ASP21 Side Event: A sustainable model for responding to conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine

     21st SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

7 December 2022

Name of the Event: A sustainable model for responding to conflict-related sexual violence in Ukraine - Presenting the Ukrainian Prosecutor General’s conflict-related sexual violence strategy and discussing its transformative potential to enhance access to justice (organized by Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland, the United Kingdom, International Federation for Human Rights, Global Rights Compliance and Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice)

Report by: Kateryna Kyrychenko, Program Manager, PILPG

Highlights: 

• Victim-centered practices need to be in the center of all investigations and prosecutions of sexual violence cases.

• Reparations and compensation for the victims, access to services, PSS, and security guarantees are the main needs of the survivors of conflict-related sexual violence.

• Discriminatory practices that prevent access to justice for victims, wide-spread patriarchal stereotypes, and biases that create grounds for sexual violence and stigma against the victims are the main issues that need to be tackled to prevent and avoid sexual violence in conflict in Ukraine and in other contexts.

• Detailed info on the Side Event and the newly adopted Ukrainian “Victim and Witness-Oriented Stretegy for the prosecution of CRSV crimes” can be found here: https://4genderjustice.org/crsv-in-Ukraine

Speakers: 

• Iryna Dovgan, Survivor activist and Coordinator of SEMA Ukraine – Network of Victims and Survivors of Wartime Sexual Violence

• Iryna Didenko, Head of Specialized CRSV Unit, War Crimes Department of the Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General

• Hrystyna Kit, Chairwoman of the Association of Women’s Lawyers of Ukraine “JurFem”

• Kateryna Cherepakha, President of CSO “La Strada-Ukraine”

• Anna Mykytenko, Country Manager – Ukraine, Global Rights Compliance

• Carolyn Edgerton, Legal consultant and mentor, former ICTY Trial Attorney

• Kim Thuy Seelinger, Special Adviser to the ICC Prosecutor on Sexual Violence in Conflict

Summary of the Event: 

Ukraine is now at a stage where it needs to combat biases, discrimination, and stereotypes underpinning sexual violence in all forms.  Prosecutor General of Ukraine initiated the development of the framework for dealing with sexual violence - “Victim and Witness-Oriented Strategy for the prosecution of CRSV crimes”, that was recently adopted with the support of international partners.

Iryna Dovgan (Survivor activist and Coordinator of SEMA Ukraine – Network of Victims and Survivors of Wartime Sexual Violence), in her pre-recorded opening remarks, noted that due to the full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, there are augmenting numbers of victims of sexual violence reported.  National law enforcement bodies’ response and lack of compensations system for victims in Ukraine were mentioned as the main pertaining issues.

Iryna Didenko (Head of Specialized CRSV Unit, War Crimes Department of the Ukrainian Office of the Prosecutor General) spoke about timely  documentation of all war crimes committed by Russia in Ukraine as an extremely crucial issue.  The law enforcement and prosecution system of Ukraine was not ready for such a large-scale challenge, which has caused grave investigation and prosecution issues (such as prevention of re-traumatization of victims) during the first months of the invasion. Prosecutor General of Ukraine Andriy Kostin has introduced the next steps that have helped mitigate those issues: all investigations of sexual violence-related cases were paused to build capacities of the prosecutors and investigators; new specialized units were created; new strategic approaches were developed with international support (such as “Victim and Witness-Oriented Strategy for the prosecution of CRSV crimes”).  As of now, 114 cases of confirmed sexual violence cases, committed by Russian combatants in Ukraine, were registered since February 2022 (this number includes only victims that agreed to undergo all necessary procedures, the actual number of victims is much higher); with victims being in the age range of 4-82 years, of different genders.

Hrystyna Kit (Chairwoman of the Association of Women’s Lawyers of Ukraine “JurFem”), during her intervention, mentioned the following challenges: communication with victims of SGBV, ensuring victims are aware of available services and rights, coordination and cooperation of the judicial branch, law enforcement sector and social protection services, identification of all forms of SGBV (as of now there are no national legal provisions on different kinds of sexual violence), decentralization, strengthening of regional-level availability of services available for survivors, and capacity-building of service-providers, provision of non-monetary compensations for the survivors of SGBV since 2014 (guarantees of non-repeating, as a main desired guarantee mentioned by victims themselves).  On the other hand, as mentioned by Ms Kit, non-conflict related sexual violence should also not be disregarded by the Ukrainian Government (one step forward in this direction that has already been done by Ukraine is the ratification of the Istanbul Convention in June 2022, which has entered into force since 1 October 2022).

Kateryna Cherepakha (President of CSO “La Strada-Ukraine”, which works with victims of human trafficking and sexual violence) made a point that the wide-spread understanding of sexual violence is too narrow and is usually limited only to rape, which excludes other forms of sexual violence from the discourse and limits rights of the victims.  Survivors tend to prioritize requests for assistance rather than reporting about the crimes that they suffered.  Safety of survivors is crucial for Ukraine as a state, which is in active war.

Carolyn Edgerton (Legal consultant and mentor, former ICTY Trial Attorney) discussed the areas that require improvement when looking at sexual violence in Ukraine.  She advised that we need to tackle the certain discriminatory procedural practices still pertaining in Ukraine (i.e. the requirement of corroboration of victims before taking to court).  Ms Edgerton acknowledged transformatory potential of the recently adopted “Victim and Witness-Oriented Strategy for the prosecution of CRSV crimes” for gender-based violence.

ASP21 Side Event: Global crisis and the potential of the ICC: relevance of ecocide as the fifth crime

     21st SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

6 December 2022

Name of the Event: Global crisis and the potential of the ICC: relevance of ecocide as the fifth crime (organized by Vanuatu, Parliamentarians for Global Action (PGA) and Stop Ecocide Foundation)

Report by: Kateryna Kyrychenko, Program Manager, and Henry Smith, Research Associate, PILPG

Speakers: 

• Moderator: HRH Princess Esmeralda of Belgium

• Mrs. Elisabeth van Fliet, Honorary Consul of Vanuatu in the Netherlands 

• Professor Philippe Sands KC, University College of London

• Professor Chile Eboe-Osuji, former ICC president

• Professor Darryl Robinson, Queens University Canada

• Jojo Mehta, Chair of the Stop Ecocide Foundation

• Josh Oxby, UN Youth Advisor

Summary of the Event: 

The moderator of the event, HRH Princess Esmeralda of Belgium, opened the session noting that the Rome Statute was established with the intention to address the most serious crimes that affected the international community.  Damage to the environment usually is linked to conflict, however, it harms all international communities as a whole, national communities, especially minorities.  In the context of the ecological crisis, the destruction of environments constitutes these types of crimes as they affect local communities across the globe, particularly indigenous peoples and other minorities.  Therefore, the Princess noted that it is very much relevant to include ecocide as the fifth crime within the scope of the Rome Statute.  She mentioned that recognition of the importance of this matter is growing among State Parties.  She laid out that the speakers would address the global progress of the ecocide agenda, the importance of the recognition of ecocide as an international crime within the ICC framework, and the potential of this recognition for the fight against the global environmental crisis.

The Honorary Consul of Vanuatu in NL, Mrs. Elisabeth van Fliet, reiterated support for the ICC and its mission, and highlighted the ICC’s potential for fighting the environmental crisis.  As an island state, Vanuatu is losing land to rising sea levels, witnessing the death of coral reefs, and experiencing deadly cyclones and extreme weather conditions.  For Vanuatu, as for many other vulnerable states, the ecological crisis is already an existential one.  For these reasons Vanuatu is committed to bringing the matter before international courts and organizations.  Vanuatu was the first state to raise the issue of ecocide before the ASP in 2019 and advocated for its inclusion to the Rome Statute.  They are committed to raising the issue before the International Court of Justice and are asking the United Nations General Assembly to support a resolution that protects the rights of future generations, and a treaty proposal for the non-proliferation of fossil fuels. 

Professor Philippe Sands made a parallel between the attempts to define and codify ecocide with the efforts to do so with genocide, crimes against humanity, and aggression.  The international community came together after these terrible conflicts and created those crimes to protect humans from atrocities.  However, there is a gap left now in relation to the protection of the natural environment.  The existing legal framework is completely anthropocentric and does not deal with challenges to biodiversity, to the atmosphere, and the marine environment.  Sands pointed out that forging a definition of the crime of ecocide will provide a basis to move forward in that direction, but that it should be a broad definition that all states could agree on and that would benefit both developed and developing states.  Thus, the definition established is: “unlawful acts committed with the knowledge that they would cause severe, widespread, and long-standing damage to the environment.”  Sands highlighted that people should not be starry-eyed about the ability of international criminal law to solve all environmental problems, but that it will change consciousness and allow them to understand that the international community agrees that certain forms of damage to the environment are not acceptable.  He also noted that, while the crime of ecocide would not be applicable to corporate acts, corporate officials could still be held individually responsible.  Sands mentioned that the amendment of the Rome Statute is the preferred route, as the negotiations of draft conventions can take a long time.  He underlined that the international community is living in yet another moment of change, a new convention on crimes against humanity is being drafted, a crime of aggression tribunal is being proposed, and it is important to put the environment also at the center of these changes.  Sands concluded by acknowledging the special interest of the youth, who are energized by matters of environmental protection.

Professor Chile Eboe-Osuji, former ICC President, supported the idea and importance of the inclusion of ecocide (in a broad, non-anthropocentric sense) to the Rome Statute.  He emphasized that we need to look beyond the ‘cide’ in ecocide and it should be ANY unlawful destruction of the environment that is included in the definition.  Judge Eboe-Osuji advocated for the extension of the notion of ecocide to peaceful times (thus illegal destruction of the environment not only in wars would be covered by the new definition).

Josh Oxby, UN Youth Advisor, has made an intervention on behalf of youth, mentioning that a powerful tool in tackling climate change issues would be the acknowledgment of ecocide as one of the gravest international crimes.  There is huge urgency and injustice (as indigenous people, youth and women are always disproportionally most affected by climate change) when tackling the issue of climate change.

ASP21 Side Event: Prosecuting the Crime of Aggression to Defend the Rules-Based International Order

     21st SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

6 December 2022

Name of the Event: Prosecuting the Crime of Aggression to Defend the Rules-Based International Order (organized by Liechtenstein and Luxembourg)

Report by: Kateryna Kyrychenko, Program Manager, PILPG

Highlights: 

• Aggression is one of the key international crimes.  In the context of Ukraine, aggression (invasion of Ukraine’s territory by Russia in February 2022) is the main crime from where all the other occuring war crimes/alledged genocide stem. 

• The ICC does not have jurisdiction over the crime of aggression (especially over aggression committed in Ukraine as neither Ukraine nor Russia are parties to the Rome Statute).  The situation in Ukraine created conditions calling for a revision of the ICC system to ensure aggression of a sovereign country is duly punished in all situations.

• Due to the lack of ICC jurisdiction, an alternative should be found to find liability for Russian aggression in Ukraine.  An option would be the establishment of a Specialized Aggression Tribunal that would have jurisdiction only over situation in Ukraine.  There is an open discourse over the format of such a potential tribunal.

Speakers: 

• H.E. Mr. Christian Wenaweser, Ambassador of the Principality of Liechtenstein to the ICC

• Prof Oona A. Hathaway, the Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe Smith Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, Professor of International Law and Area Studies at the Yale University MacMillan Center, Professor of the Yale University Department of Political Science, and Director of the Yale Law School Center for Global Legal Challenges

• Prof Jennifer Trahan, Clinical Professor at NYU's Center for Global Affairs

• Ms Kerli Veski, Director General of Legal Department, Estonian MFA

Summary of the Event: 

The crime of aggression did not use to be a prevalent crime in international community, however, the current situation in Ukraine has demonstrated the dire need to review the existing ICC system with regard to the crime of aggression.

During the event Ambassador Wenaweser noted that the world order is currently facing one of the most significant challenges since World War 2, highlighting that there is a major challenge on the global prohibition on the use of force.  Specifically, he pointed out that Russia's invasion of Ukraine, aided by Belarus, undermines the global world order.  He further added that aggression is a supreme international crime and it accumulates all international crimes as a whole: without aggression there would have been no war crimes, no genocide in Ukraine.  Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has put international legal order in danger. 

Furthermore, Ambassador Wenaweser spoke about the ICC jurisdiction for the crime.  The ICC does not have jurisdiction over non-state parties for the crime of aggression despite Ukraine’s declaration accepting the jurisdiction for other crimes.  He underlined that the jurisdiction of the Court over the crime of aggression for non-state parties should be added to the ICC jurisdiction along with other crimes.  Besides the ICC jurisdiction, he suggested that the UN Security Council response might be a way to punish the crime of aggression.

Moreover, during the event, the panelists discussed other challenges there will be for prosecuting the crime of aggression for Ukraine, such as the  issue of immunities of higher military and political leadership.  Member States to the Rome Statute are supportive of the ICC investigations in Ukraine and have made resources available for this purpose.  The ICC is expected to play central role in investigation and prosecution of crimes, over which it has jurisdiction.  According to the panelists, for prosecuting the crime of aggression, a specialized tribunal should be created.  Ambassador Wenaweser mentioned that it should be done on the national rather than the domestic level - both for symbolic (as world order as a whole is undermined by the aggression) and practical reasons (lack of capacities on the national level, ensuring impartiality and efficiency of decisions).  Ambassador Wenaweser shared his views that a new specialized tribunal, that might be created in future, must be narrowly focused on the crime of aggression alone and on perpetrators only in leadership positions.

Next, professor Jennifer Trahan presented her consideration on the model for such a tribunal for Ukraine: fully international tribunal, international judges only (to ensure impartiality and neutrality), no temporal limitation of the jurisdiction (so that the tribunal could prosecute aggression in Ukraine since 2014).  The process of establishment of such a tribunal, as suggested by Prof. Trahan is that Ukraine submits a letter to the UN Security Council and the UN General Assembly calling for the decision to establish the tribunal.  She noted that, at the UN General Assembly, a majority of the votes would be enough unlike at the UN Security Council.   Related issue flagged by Prof. Trahan is that only 44 states have ratified the Kampala amendments, which causes limitations for the ICC. 

After professor Trahan, Ms Kerli Veski discussed the Estonian position with regard to the Russian invasion.  Estonia understands the need to prosecute Russia’s crime of aggression well.  Crimes of the former Soviet Union were left unpunished and Russia (as a main successor of the Soviet Union) has continues the repression committed during the 20th century, which were left unpunished, feeling no guilt and impunity for the former crimes.  As such, the international community needs to end this impunity.   She added that gravity of the current situation requires immediate action and offered Estonian support for the Specialized Tribunal for Aggression.

ASP21 Side Event: Gender Diversity and the Rome Statute System

21st SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

6 December 2022

Name of the Event: SE: Gender Diversity and the Rome Statute System

Report by: Sindija Beta, Legal Team, PILPG

Highlights: 

• Gender diversity and gender equality need to be examined and discussed together. 

• The concept of gender is lacking a unified definition, which includes a comprehensive perspective of gender. 

• Gender-inclusive approaches increase the legitimacy of the Rome Statute system. 

Speakers:

• Chair: Evelyn A. Ankumah, Executive Director, Africa Legal Aid (AFLA); Coordinator, Gender Mentoring Training Programme for Judges 

• Judge Piotr Hofmanski, President of the International Criminal Court

• Judge Solomy Balungi Bossa, Appeals Chamber, International Criminal Court; Chairperson, Gender Mentoring Training Programme for Judges

• Judge Fatoumata Dembele Diarra, Former Judge and First Vice President, International Criminal Court

• Jennifer Naouri, Immediate Past President, International Criminal Court Bar Association (ICCBA)

• Alix Vuillemin, Advocacy Director, Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice

• Julie Heckscher, Head of Mission, Australia Embassy, the Hague

Summary of the Event: 

During the event, the speakers reflected upon the term gender within the framework of the Rome Statute system.  The first speaker was Judge Hofmanski. He discussed gender equality and gender diversity together arguing that both concepts are inseparable from each other.  

Judge Hofmanski emphasized that gender matters in all aspects of society and that the law cannot be an exception.  Gender equality and diversity are crucial for ICC's legitimacy and impact on an international level.  He substantiated his point with five arguments.  First, gender-diverse workflows and an organization that respects people’s differences are more likely to have a healthy workforce where staff feel appreciated and can enjoy a professional life.  Second, women have different experiences and backgrounds from men and can have different perspectives drawing attention to matters that otherwise could be unnoticed.  Third, diversity increases external perceptions of fairness.  Fourth, diversity allows for more sensitivity to victims’ needs. Women make up a considerable proportion of victims under the Court’s jurisdiction, which means the Court needs to be able to address the special needs related to gender violence and discrimination.  Fifth, it is critical that the ICC shows adherence to values of gender equality. 

Judge Hofmanski further noted that the Rome Statute system cannot achieve equality by treating gender issues as women's only problem.  Individuals need to not only abide by the correct principles but also need to actively promote them within our spheres of influence.  He noted that to move forward, we must transform statements into policies and actions referring to the ICC-adopted strategy for gender equality and workplace culture, which will be launched on Thursday at an ASP side event.  Strategy is an ambitious document with timelines and commitments for implementing gender parity in the Rome Statute system. 

Towards the end of his speech, Judge Hofmanski highlighted that gender parity cannot be taken for granted and that gender diversity is a source of strength and richness for the International Criminal Court. 

Then, Judge Solomy Bossa spoke about international criminal laws through a gender lens.  Recalling that gender is an important part of international justice as demonstrated by articles 7(3) and 21, the inclusion of a gender definition is a recognition that gender plays an important role in shaping societal behavior, Judge Solomy Bossa argued.  Judges must be attentive to power relations and the different experiences of women and men and LGBTIQ+ persons.  Discrimination and persecution go hand in hand and it is the duty of judges to establish the truth to eradicate both violations of international rules.  Judge Solomy Bossa further noted that when gender is interpreted in the context of society, the reasons for targeting certain victims become clear.  She pointed out that gender must not lead to stigmatization or discrimination and that we need to get rid of masculine bias, which affects women negatively.  Judge Solomy Bossa emphasized that judges must erode gendered roles, which inflict gender discrimination and international justice must recognize the value of all genders and minorities. 

Further, Ms. Vuillemin spoke about the applicability of gender-related provisions of the Rome Statute to gender diversity.  She discussed how gender is often used as a euphemism for women, a word which historically was used to raise awareness about the lack of women's inclusion and the socially constructed differences between women and men.  The women's movement part of the Women’s Caucus for the Rome Statute system aimed at rebuffing the societal differences that led to a disparity in salaries and reporting on sexual abuse.  Nonetheless, much has changed since the early 1990s.  The ICC is now one of the many international and regional organizations that advocate for the inclusion of women.  Ms. Vuillemin noted that gender perspective is key to accomplishing true gender equality and that this must include all genders, not just male and female.  Individuals of any gender can be victims of sexual violence, including women, non-binaries, transgender, and other genders.  Furthermore, Ms. Vuillemin referred to how men that have suffered from sexual violence are often perceived as feminine, however, as emphasized by Ms. Vuillemin, equaling feminity with sexual violence is demeaning to women. 

She then turned to the lack of a single prevailing definition and understanding of what is gender.  Ms. Vuillemin mentioned the different policies and definitions that are attributed to gender by policy documents and organizations, such as the ICC gender mainstreaming policy, gender persecution policy, and the IIIM policy on gender.  She mentioned that there is a lot of work done in this field also by young researchers.  

Two other panelists provided speeches on the topic.  Judge Fatoumata Dembele Diarra spoke on interpreting crimes to ensure the protection of all gender identities and sexual orientations and Ms. Naouri discussed the principle of complementarity and gender diversity.

Lastly, Ms. Heckscher provided concluding remarks on the protection of gender diversity.  She spoke about how rendering justice through a gender lens plays an important part in international justice highlighting that victims need to be supported to ensure the crimes are prosecuted.  Ms. Heckscher referred to the fact that our practices need to be victim sensitive not only within the ICC but also in national jurisdictions. She said that there are many tools available to us and gender strategies for us to understand this field but most importantly we need to learn, listen, understand, and avoid our internal biases. 

During the question and answer component, a representative of the Office of the Prosecutor made comments about the recognition of the fact that we talk about sexual and gender-based crimes and violence, and sometimes they overlap.  She noted that we are evolving towards an explicit recognition of non-sexual forms of gender violence.  We have charged gender-based persecution in three cases and two out of the three involved non-sexual violence committed against adult-aged males.  Gender persecution needs an understanding of the binary perspective and also other forms of sexual orientation and identity and how they can give rise to gender discrimination.  The representative emphasized that the rights, needs, and dignity of the victims need attention, protection, and respect.  Nonetheless, each individual needs to be treated as unique and the approach must be tailored. 

Other discussions during the question and answer component included topics related to understanding gender from the perspective of the victims, as well as the perpetrators, and projects being led in this area. 

Questions and interventions further focused on the case of Darfur from the gender perspective, as well as overconcentration to formal approaches to addressing gender problems, such as legislative reforms at national levels, which miss the need for more exponential change.  One of the participants pointed out that action needs to be much more on the ground referring to the importance of activism.

ASP21 Side Event: Realising Reparative Justice for Victims of International Crime: impact, results, reflections, and what States Parties can do (more)

21st SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

5 December 2022

Name of the Event: Realising Reparative Justice for Victims of International Crime: impact, results, reflections, and what States Parties can do (more) (co-hosted by Finland, Sweden, and the Trust Fund for Victims)

Report by: Henry Smith and Paul Weber, Research Associates, PILPG-NL

Highlights: 

• The event highlighted the important role of reparations in achieving justice. 

• The work of the Trust Fund for Victims improves the perception of victims that justice is in fact delivered, actively improving the situation they find themselves in. 

• Panelists repeatedly pointed to the need to involve the perspective of victims in designing such measures and the need for equipping the Trust Fund for Victims with sufficient means to fulfill its role.

• Contributions showed widespread sensibility vis-à-vis the special needs of particularly vulnerable groups (children and victims of SGBV) and that the approach to restorative justice taken by the Court and the TFV tries to incorporate age, gender, socio-economic, cultural, and historic sensitive elements.

Speakers: 

• Chair: Franziska Eckelmans, Acting Executive Director of the TFV

• Ibrahim Sorie Yillah, Vice-Chair and Reparations Focal Point of the Board of Directors of the TFV

• Piotr Hofmański, President of the International Criminal Court

• Anu Saarela, Ambassador of Finland to Israel

• Beth van Schaack, United States Ambassador at Large for Global Criminal Justice

• Andres Parmas, Member of Board of Directors (2nd reparations focal point) 

• Paolina Massidda, Principle Counsel at the Office of Public Counsel for Victims

Summary of the Event: 

Mr. Ibrahim Sorie Yillah, Vice-Chair and Reparations Focal Point of the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) opened the ASP side event by highlighting the essential role of the TFV in providing effective reparations for victims of international crimes. The TFV is funded by voluntary donations from public donors, such as party and non-party states to the Rome Statute, as well as private donors, and it provides resources for reparations beyond the assets of the prosecuted or convicted person. No convicted persons have yet contributed to a single reparation payment until now, which highlights the importance of voluntary donations. Mr. Yilliah highlighted the need for more financial but also moral support from both States Parties and non-states parties.

The President of the International Criminal Court (ICC), Mr. Piotr Hofmanski, presented on the judicial part of reparative justice. He noted that the ICC’s role in reparative justice includes enabling the involvement of victims with the procedures of the Court, ordering reparations on the basis of the particularities of the crimes, and providing a wider comprehensive system of reparative justice through which states can contribute to reparations. Mr. Hofmanski stated that victim participation in proceedings is essential to avoid further victimization and harm, giving special regard to victims of sexual and gender based violence and other vulnerable victims, as well as acknowledging cultural and language particularities. The Rome Statute allows victims to participate in the early stages of proceedings, before the pre-trial chambers. The President highlighted the ongoing reparation proceedings in the Ntaganda and the Ongwen cases, and that despite the slow progress, the TFV has already implemented assistance mandate programs in, for instance, the Central African Republic, providing victims with health services, psychological rehabilitation, and economic support. 

The Finnish Deputy Ambassador for Tel Aviv, Annu Saarela, offered reflections from the perspective of a donor state. She noted the key role of reparations in international justice, upholding the right of victims to be supported and their right to live dignified lives. The Deputy Ambassador held that without reparative justice, international criminal justice would be reduced to empty judgements. The work of the ICC relies on the TFV and its funding to deliver justice. She strengthened Finland’s stance as a longstanding supporter of the TFV, and reaffirmed its continued belief that the assistance mandate programs are important even as trials are still ongoing. Ms. Saarela reinforced Finland’s continued support to the TFV in awarding reparations to former child soldiers in the Lubanga case, stating that she witnessed in person how much the assistance programs actually benefit the victims. She concluded by holding that the TFV cannot be the only source and provider of assistance to victims, but that the essential expertise it has gathered through the years can be used by other supporters. 

Beth van Schaack, US Ambassador-at-Large for Global Criminal Justice, highlighted the importance of involving victims and survivors in the design and administration of reparative justice. She presented the alienation of victims with the legal systems, the risk of retraumatization, and the lack of felt justice as the main challenges to achieving reparative justice. Reporting from her own experience, she shared that in one case she witnessed, the victims expressed joy at the successful administration of justice in the criminal case. However, dejected they remarked that ‘you can’t eat the verdict’, with regard to the poverty to which they were due to return. In this vein, the ambassador underlined the importance of giving victims a platform, to empower them, and aid them in their recovery, including ensuring their economic security. In referring back to the domestic experience of the United States, Ambassador van Schaack reflected that any effective reparation requires responding to the experience of the victims and to avoid the reproduction of power relations that were part of the original violations suffered. To her, the discussion on reparations emphasizes that victims and survivors are also right-holders and underlines the important role of reparations in restorative justice by helping communities to move on and healing the social tissue surrounding victims. She recalled that the Rome Statute promises ‘tangible remedies’. According to Ambassador van Schaack, the TFV, by awarding reparations, plays a crucial role in keeping this promise. To her, the case of Uganda and the crimes committed by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) showed what stamina reparative justice must have. There, even years after the LRA had left the area, the detrimental effects of the crimes committed left local communities in need. She finished her contribution announcing that US citizens would soon be able to make tax-deductible donations to the TFV, which she hoped would add to existing efforts to furnish the TFV with adequate funds. 

Andres Parmas, member of the Board of Directors of the TFV, took the floor once more highlighting the crucial role the TFV plays in the Court’s efforts in administering justice. He called the TFVs work ‘revolutionary’, as it allows to address the harms suffered in a meaningful way. Without reparations the Court’s promise of justice would be an empty one.

Paolina Massidda, Principle Counsel at the Office of Public Counsel for Victims, as the representative of victims in pending cases, showcased the victims’ perspective through a video of a former child soldier from the Democratic Republic of Congo, reporting on his experience with the TFV. The former child soldier, who remained anonymous, recounted how he was first approached about the availability of reparations in 2015, eventually being integrated into the reparations program in 2021. As a result, he was able to feed his children and send them to school, himself receiving training that made it possible for him to be employed as a cook in a local hotel. Nevertheless, despite his very positive report, he pointed out that few of his fellow ex-child soldiers received the same support. In the backdrop of this video contribution, Ms. Massidda pointed out that the term ‘to repair’ is not representative of the full effect of reparative justice. In her view, the TFV’s reparation efforts allow victims to continue their lives and can help them ‘turn the page’, having a tremendous impact on their lives. However, in order for these effects to be realized, she emphasized that interventions have to be sensitive to the individual situation of each victim in terms of their age, gender, societal, and community background among other individual factors. Given the often slow pace of justice, also the fact that victims’ situations might substantially change over time needs to be taken into account. In this sense, Ms. Massidda requested that the Court face the complexity of reparations with flexibility. 

Two researchers from the University of Edinburgh followed Ms. Massidda and presented preliminary results of a review study on a reparation program implemented pursuant to the 2017 reparations order in the Katanga case. The order recognized 297 victims and provided for education and housing assistance, income-generating activities, and psychosocial support. Though still preliminary, the results showed that victims largely felt they had been heard throughout the reparation process and felt that reparation had been achieved. 

However, the researchers’ results also suggested the important role of contextual factors. One participant in a focus group of the study reported that “there will be no full reparation until there is peace”. While reparations are one key element of restorative justice, they may not be able to offset the continued suffering of victims who continue to live in violent environments. Furthermore, victims often live close to their offenders or those associated with them and reportedly regularly have the sentiment that not all perpetrators were prosecuted, according to the researchers. While their final report is yet to be published, the initial results presented thus suggested faint optimism while underlining the interconnectedness of justice, reparations, and peace.

The event ended skipping the discussion round for a lack of time with closing remarks by the chair Ms. Eckelmans. Summarizing the debate, she pointed to the need to manage victims’ expectations throughout all stages of proceedings in light of the many challenges. While the global justice community has had a small impact on the creation of peace, Ms. Eckelmans called for continued joint messaging that impunity will not be tolerated. She finished her concluding remarks with a call for greater inclusion of victims in the processes at the Court. In her view, the event showed the many positive effects that victims becoming agents of reparation themselves can have.