ICC

Side Event – “Victim Participation in the Transitional Justice Contexts” (co-hosted by the Netherlands, Avocats Sans Frontieres, Impunity Watch and Redress)

Overview by Isabella Banks and Juan Manuel Martinez Rojas, Research Associates PILPG NL

Highlights: 

  • Transitional justice processes that have been designed to benefit victims often heavily limit their engagement.

  • Meaningful victim participation in transitional justice can take many forms – it can be formal or informal, active or passive – and should be tailored to the local context.

  • Transformative transitional justice mechanisms should address the root causes of violence and focus on non-repetition.  

Co-hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, the Republic of Uganda, Advocats Sans Frontières (ASF), Impunity Watch, and Redress, this side event explored the challenges and opportunities for ensuring the active participation of victims in processes that have been designed for their benefit, but which often heavily limit their engagement. It focused primarily on lessons that the International Criminal Court (ICC) can learn from the experiences of two case studies: Uganda and Guatemala.

In her introduction to the event, moderator and Research Coordinator at ASF Elisa Novic noted that the inclusion of victim participation in the Rome Statute is innovative but not without its challenges. Among the greatest challenges is determining how meaningful victim participation can be ensured in contexts where systems are not prepared for it.

Permanent Representative of the Netherlands to the ICC and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Paul van den IJssel followed Ms. Novic with opening remarks, highlighting the importance of ensuring victim participation at the ICC.

Ms. Marlies Stappers, Executive Director of Impunity Watch, spoke first, providing an overview of the challenges the international community has faced in its efforts to operationalize victim participation over the past decade. She pointed out that international actors now agree that victim participation is central to transitional justice and that this represents significant progress in the field. She attributed much of this progress to activism on the part of victims in the early years. Unfortunately, she noted, many of these mechanisms have become very bureaucratic, technical, and internationalized to the point that they exclude the victims who helped make them possible. She called for more meaningful victim participation at the early stages of transitional justice processes and emphasized the importance of transitional justice mechanisms that address the root causes of violence and focus on non-repetition as well as empower victims and expand their role in designing the mechanisms.

Ms. Stappers acknowledged that participation can take many forms and depends largely on the local context. She also distinguished between formal victim participation, including participation as ICC witnesses, parties to trial, or consultants to peace processes, and informal participation, including activism, advocacy, or involvement in memorialization projects. 

Ms. Patricia Bako, Project Officer of ASF, spoke next, sharing her experience as a civil society advocate of victim participation in Uganda. Her comments centered on her work with the victims of Thomas Kwoyelo, whose case is currently before Uganda’s High Court. After providing a brief history of the ICD (originally named the War Crimes Division) as well as the case of Mr. Kwoyelo (which began in 2010), Ms. Bako explained the ASF’s role in developing rules of procedure for the special division. Because Uganda is a common law country, victim participation was not part of the existing legal framework and had to be introduced. Beginning in 2016, ASF helped train lawyers appointed by the Court to serve on victim counsels. In partnership with Redress, ASF helped the lawyers identify the victims they were tasked with representing and conduct outreach to raise victims’ awareness of the case. ASF also worked with the Court’s registrar to develop and distribute a form through which victims could apply to be involved in the Kwoyelo case. The victim counsels conducted additional outreach to obtain information that was missing from the forms, and legal assistants were trained to help screen the applications.

Ms. Bako noted that throughout this process, victims often ask about the possibility of receiving reparations. She stressed that as the case moves forward, it is important that participation remains meaningful and that “the end game” for victims is clear. The rules and procedure of the ICD provides that reparations will only be addressed at the end of the case.  The victim counsels are therefore working towards holding outreach events that help to build trust among victims and give them hope throughout the process rather than focusing solely on information collection.

Elizabeth Ibanda-Nahamya, Judge of the Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and former judge of the International Crimes Division (ICD) of Uganda’s High Court, described the Ugandan experience with victim participation from an institutional perspective. She began by expressing how much her first-hand experience as a judge had affirmed the value of victim participation in the criminal justice system. Disapproving of victims’ marginalization, she also acknowledged that giving victims a voice in transitional justice processes is easier said than done.

Justice Ibanda-Nahamya highlighted two developments that have helped to broaden victim participation in transitional justice: the ICC’s legal framework and Uganda’s transitional justice policy. She pointed out that in developing new rules of procedure for victim participation, Uganda’s ICD drew significantly from the ICC rules of procedure.  Still, she stated that the victim counsels of the ICD were not well-equipped. Without sufficient funding, the Court’s victim application process was inefficient and its victim outreach strategy ineffective. To date, victims have received limited support from the Court. Justice Ibanda-Nahamya expressed regret that the ICC does not consider it within its mandate to support local institutions.

Uganda’s transitional justice policy emerged in response to the reality that formal justice mechanisms are not enough to fully address the needs of victims. It provides for judicial and non-judicial processes to fulfill victims’ right to redress. Justice Ibanda-Nahamya called the policy “a victim-centered document” in the sense that victims were consulted at various points throughout the drafting process. At the same time, she noted that it still needed to be passed into law and acknowledged that it may be excessively ambitious about what it can achieve. She stressed the importance of managing victim expectations around what benefits they will realistically receive through participation. In conclusion, she called on the international community to ensure that transitional justice processes are participatory and incorporate elements of restorative justice.

After the Ugandan experience section, Alejandro Rodriguez, human rights defender and researcher at Impunity Watch and also a Guatemalan lawyer presented 3 cases of transformative victim participation in the Guatemalan transitional justice process. 

In first place, he provided a brief context of the Guatemalan transitional justice system. According to Impunity Watch from all the gross human rights violations in Guatemala the cases brought to justice represent less than 1%, and there are just 25% sentences in those cases. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR) has established that Guatemala has a large impunity issue. Mr. Rodríguez added that 80% of victims are Mayan people and for them the language, social, and ethnic barriers are way bigger. 

About victims’ participation he said that they were able to take part in the processes, request and bring evidence, intervene in oral trials, submit requests for reparation in case of condemnatory sentence. Also, he noted that collective associations can be private accusers. He argued that there are 3 emblematic cases of strategic litigation that should be pointed out: The first one is the case against former dictator Efrain Ríos Montt for genocide against the Ichil people from 1982 to 1983 consisting of indiscriminate massacres, looting, and sexual assaults to women. The expert said that in 2013, Ríos Montt was sentenced to 80 years for genocide counts. Later, the sentence was annulated by the Constitutional Court due to high pressure from economic and political elites. Finally, he was convicted to 20 years of imprisonment for genocide through the Guatemalan army. For building up the case, Rodríguez said that the cultural perspective was a key issue and it facilitated establishing the litigation objectives. The legal support from the Asociación Justicia y Reparación(AJR) contributed largely to strength the process, after their intervention, the Public Ministry decided to create a ‘Transitional Justice Table’. Finally, Rodríguez mentioned that the judgment for genocide shocked the national consciousness and contributed significantly to the fight against racism.

The second case addressed concerned several widows that were taken as sexual slaves by the army in Sepur Zarco. For Rodríguez, the women were stigmatized after the war but with the support from several organizations they managed to organize human rights workshops in their region. Those responsible were sentenced for crimes against humanity, torture, and slavery. In the judgment a reparation section was included ordering the Government to build schools, health centers, and give scholarship for universities to the youth in the region, land restitution, and the women were able to transform their life and their own position within the community. 

Rodríguez finally addressed the case of the Molina Taissen family. Emma Molina Taissen was arrested and transferred to a military barrack, where she was victim of torture and sexual offences. She managed to flee the premises but in the recapture operative, her brother was kidnapped and disappeared. The Chief of the Army and Intelligence was convicted for being part of a joint criminal enterprise responsible for over 45.000 enforced disappearances. According to the expert, the case had serious implications for the Molina Taissen family and they had to live in exile form 1983. Finally, the IACHR called for an end to impunity in this case and after 14 years the case was brought before a Guatemalan court with several strong security measures in order to grant victims participation. After the judgement, civil society called for the passing of a law and a national policy plan to find the missing persons.

In conclusion for Rodríguez, transitional justice processes can only be successful if victims participate and transform their life to acquire prominence through a comprehensive strategy that includes psychological help and a litigation strategy. Also, transitional justice processes should have a political strategy, according to him. He moreover remarked that a communications strategy that is able to stand out in defense of victims in case they suffer revictimization and stigmatization is required. Finally, he affirmed that a security strategy that grants confidence and protection for victims is needed. With those elements, it is possible to conduct a real strategic litigation, which allows strong victim participation for promote their rights, he concluded.

An audience member asked if there was any interplay between the victims participating in the ICC’s Ongwen case and the victims of theKwoyelo case before the national court. Ms. Bako stated that the victims of Thomas Kwoyelo felt that the ICC case was moving faster than theirs and in their frustration, have said that they wished they were the victims of Ongwen.  Interim assistance and reparations from the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) is not available to the victims of Kwoyelo, and it is not clear where those victims benefits will come from.  With that said, organizations working on the two cases do interact, especially for victim participation trainings.

Ugandan Ambassador Mirjam Blaak Sow also noted that many victims who were asked to participate as witnesses in the Kwoyelo case refused on the basis that they were already witnesses in the Ongwen case. Uganda has worked with the ICC extensively around witness protection and information exchange in the two cases, seeing these efforts as a win-win form of complementarity.

Another member of the audience asked whether efforts were being made to support victims in Uganda who were not part of either case. She asked what kind of psychosocial support was made available to victims so that they – rather than civil society actors – could be the face of the movement. Ms. Bako responded that other organizations have done important work to rehabilitate victims in Northern Uganda, particularly with regard to medical surgeries for those whose faces were disfigured by members of the LRA. The TFV has played an important role in supporting these local organizations. However, Ms. Bako noted that government-funded victim assistance programs in these areas were excessively focused on development rather than reparations. As for psychosocial support, she replied that all victim outreach activities organized by civil society actors involve a counselor who works to build rapport with the victims. She stated that it is not yet clear how the ICD will be involved in delivering psychosocial support.

Justice Ibanda-Nahamya agreed with audience member about the challenge of bringing victims to the forefront and admitted that victim advocacy is progressing in baby steps. She also acknowledged that psychosocial support is not often available in Uganda and very much needed given the number of wars that have occurred. She called on civil society to take up the challenge of providing psychosocial support for victims before trials come up, and noted that they are currently working to identify and bring together experts in that area. 

Before closing, a Ugandan lawyer in the audience shared his own experience of victimization and intrusive flashbacks over the course of his life. He stressed that if it is not possible to deliver reparations to victims then at minimum, psychosocial support should be delivered. Ambassador Blaak Sow closed the event by stating that the legacy of the war in Uganda remains an enormous problem – particularly for the young people who have been affected and stigmatized by their communities. “We feel we have a lost a generation,” she said, emphasizing that hardly anyone had not been affected by the war and that it would take a long time for the country to recover. She concluded that she felt that the Ugandan representatives at the event had learned a lot from their colleagues in Guatemala.

Eleventh & Twelfth Plenary Meeting of the ASP17

Overview by Lea Schwagereit & Phedra Neel, Research Associates PILPG NL

The 11thplenary meeting of the 17thAssembly of States Parties concerned the adoption of three resolution. First, the draft resolution on the Remuneration of judges (ICC-ASP/17/L.7), presented by the facilitator at yesterday’s plenary meeting was adopted without a vote. Secondly, the draft resolution concerning Rule 26 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (ICC-ASP/17/l.6) was adopted without a vote and without any party wishing to explain their position. Lastly, the draft resolution on cooperation (ICC-ASP/17/L.5) was adopted without a vote and without any party wishing to explain their position.  

At the following 12th plenary meeting, the draft resolution on the Budget as well as the draft report of the Working Group on the budget was introduced by the facilitator, H.E. Jens-Otto Horslund (Denmark) as ready for adoption at the next plenary meeting. The facilitator for the Omnibus Resolution, Mr. Vincent Rittener (Switzerland) introduced the draft Omnibus Resolution to the Assembly. 

Day 7: Wednesday 12 December 2018 Thirteenth Plenary Meeting of the ASP17: Closing of the ASP

Overview by Abby Roberts, Research Associate PILGP NL

Highlights:

  • The ICC budget for 2019 of €144 million was adopted (€150.000 less than the independent expert body advised) in Resolution ICC-ASP/17/Res.4. 

  • There was a division in opinion within the assembly as to whether the budget should have zero growth or needs-based growth. 

  • Despite disagreements on the budget and omnibus resolution, a consensus was reached on both.

  • The Assembly requested the Secretariat to present options for scheduling the next ASP session and requested the Bureau to decide on the date and venue for the 18thASP by 13 January 2019. 

At the thirteenth and final plenary meeting of the 17thAssembly of States Parties, States Parties came together for the adoption of the last resolutions and reports. States Parties considered the ICC’s proposed budget for 2019 of €147.55 million and the recommendation of the Committee on Budget and Finance (CBF) to approve a budget of €144.70 million. After extensive negotiations of the Working Group on budget, States Parties considered and approved, by consensus, a budget of €144.55 million for 2019, which is an increase of 0.49 per cent from 2018 (less than the 0.6 per cent recommended by the CBF and 2.6 per cent requested by the Court). 

After adoption, states were given the possibility to explain their position. Belgium, also speaking for Argentina, Belgium, Costa Rica, Finland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Slovenia, Sweden, and Switzerland, expressed disappointment with regard to the budget, as they had hoped for a more suitable budget closely aligned with the needs of the Court. They expressed the opinion that the negotiations did not allow them to reach a common agreement to find a budget that would allow the Court to fully implement its mandate. The budget is lower than advocated by the mandated CBF and the increase does not correlate adequately with the inflation rate and therefore Belgium believed the court has been underfunded. Given the fragile position of the Court, Belgium believed this situation needs to be addressed. Warnings have been issued regarding the vulnerable cash flow reserves and more responsible management is a must. Belgium ended by emphasizing that it is up to the States Parties, who had a shared vision 20 years ago, to ensure the Court has sufficient resources to meet the growing demands of justice.

Brazil followed and expressed their deep regret that another budget resolution was adopted with nominal growth. However, they decided not to block consensus for this budget. Brazil stated that the percentage seems small but they believed the ever-increasing budget is unsustainable and incompatible with the budgetary realities of States Parties and moreover discourages states from ratifying the Rome Statute.

Japan spoke next and noted that, 20 years since the adoption of the Rome Statute, the ICC has to mature and enter a phase of stable development. Japan believed that although the budget has continually increased, more room can be found for optimizing resources. They urged the Court to exercise strict budgetary discipline. Japan joined the consensus and urged all organs of the Court to demonstrate efficiency, as the credibility of the Court depends on its capacity and the efficient implementation of the budget.

Venezuela then took the floor and expressed its support for the zero growth approach and while this budget goes against that approach, it did not block the adoption of the budget in the spirit of consensus and so as to work constructively forward. They urged the ASP to keep working towards reducing the Court’s budget but also noted that this exercise must be achieved without sacrificing efficiency and transparency. 

The Assembly then took action on the proposed program budget for 2019 read in conjunction with the recommendation of the Working Group on the budget. This was adopted by consensus. 

The Assembly then took action on the Omnibus Resolution, “Strengthening the International Criminal Court and the Assembly of States Parties”. This resolution was also adopted by consensus. Brazil then took the floor to express its position. Brazil stated that it joined the consensus despite being deeply frustrated by the disability to come to a decision on equitable geographic representation within the Bureau. Brazil explained that although they brought forward a significantly supported and relevant paragraph, they were not able to reach consensus. However, the merits of in-depth discussion were echoed by other States Parties and Brazil will continue to raise this subject at the next meetings.  

Continuing, the Chair of the Credentials Committee, Mr. Lester Antonio Ortega Lemus (Guatemala) presented the Report of the Credentials Committee, which was then adopted. 

The rapporteur then presented the draft report of the Assembly of States Parties, including all issues discussed during the 17thsession of the ASP. The rapporteur suggested that the Secretariat compile a list of adopted resolutions and attach appendices which will contain relevant reports, declarations, and statements with an attached list of documents. The report was adopted as a whole and the edited report will be distributed. With regard to the next assembly of states parties, the Secretariat was requested to present options for scheduling the next ASP session and Bureau was requested to decide on the date and venue for the 18thASP by 13 January 2019. 

The President of the ICC, Chile Eboe-Osuji, in his final speech commended this session on being the most genial yet, despite not always reaching what they wanted. He believed in the coming years, the efforts of diplomacy will be utilized to ensure universal ratification of the Rome Statute.

The President of the Assembly of States Parties, Mr. O-Gon Kwon then spoke on the upcoming election of next prosecutor and said the collaborative process has already begun and that the election will occur at the 19th session in 2020. He acknowledged the former Vice President from Costa Rica was ending his tenure as ambassador in the Netherlands and Bill Pace was stepping down as Convenor of the CICC. He thanked delegates for their flexibility during the last few days which allowed for the resolution of numerous issues. He trusted that this will allow for the further implementation of the mandate of the Rome Statute. He noted that it is an important time for the Court as it is the 20th anniversary and the Court is facing numerous challenges. He thanked States Parties, civil society, Observer States, and the Court for their cooperation and closed the 17thAssembly of States Parties. 

Side Event – “Creative responses to International Criminal Justice - Complementarity and Capacity Building

(co-hosted by Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Nigeria, Switzerland, and Wayamo Foundation/Africa Group for Justice and Accountability (AGJA))  

Overview by Emma Bakkum, Senior Research Associate and Jill Bähring, Affiliated Expert PILPG NL

Highlights:

  • Amnesty International (AI), in its report “Willingly Unable” released on the day of the event, concludes that Nigeria is not conducting genuine investigations and prosecutions into crimes committed in Nigeria.

  • Olawale Fapohunda, Attorney General of Ekiti State & chair of the Nigerian Military Human Rights Dialogue, criticized AI’s report and requested AI to stop using “nasty words” and indicated a need for more diplomacy and dialogue.

Moderated by Angela Mudukti (International Criminal Justice Lawyer - Wayamo Foundation), this side event consisted of participants which provided perspectives from civil society, the ICC-OTP, and Nigerian authorities to the topic of complementarity and capacity building. Justice Richard J. Goldstone opened the event by referring to the capacity building efforts by the Africa Group, especially in Nigeria, and mentioning certain challenges the ICC is currently facing.

Dapo Akande, Professor for Public International Law at the University of Oxford and AGJA member, elaborated on the Boko Haram situation in Nigeria. He referred to workshops held in Nigeria to assist domestic and local prosecutors and investigators Nigeria and the Nigerian army with the aim to develop their expertise in international criminal law, including sessions on e.g. superior orders and command responsibility. He concluded that while there was still room for improvement, participants in these workshops acquired an idea of the issues in international criminal law, which he finds encouraging.

Netsanet Belay, Africa program director at Amnesty International, introduced the main conclusion of AI’s report on Nigeria, titled “Willingly Unable. ICC Preliminary Examination and Nigeria’s failure to address impunity for international crimes”. The report critically assesses the ICC’s preliminary examination in Nigeria as well as the ability and willingness of the Nigerian government to investigate and prosecute crimes committed by Boko Haram and Nigerian security forces. The report concludes that there are several grounds indicating that Nigeria is not complying with its obligation to genuinely investigate and prosecute crimes under international law. According to the report, there is a lack of relevant proceedings - and most importantly, a lack of genuine efforts to bring those responsible to justice in Nigeria. 

ICC-OTP representative, Claus Molitor (Situation Analyst), shed light on the ICC’s perspective on the Nigerian case. He stated that the preliminary examination has been ongoing for eight years, while the OTP remained engaged with Nigerian authorities that cooperate with the Court. Additional reports have also been received, and the OTP was looking into a wide array of crimes committed in relation to the armed conflict in several areas in Nigeria, by both Boko Haram and the Nigerian security forces. The OTP was engaged with Nigerian authorities to find out whether proceedings have started. Mr. Molitor pointed out that several proceedings against crimes committed by Boko Haram have indeed already been started and that files have been received by the OTP. However, Mr. Molitor noted that most of these charges did not necessary relate to the cases the OTP has identified.

Following the OTP’s perspective, representatives of Nigerian authorities added their views to the discussion. Muhammad Umar, Director of Public Prosecutions for the Federation at the Federal Ministry of Justice, pointed out the complexity of the cases that result from crimes committed by Boko Haram. He noted several challenges such as the lack of knowledge within the Nigerian police forces and the difficulty of gathering admissible evidence.

Major General Yusuf Shalangwa, Director Legal Services of the Nigerian Army, continued on another note and stated that Nigeria has a professional army, established by law to protect the territorial integrity of the Nigeria and to aid civil authorities. He acknowledged the issues with terrorism in Nigeria, but underlined that the Nigerian armed forces did not engage in unlawful acts, oppression, violence, or acts contrary to international humanitarian law as a matter of policy.

Olawale Fapohunda, Attorney General of Ekiti State & Chair of the Nigerian Military Human Rights Dialogue, harshly criticized AI’s report, referring to reports by NGOs used as evidence in the Lubanga judgement which he found inadmissible. He stressed the need to verify the accuracy of the report and highlighted the need not to use “nasty” words against Nigerian officials, saying that “ranks of Nigerians are protected in its national interest”, and stressing the need for more diplomacy and communication. 

During the questions from the audience, Ms. Marchi-Uhel from the IIIM commented on complementarity and the difficulty for national prosecutions to apprehend atrocity conduct in the context of international criminal law, while there was also the possibility for prosecuting terrorism instead. She asked whether the ICC was considering supporting national prosecutions by sharing evidence in the context of crimes against humanity and war crimes.

Mr. Molitor from the OTP answered that there was no need to “domesticate” the Rome Statute, although national prosecution was made easier by doing so. He mentioned that the OTP also looked at case files from national authorities. However, it was too early to share information with national authorities in the Nigerian case, which might happen after the preliminary examination. Mr. Molitor clarified that there was communication between the ICC and states regarding situations under preliminary examination in these states. He added that the OTP also participated in a limited fashion in capacity building.

An audience member from the Federal Ministry of Justice of Nigeria commented that Nigeria was a sovereign and very responsible state. He continued saying that Nigeria spent millions of dollars in fighting terrorism, closing his remarks by asking: “How can we support terrorism?” Finally, he stated that the AI reports were one sided.

Following this, a Nigerian lawyer in the audience suggested that those representing States Parties could be a little more measured in their statements. He continued by stating that no one could really speak on behalf of the whole of Nigeria.

While Netsanet Belay from AI underlined finally that all information of the report was public and that the report clearly showed a lack of political will from Nigeria, Mr. Molitor from the OTP stressed that the OTP used a variety of sources in its investigations and that it was for the OTP to decide whether cases are admissible.

 

Side Event – “Justice, peace and security in Africa: deepening the role of the ICC (hosted by the Africa Network of International Criminal Justice)

Overview by Vicki Tien, Research Associate PILPG NL

Highlights:

  • The ICC has faced several challenges relating to victim engagement when dealing with mass atrocity crimes. The Court should find a way to improve victim engagement during proceedings, according to Ms. Lorraine Smith van Lin

  • Mr. Phakiso Mochochoko emphasized the importance of managing victim expectations and educating the general public about the international criminal law processes and reparations.

  • The ICC should come up with a strategy to cooperate with the African Union, according to Mr. Phakiso Mochochoko.

Hosted by the African Network of International Criminal Justice and moderated by Elizabeth Evenson, Associate Director of the International Justice Program of Human Rights Watch, the side event aimed to discuss the role of the ICC in Africa in terms of justice, peace, and security. The main questions to be answered included: what lessons can the ICC learn from Africa after 20 years? Should the ICC adapt and improve its intervention strategy in Africa in the next 20 years? How can the ICC strengthen ties with the African states, the African Union and the civil society in the next 20 years? 

After Ms. Evenson introduced five panelists, Ms. Mama Koite Doumbia, member of the Board for the Trust Fund for Victims spoke first. Following her, Ms. Lorraine Smith van Lin from Redress discussed the key issues around victims and victim engagement with the ICC. As the ICC is moving away from Africa as its primary focus, Ms. Smith van Lin questioned whether or not the ICC still has an interest in ensuring accountability for African victims. And if yes, she asked, what the future of the engagement would look like. Ms. Smith van Lin claimed that a large component of individuals looked to the ICC for hope and the possibility of ensuring accountability, which they were not able to gain at the local level. In reality, however, the Court has faced several challenges relating to victim engagement when dealing with mass atrocity crimes. Ms. Smith van Lin used the Bembacase as an example and she criticized the way the Court dealt with victims as many victims were ‘shocked’ by the lengthy proceedings. Ms. Smith van Lin then moved on to ask another question regarding the possibility of using the evidence collected by the ICC elsewhere outside the Court, such as local courts. Following the question, Ms. Smith van Lin addressed the importance of ensuring reparations for the victims at the domestic levels and called for the support from the international community. 

Dr Dr. Benson Olugbuo, Executive Director of the CLEEN Foundation, spoke next and discussed what the ICC can learn from preliminary examinations in Africa. Dr. Olugbuo first gave a brief background on what the Court has done for preliminary examinations. Then he addressed a policy paper on PE from 2013 and the key point from the paper, according to Dr. Olugbuo, was the policy on engagement (e.g. how the prosecutor should remain independent and neutral). Dr. Olugbuo then moved on to discuss the issue of delay in preliminary examinations and he argued that the process of preliminary examinations is imagined and not crystalized. 

After Ms. Julie Somda, from the Burkina Faso Women Lawyer’s Association provided her insights, Mr.Phakiso Mochochoko, Head of the Jurisdiction, Complementarity, and Cooperation Division at the ICC, focused on victim expectations and the issue of the complementarity. Mr. Mochochoko first stressed that it is essential to manage expectations of victims toward the Court and ensure that victims have realistic expectations of criminal law process and reparations. On the issue of complementarity, Mr. Mochochoko emphasized that the ICC is not a capacity-building institution and that it is not the Court’s mandate to build capacity at domestic level; rather, he believed it should be the responsibility of states to take up such challenges. 

The event was followed by discussion between the panelists and the audience. A question from the audience was raised about the relationship between the Court and the African Union (AU). Mr. Mochochoko responded by suggesting to come up with a strategy to cooperate with the AU, but he also shared his personal view on the matter. He believed the relationship between ICC and the AU is unlikely to improve. At the end of the event, Ms. Smith van Lin reiterated the importance of African victims and called on civil society to send a message to the Court: “African victims matter!”