that they are likely mixed is not something the ICC should run away from.

He noted that the existing literature on victim disenchantment with the ICC is overwhelmingly written by European or American authors and that their presumption to represent victims is problematic. He further questioned whether this “blame game” was beneficial to the victims themselves and proposed that perhaps a collective apology for letting them down would be more meaningful. He questioned why, for example, victims who are skeptical of the ICC and have fair critiques to bring to the table are not given a platform at the Assembly of States Parties (ASP). He suggested that their participation could be particularly valuable for alleviating tensions and minimizing negative impacts around the peace vs. justice debate. 

Dr. Kersten observed that international criminal justice stakeholders have a tendency to subsume victims into one category (victims of mass atrocity) that has one solution (justice before the ICC). This can be insulting to victims who have different ideas about how post-conflict justice should look. He pointed out that there are interesting possibilities that account for the varied interests and motivations of victims. In particular, he advocated for creative sentencing options that bridge the gap between retributive and restorative justice. He highlighted Colombia’s efforts to consider rehabilitation of FARC perpetrators and reconciliation with affected communities in sentencing. He also suggested that the Ongwen case could be an opportunity to incorporate participatory traditional justice practices in sentencing. Victims could also be engaged more at the preliminary examination stage.  Lastly, he stated that the ICC should not assume that victims are opposed to ICC justice.

Dr. Roestenburg-Morgan then introduced her research on the extent to which restorative and traditional mechanisms can benefit survivors of mass atrocity. She began by establishing that there is a presumption that justice is by nature retributive, but that if you look at post-conflict societies, you see a more complex picture. Prosecutions can de-stabilize a region and holistic systems of justice are often advocated. In Africa in particular, one sees a plethora of justice mechanisms, many of which are restorative (such as truth commissions) or traditional (such as Mato oput). She noted that traditional justice mechanisms can be quite valuable in terms of cost effectiveness and capacity to promote healing. Proponents also highlight their participatory nature, which can lead to meaningful engagement between victims and perpetrators as well as a greater emphasis on truth-telling.

In investigating whether such mechanisms are adequate measure for survivors of mass atrocities, Dr. Roestenburg found that they can only be effective if a retributive element of prosecution is included in their broader framework. She posited that this is due to the unique gravity, scale, and manner in which atrocity crimes are committed. Furthermore, states have an international obligation to prosecute which they cannot merely forego. Finally, it is sometimes implicit in restorative justice mechanisms that the victim must forgive the perpetrator, and this is not something that many victims of atrocity crimes are willing to do. She concluded that traditional and restorative justice mechanisms may need to be modified in order to fulfill the “genuineness requirement” under the Rome Statute, and that states should have minimum due process standards in place for atrocity crimes.

Dr. Hintjens opened with a critique of the notion that “just because justice takes a long time, it will never happen.” She also criticized the widespread use of the term “survivors,” explaining that she found it to be a far too fluid, catch-all term for atrocity crimes – particularly when used to describe perpetrators. She then raised the question: to what constituency do displaced victims belong? She described the work of her colleague Jackson Odong of the Refugee Law Project, who is currently setting up a museum in Gulu, Northern Uganda, on the topic. The purpose of the museum is to invert the assumption that crimes are always committed in a clearly-defined place against victims with access to local justice mechanisms.

Dr. Laxminarayan spoke last, summarizing her survivor-led work at the Denis Mukwege Foundation. She explained that with conflict-related sexual violence, stigma is pervasive and the first step for survivors is therefore to break the silence about what happened to them. Because of this, the Foundation views justice in terms of truth and recognition and works to empower survivors to become agents of change. Survivor empowerment can be financial (taking the form of reparations, education, livelihood programs) or psychological (initiatives that help survivors become leaders and speak out against violence and gender inequalities).  

Dr. Laxminarayanalso introduced the global survivor network, which was created in resistance to top-down, non-participatory approaches to conflict-related sexual violence.  She noted for example that the network was dissatisfied with the report on conflict-related sexual violence published by the UN Secretary General earlier this year. The network works to connect survivors of sexual violence in 20 countries with the goals of: building solidarity; breaking the silence; exchanging knowledge; documenting the past, and advocating for their rights. Within the network, there is a focus on sharing statements of support.  

A question from the audience entailed whether victim expectations might be unfairly raised by survivor-centered justice initiatives at the ICC. Mr. Mochochoko replied that from the moment the ICC opened, victims were communicating with the ICC about what the Court could do for them.  For example, he noted that the victims who the ICC interacts with are often living in very poor conditions and expect the Court to assist them with this, despite the fact that this is beyond the scope of the Court’s work. In conclusion, he suggested that victim expectations would be high regardless of these survivor-centered initiatives. Dr. Kersten agreed that the ICC can never reach what he called the “goldie locks standard” (referencing Darryl Robinson’s paper, “Inescapable Dyads: Why the ICC Cannot Win”) with respect to a the range of issues it is expected to address.