Eligibility of Victims of International Crimes for Reparations before the International Criminal Court: A Critique

Bongani M Dlamini; Linda Mushoriwa

doi:10.25159/2522-3062/19988

Authors

Bongani M Dlamini University of the Western Cape
Linda Mushoriwa University of the Western Cape

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/19988

Keywords:

International Criminal Court, victims of international crimes, reparations, meaning of victims, eligibility jurisprudence, challenges

Abstract

The adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on 17 July 1998 and the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC or the Court) on 2 July 2002 marked a significant turn for international criminal justice. Notably, the Court established a platform for bringing justice to victims of international crimes, whilst putting the victims at the centre of proceedings. One way in which this is evident is the framework for awarding reparations to victims of the core crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and the crime of aggression. This not only serves to acknowledge the victims’ pain and suffering but also to remedy the harm they have suffered. The Court’s mandate to award reparations to victims of international crimes is provided for in Article 75 of the Rome Statute. The purpose of this article is to examine the Court’s reparations regime with respect to the eligibility of victims to receive reparations as provided for in the Rome Statute, and as seen through the lens of the Court’s jurisprudence on this subject. The article asserts that whilst the reparations regime is an innovative way to deliver justice to victims of atrocities, its effectiveness remains subject to debate due to challenges associated with the interpretation of the meaning of ‘victims’ for purposes of reparations, and the eligibility criteria for victims to be awarded reparations. It concludes that the Court must consider amending its procedural laws to allow flexibility and place more prominence on the content of reparations delivered in individual cases.

References

Adeyemo D, ‘Reparability of Victims’ Harm at the International Criminal Court: Victims’ Expectations versus Reality’ (2022) 4(2) International Review of Law and Jurisprudence.

Ayedemo D, ‘The Rights of Victims of Core International Crimes to Reparation in Nigeria’ (2021) 21 African Human Rights Law Journal DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2021/v21n2a42

<https://doi.org/10.17159/1996-2096/2021/v21n2a42>

Balta A, Bax M and Letschert R, ‘Trial and (Potential) Error: Conflicting Visions on Reparations within the ICC System’ (2019) International Criminal Justice Review <https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567718807542> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1057567718807542

Bassiouni MC, International Recognition of Victims’ Rights (2006) Human Rights Law Review <https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngl009> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngl009

Bata A, Bax M and Letschert R, ‘Between Idealism and Realism: A Comparative Analysis of the Reparations Regimes of the International Criminal Court and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’ (2021) 45(1) International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice <https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2019.1695640> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2019.1695640

Evans C, The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict (Cambridge University Press 2012) <https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096171> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139096171

Ferstman C and Goetz M, ‘Reparations before the International Criminal Court: The Early Jurisprudence on Victim Participation and its Impact on Future Reparations Proceedings,’ in Carla Ferstman and others (eds) Reparations for Victims of Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity: Systems in Place and Systems in the Making (Nijhoff 2009) <https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004174498.i-576> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/ej.9789004174498.i-576

Gonzalez P, ‘The Role of Victims in International Criminal Court Proceedings: Their Rights and the First Rulings of the Court’ (2006)5 (3) SUR-International Journal of Human Rights.

Hamilton T and Sluiter G, ‘Principles of Reparations at the International Criminal Court: Assessing Alternative Approaches (2022) 25 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law <https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501018> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/18757413_02501018

International Criminal Court, ‘Symbolic Ceremony Marks End of ICC-Ordered Reparations for Victims in the Case of The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga in the Democratic Republic of Congo’ <https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/symbolic-ceremony-marks-end-icc-ordered-reparations-victims-case-prosecutor-v-germain-katanga> accessed 3 April 2026.

McCarthy C, ‘Reparations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Reparative Justice Theory’ (2009) 3 International Journal of Transitional Justice <https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijp001> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijtj/ijp001

McCarthy C, Reparations and Victim Support in the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press 2012) <https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139012782> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139012782

Moffett L and Sandoval C, ‘Tilting at Windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court’ (2021) Leiden Journal of International Law <https://doi.org/10.1017/S092215652100025X> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S092215652100025X

Moffett L, ‘Reparations for Victims at the International Criminal Court: A New Way Forward?’ (2017) International Journal of Human Rights <https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1360005> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2017.1360005

Moffett L, Justice for Victims before the International Criminal Court (Routledge 2014) <https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315849751> DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315849751

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OUN-HCHR), Rule-Of-Law Tools for Post-Conflict States: Reparations Programme (2008) <https://www.ohchr.org/ Documents/ Publications/reparationsProgrammes.pdf> accessed on 3 April 2026.

Papachristopoulos C, ‘On the Punitive Nature of ICC Reparations Orders’ (2024) 37(3) Leiden Journal of International Law <https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156524000177> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156524000177

Perez-Leon-Acevedo J, ‘Reparation Principles at the International Criminal Court’ in General Principles and the Coherence of International Law, Mads A and others (eds) (Brill 2019) <https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004390935_020> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004390935_020

Perez-Leon-Acevedo J, ‘The Emerging Reparations Case-Law of the ICC Appeals Chamber in Comparative Perspective’ (12 June 2015) EJIL Talk <https://www.ejiltalk.org/the-emerging-reparations-case-law-of-the-icc-appeals-chamber-in-comparative-perspective/> accessed 3 April 2026.

Posner E, ‘A Minimalist Reparations Regime for the International Criminal Court’ in Steinberg Richard (ed) Contemporary Issues Facing the International Criminal Court (Brill 2016) <https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004304451_031> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004304451_031

Redwood B and others, ‘Reparations Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court: A Distillation (27 May 2024) https://ssrn.com/abstract=5013785> accessed 3 April 2026 <https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5013785> DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5013785

Robins S, ‘Failing Victims? The Limits of Transitional Justice in Addressing the Needs of Victims of Violations.’ 2017 Human Rights and International Legal Discourse 9(1).

Schabas W A, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge University Press 2017) <https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316459997> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316459997

United Nations (UN) Security Council, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (as last amended on 13 October 2006), 8 November 1994.

United Nations General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (last amended 2010), UN General Assembly, 17 July (1998).

United Nations Security Council, Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former

Yael D, ‘Reappraising the Nuremberg Trials and their Legacy: The Role of Victims in International Law’ (2005) 27 Cardozo Law Review.

Cases

Bleir v Uruguay, 23 May 1978, CCPR/C/15/D/30/1978.

Blanco v Nicaragua, 18 August 1994, CCPR/C/51/D/328/1988 <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.1988.tb04878.x> DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.1988.tb04878.x

Chorzow Factory Case, Merits, 1928, P.C.I.J., Sr. A, N°17 (September 13).

G´omez-Palomino v. Peru, Merits, Reparations and Costs, IACtHR, Series C No.136, 22 November 2005.

The Prosecutor v. Kaing Guek Eav alias Duch 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC (case 001 Duch), Judgment of 26 July 2010

The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda ICC-01/04-02/06-2659.

The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga ICC-01/04-01/07 A A2.

The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo ICC-01/04-01/06-1.

The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi ICC-01/12-01/15-236 912.

The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen ICC-02/04-01/15-2108.

Orders and Regulations

Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparations ICC-01/04-01/06-2904 (7 August 2012).

Decision on the Application for Resumption of Action Submitted by a Relative of Deceased Victim a/0265/09 and the Appointment of a New Representative for Victim A/0071/08, 12 December 2016, ICC-01/04-01/07-3721-tENG.

Decision on the Matter of the Transgenerational Harm Alleged by Some Applicants for Reparations Remanded by the Appeals Chamber in its Judgment of 8 March 2018, ICC-01/04-01/07-3804-Red-tENG, 19 July 2018.

Decision on Victims’ Participation ICC-01/04-01/06-1119 (21 January 2008) <https://doi.org/10.2118/0108-021-TWA>

ICC-01/12-01/15-259-Red2 (8 March 2018) <https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0037-1609812>

Judgment and Sentence ICC-01/12-01/15-171 (27 September 2016) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1568438

<https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0035-1568438>

Judgment Handing down Conviction ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG (7 March 2014) <https://doi.org/10.52283/NSWRCA.AJBMR.20140401A01>

Judgment on Mr Bosco Ntaganda’s Appeal against the Decision Reviewing Restrictions on Contacts of 7 September 2016 ICC-01/04-02/06-1817-Red (8 March 2017).

Judgment on the Appeal against Trial Chamber II’s ‘Decision Setting the Size of the Reparations Award for which Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is Liable’ ICC-01/04-01/06 A7 A8 (18 July 2019)

Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Dominic Ongwen against the Decision of Trial Chamber IX of 28 February 2024 Entitled ‘Reparations Order’ ICC-02/04-01/15-2108(7 April 2025).

Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the Decision on the Defence Challenge to the Jurisdiction of the Court Pursuant to Article 19 (2) (a) of the Statute of 3 October 2006 ICC-01/04-01/06-772 (13 December 2006).

Judgment on the Appeals against the ‘Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparations’ of 7 August 2012 with Amended Order for Reparations (Annex A) and Public Annexes 1 and 2 ICC-01/04-01/06 A A 2 A 3 (3 March 2015).

Judgment on the Appeals Against the Order of Trial Chamber II of 24 March 2017 Entitled ‘Order for Reparations Pursuant to Article 75 Of the Statute’ ICC-01/04-01/07 A3 A4 A5 (8 March 2018).

Law on the Establishment of the Extraordinary Chambers, with Inclusion of Amendments as Promulgated on 27 October 2004 (NS/RKM/1004/006).

Observations on Reparations in Response to the Scheduling Order of 14 March 2012 ICC-01/04-01/06-2872 (25 April 2012).

Order Approving the Proposed Plan of the Trust Fund for Victims in Relation to Symbolic Collective Reparations ICC-01/04-01/06-3251(21 October 2016).

Order for Reparations ICC-01/04-01/06-3129-AnxA (3 March 2015).

Order for Reparations Pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute ICC-01/04-01/07-3728-tENG (24 March 2017).

Public Redacted Judgment on the Appeal of the Victims against the ‘Reparations Order.’

Public Redacted Trial Judgment ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red 04-02-2021 1/1077 (4 February 2021).

Public Redacted Version of Decision on Defence Applications for Judgments of Acquittal, ICC-01/09-01/11-2027-Red (5 April 2016).

Redacted Version of ‘Decision on Indirect Victims’ ICC-01/04-01/06-1813 (8 April 2009).

Regulations of the Trust Fund for Victims (2005) Resolution ICC-ASP/4/Res.3 Adopted at the 4th Plenary Meeting on 3 December 2005, by Consensus.

Reparations Order (ICC-01/12-01/15-236 (17 August 2017) DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-102566

<https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-102566>

Reparations Order ICC-01/04-02/06-2659 (8 March 2021) <https://doi.org/10.52314/tjima.2022.v2i1.52> DOI: https://doi.org/10.52314/tjima.2022.v2i1.52

Reparations Order ICC-02/04-01/15 1/361 (28 February 2024) <https://doi.org/10.53034/Transcript.2024.v04.n02.000> DOI: https://doi.org/10.53034/Transcript.2024.v04.n02.000

Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Court (2002) (ICC-ASP/1/3 and Corr.1), Part II.A.

Rules of Procedure of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (2009).

Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, in the case of The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Decision on the Victims’ Requests to Participate in the Appeal Proceedings ICC-01/04-01/07 A A2 (24 July 2014).

Trial Chamber VI Judgment ICC-01/04-02/06-235 (8 July 2019).

Yugoslavia (as amended on 17 May 2002), 25 May