![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In March 2012, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo from the Democratic Republic of the Congo was the first person to be tried and convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC). The charges for which Lubanga was found guilty – the conscription, enlistment and use of child soldiers – belied a range of other crimes that were documented as part of the conflict in which Lubanga and his militia were involved, including acts of sexual and gender-based violence. The decision of the ICC’s Office of the Prosecutor not to fully investigate, or include charges for, these latter crimes in the Lubanga case set in train what can be described as a ‘gender injustice cascade’ throughout the trial and reparations process. The ultimate effect of the cascade has been to limit victims of the sexual and gender-based crimes in this conflict from gaining direct access to any reparations measures, let alone the ‘transformative’ ones some advocates were searching for. This case highlights some key limitations of Court-ordered reparations for securing gender justice, let alone transformation, under the ICC’s framework.
Acknowledgments
Louise would like to acknowledge the helpful suggestions of Rose Grey and two anonymous reviewers and the research assistance of Emily Waller in the writing of this article.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Note on contributor
Louise Chappell is a professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of New South Wales. Her research focuses on gender justice issues across legal, political and social institutions. Louise has published widely in this field and her most recent book is The Politics of Gender Justice: Legacies and Legitimacy at the International Criminal Court (Oxford University Press).
Notes
1 Christine Van den Wyngaert, ‘Victims Before International Criminal Courts: Some Views and Concerns of an ICC Trial Judge’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International 44, no. 1 and 2 (2012): 475–96.
2 Frédéric Mégret, ‘Justifying Compensation by the International Criminal Court’s Victims Trust Fund: Lessons from Domestic Compensation Schemes’, Brooklyn Journal of International Law 36, no. 1 (2015): 123–204; see also Luke Moffett, this special issue.
3 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be applied to Reparation, ICC-01/04-01/06-2904, 7 August 2012.
4 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Appeal against Trial Chamber I’s Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparation of 7 August 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2914-tENG, 3 September 2012.
5 Prosecutor v Lubanga, 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-01/04-01/06-3129, 3 March 2015.
6 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Redaction of Filing on Reparations and Draft Implementation Plan, Trust Fund for Victims, ICC-01/04-01/06-3177-Red, 3 November 2015.
7 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Additional Programme Information Filing, Trust Fund for Victims, ICC-01/04-01/06-3209, 7 June 2016.
8 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Public Redacted Version of Filing Regarding Symbolic Collective Reparations Projects with Confidential Annex: Draft Request for Proposals, ICC-01/04-01/06-3223-Conf, Trust Fund for Victims, ICC-01/04-01/06-3223-Red, 19 September 2016.
9 Ibid.
10 Carsten Stahn, ‘Reparative Justice after the Lubanga Appeals Judgment on Principles and Procedures of Reparation’, EJIL Talk! (Blog), 7 April 2015, http://www.ejiltalk.org/reparative-justice-after-the-lubanga-appeals-judgment-on-principles-and-procedures-of-reparation/ (accessed February 9, 2016).
11 See Rashida Manjoo, this special issue; Louise Chappell, The Politics of Gender Justice at the International Criminal Court: Legacies and Legitimacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016); Hilary Charlesworth and Christine Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2000); Judith G. Gardam and Michelle J. Jarvis, Women, Armed Conflict and International Law (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001); Susana SáCouto, ‘Victim Participation at the International Criminal Court and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: A Feminist Project?’ Michigan Journal of Gender and the Law 18, no. 2 (2012): 297–359.
12 Carla Ferstman, ‘Procedural and Substantive Obstacles for Reparations for Women Subjected to Violence through Judicial and Administrative Forums’, Panel Discussion on Reparations for Women Subjected to Violence, Palais Des Nations (8 June 2010), 6, http://www.redress.org/UNSRVW_July_2010.pdf.; Anne-Marie De Brouwer, ‘Reparation to Victims of Sexual Violence: Possibilities at the International Criminal Court and at the Trust Fund for Victims and Their Families’, Leiden Journal of International Law 20, no. 1 (2007): 207–37; Colleen Duggan and Adila Abusharaf, ‘Reparation of Sexual Violence in Democratic Transitions: The Search for Gender Justice’, in The Handbook of Reparations, ed. Pablo de Grieff (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 623–49; Fionnuala Ní Aoláin, Dina F. Haynes and Naomi Cahn, On the Frontlines: Gender, War, and the Post-Conflict Process (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 6. Ruth Rubio-Marín, ed., The Gender of Reparations: Unsettling Sexual Hierarchies While Redressing Human Rights Violations (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009).
13 Chappell, The Politics of Gender Justice.
14 Ní Aoláin, Haynes and Cahn, On the Frontlines; Carla Ferstman, ‘Procedural and Substantive Obstacles’, 6.
15 These include the right to: restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition.
16 Rubio-Marín, Gender of Reparations.
17 Rubio-Marín, Gender of Reparations; also see Jacqui True, The Political Economy of Violence Against Women (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 122; Andrea Durbach and Louise Chappell, ‘“Leaving Behind the Age of Impunity”: Victims of Gender Violence and the Promise of Reparations’, International Feminist Journal of Politics 16, no. 4 (2014): 543–62; Duggan and Abusharaf, ‘Reparation of Sexual Violence in Democratic Transitions’, 628; Cynthia Cockburn, ‘The Continuum of Violence’, in Sites of Violence: Gender and Conflict Zones, ed. Wenona Giles and Jennifer Hyndman (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004), 24–45.
18 Durbach and Chappell, ‘Leaving Behind the Age of Impunity’.
19 Rashida Manjoo, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes And Consequences (A/HRC/14/22) (New York: Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 19 April 2010).
20 Durbach and Chappell, ‘Leaving Behind the Age of Impunity’.
21 Article 3 (H) of the declaration states: ‘Reparation must go above and beyond the immediate reasons and consequences of the crimes and violations; they must aim to address the political and structural inequalities that negatively shape women’s and girls’ lives’ (emphasis added).
22 Durbach and Chappell, ‘Leaving Behind the Age of Impunity’.
23 Margaret Urban Walker, ‘Transformative Reparations? A Critical Look at a Current Trend in Thinking about Gender-just Reparations’, International Journal of Transitional Justice 10 (2015): 108–32.
24 Ibid., 110.
25 Christoph Sperfeldt, ‘Rome’s Legacy: Negotiating the Reparations Mandate of the International Criminal Court’, International Criminal Law Review 17, no. 2 (2017), 351–77.
26 Luke Moffett, this special issue.
27 Conor McCarthy, Reparations and Victim Support in the International Criminal Court. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 46; Carla Ferstman, ‘The Reparation Regime of the International Criminal Court: Practical Considerations’, Leiden Journal of International Law 15, no. 3 (2002): 667–86, 671.
28 Anja Wiersing, ‘Lubanga and its Implications for Victims Seeking Reparations at the International Criminal Court’, Amsterdam Law Forum 4, no. 3 (2012): 21–39, 24.
29 For a discussion of the gender justice negotiations generally, see Valerie Oosterveld, ‘Constructive Ambiguity and the Meaning of “Gender” for the International Criminal Court’, International Feminist Journal of Politics 16, no. 4 (2014): 563–80.
30 McCarthy, Reparations and Victim Support, 52–3; Sperfeldt, ‘Rome’s Legacy’.
31 McCarthy, Reparations and Victim Support, 53.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.
34 International Criminal Court Assembly of States Parties, Regulations of the Trust Fund for Victims, Resolution ICC-ASP/4/Res.3, ICC-ASP/4/Res.3, 2005.
35 McCarthy, Reparations and Victim Support, 255.
36 ICC-01/04-01/06-2904, para. 222.; see also Frédéric Mégret, ‘The International Criminal Court and the Failure to Mention Symbolic Reparations’, International Review of Victimology 16, no. 2 (2009): 127–47.
37 Womens’ Caucus for Gender Justice, Recommendations and Commentary for the March 1998 PrepCom Composition and Administration of the Court. (18 March 1998 [original with author]), 1.
38 See De Brouwer, ‘Reparation to Victims of Sexual Violence’, 221.
39 Eva Dwertmann, The Reparations System of the International Criminal Court: Its Implementation, Possibilities and Limitations (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2010), 89.
40 Ibid., 78.
41 REDRESS, ‘Landmark ICC Decision Recognises Reparation is a Right Owed to Victims’, Press Release, 7 August 2012, http://www.redress.org/downloads/Lubangareparationsdecision-070812.pdf (accessed April 7, 2014).
42 Van den Wyngaert, ‘Victims Before International Criminal Courts’, 486; also, at least in the Lubanga judgments, judges have passed this responsibility on to the Trust Fund for Victims (see Chappell, The Politics of Gender Justice).
43 Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice, Gender Justice and the ICC, United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, 15 June–17 July, Rome, Italy (New York: Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice, 1998), 51.
44 Ferstman, ‘Reparation Regime of the International Criminal Court’, 675.
45 Conor McCarthy, ‘Reparations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Reparative Justice Theory’, International Journal of Transitional Justice 3, no. 2 (2009): 250–71, 252.
46 Trust Fund for Victims, ‘Trust Fund for Victims Receives over €5 Million Voluntary Contributions in 2014’, Press Release, 23 December 2014, http://www.trustfundforvictims.org/news/trust-fund-victims-receives-over-%E2%82%AC5-million-voluntary-contributions-2014 (accessed January 16, 2015); for further discussion see Chappell, The Politics of Gender Justice, chap. 5.
47 Chappell, The Politics of Gender Justice, 150–5.
48 Dwertmann, Reparations System, 261.
49 See Chappell, The Politics of Gender Justice, 139–40.
50 See in particular Articles 7(1)(g), 7(2)(f), 8(2)(b)(xxii), 21(3), Rome Statue, 1998; International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor, Statement of the Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo to Diplomatic Corps (The Hague: ICC OTP, 12 February 2004), http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/0F999F00-A609-4516-A91A-80467BC432D3/143670/LOM_20040212_En.pdf (accessed January 13, 2015).
51 Louise Chappell, ‘Nested Newness and Institutional Innovation: Expanding Gender Justice in the International Criminal Court’, in Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism, ed. Mona Lena Krook and Fiona Mackay (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2011), 163–80.
52 Pamela Yates, director, The Reckoning [Film] (Skylight Pictures: Brooklyn, NY, 2009).
53 Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, Gender Report Card 2006 (The Hague: WIGJ, 2006).
54 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Prosecution’s Closing Brief, ICC-01/04-01/06-2748-Red, 1 June 2011, para. 139.
55 International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor, Statement by Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court: Press Conference in Relation with the Surrender to the Court of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC 01/04-01/06-170, 18 March 2008.
56 Ibid.
57 Brigid Inder, ‘Reflection: Gender Issues and Child Soldiers the Case of Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, (2011), http://www.lubangatrial.org/2011/08/31/reflection-gender-issues-and-child-soldiers-the-case-of-prosecutor-v-thomas-lubanga-dyilo-2/, n.p. (accessed August 31, 2015).
58 Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, Gender Report Card 2011 (The Hague: WIGJ, 2011), 130.
59 Ibid.
60 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Joint Application of the Legal Representatives of the Victims for the Implementation of the Procedure under Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-01/04-01/06-1891, 22 May 2009; Sienna Merope, ‘Recharacterizing the Lubanga Case: Regulation 55 and the Consequences for Gender Justice at the ICC’, Criminal Law Forum 22, no. 3 (2011): 311–46.
61 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision Giving Notice to the Parties and Participants that the Legal Characterisation of the Facts may Be Subject to Change in Accordance with Regulation 55(2) of the Regulations of the Court, ICC-01/04-01/06-2049, 14 July 2009.
62 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgment on the Appeals of Mr Lubanga Dyilo and the Prosecutor against the Decision of Trial Chamber I of 14 July 2009 Entitled ‘Decision Giving Notice to the Parties and Participants that the Legal Characterisation of the Facts may Be Subject to Change, ICC-01/04-01/06-2205, 17 December 2009.
63 Nina H.B. Jørgensen, ‘Child Soldiers and the Parameters of International Criminal Law’, Chinese Journal of International Law 11, no. 4 (2012): 657–88, 665.
64 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Trial Hearing, ICC-01/04-01/06-T-223-ENG, 7 January 2010.
65 Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, Gender Report Card 2010 (The Hague: WIGJ, 2010), 132.
66 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Procedural Matters Hearing, ICC-01/04-01/06-2748-Red, 21 July 2011 para. 22.
67 See for instance ICC-01/04-01/06-T-107-Eng, 10, 11; Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, Gender Report Card 2012 (The Hague: WIGJ, 2012), 160; Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, Gender Report Card 2009 (The Hague: WIGJ, 2009), 69–71; see also Jørgensen, ‘Child Soldiers and the Parameters’, 665.
68 ICC-01/04-01/06-2748-Red, para. 139.
69 See for example the tense exchange on these issues between the Prosecutor and the Bench in closing statements: Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Office of the Prosecutor’s Closing Statements, ICC-01/04-01/06-T-356-ENG, 25 August 2011, 55.
70 Kai Ambos, ‘The First Judgment of the International Criminal Court (Prosecutor v. Lubanga): A Comprehensive Analysis of the Legal Issues’, International Criminal Law Review 12 (2012): 115–53, fn 138, 156.
71 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgment Hearing, ICC-01/04-01/06-T-359-ENG, 14 March 2012.
72 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statue, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, 14 March 2012.
73 Ibid., para. 913.
74 Ibid.
75 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Decision on Sentence Pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-2901, 10 July 2012, para. 60.
76 Ibid., para. 74.
77 Ibid., para. 75.
78 ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, para. 21.
79 Ibid., para. 20.
80 Ibid., para. 21.
81 Ibid.
82 ICC-01/04-01/06-2904; Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Defence Document in Support of the Appeal against Trial Chamber I’s Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparation Rendered on 7 August 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2948-Conf-tENG, 6 September 2012; ICC-01/04-01/06-2914-tENG, 3 September 2012; ICC-01/04-01/06-3129.
83 International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor, OTP Briefing: Principles and Procedures of Reparation Process Established in Lubanga Case, Issue #129, 8–27 August 2012, http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/8A4D5456-4DA2-4D24-A338-591995AF727E/284861/OTPBriefing827August2012.pdf (accessed January 16, 2014); Trust Fund for Victims, Mobilising Resources and Supporting the Most Vulnerable Victims through Earmarked Funding: Programme Progress Report, Winter 2012 (The Hague: TFV, 2012).
84 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice Request for Leave to Participate in Reparations Proceedings, ICC-01/04-01/06-2853, 28 March 2012; Prosecutor v Lubanga, Observations of the Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice on Reparations, ICC-01/04-01/06-2876, 10 May 2012.
85 ICC-01/04-01/06-2853, para. 35; see also Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, Gender Report Card 2012, 207–08.
86 Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Observations on Reparations in Response to the Scheduling Order of 14 March 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2872, 25 April 2015, para. 77.
87 ICC-01/04-01/06-2904, para. 249.
88 Ibid., para. 194.
89 Ibid., para. 222.
90 Ibid., para. 189, 207.
91 Ibid., para. 264.
92 Ibid., para. 269, 271.
93 Ibid., para. 247.
94 Mariana Pena, ‘The Lubanga Case and Reparations for Victims of Sexual Violence’, International Justice Central Blog, 10 October 2012, http://publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/WCPW_MASTER_102212.html (accessed May 30, 2017).
95 ICC-01/04-01/06-2948-Conf-tENG; Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Mr. Thomas Lubanga’s Appellate Brief against Trial Chamber I’s 10 July 2012 Decision on Sentence Pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-2949-tENG, 3 December 2012; Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Defence Document in Support of the Appeal against Trial Chamber I’s Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparation, Rendered on 7 August 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2919-tENG, 10 September 2012.
96 Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Defence Document in Support of the Appeal against Trial Chamber I’s Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparation, Rendered on 7 August 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-2919-tENG, 10 September 2012.
97 Ibid., para. 5.
98 Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Response to the Defence Brief on the Appeal against the Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparations of 7 August 2012, Legal Representatives of Victims, ICC-01/04-01/06-3007-tENG, 13 April 2013, para. 58.
99 Ibid., para. 37.
100 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgment on the Appeals against the ‘Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparations’ of 7 August 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-312, 3 March 2015, para. 147–57.
101 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Order for Reparations (Amended), ICC-01/04-01/06-3129-AnxA, 3 March 2015, para. 16.
102 Rome Statute, Article 21(3).
103 See Valerie Oosterveld, ‘The Definition of “Gender” in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Step Forward or Back for International Criminal Justice?’, Harvard Human Rights Journal 18 (2005): 55–84.
104 ICC-01/04-01/06-3129, para. 196–8; Stahn, ‘Reparative Justice after the Lubanga Appeal Judgment’.
105 ICC-01/04-01/06-3129, para. 199.
106 Ibid., para. 196–8.
107 International Criminal Court, ‘Katanga Case: ICC Trial Chamber II Awards Victims Individual and Collective Reparations’, Press Release, ICC-CPI-20170324-PR1288, 24 March 2017.
108 ICC-01/04-01/06-312, para. 64–76.
109 International Criminal Court, ‘Katanga Case: ICC Trial Chamber II Awards Victims’.
110 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Redaction of Filing on Reparations and Draft Implementation Plan, Trust Fund for Victims, ICC-01/04-01/06-3177-Red, 3 November 2015.
111 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Additional Programme Information Filing, Trust Fund for Victims, ICC-01/04-01/06-3209, 7 June 2016.
112 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Public Redacted Version of Filing Regarding Symbolic Collective Reparations Projects with Confidential Annex: Draft Request for Proposals, ICC-01/04-01/06-3223-Conf, Trust Fund for Victims, ICC-01/04-01/06-3223-Red, 19 September 2016.
113 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Reparations Hearing, ICC-01/04-01/06-T-367-ENG, 11 October 2016, 42–3.
114 Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, ‘Presentation to Trial Chamber II Observations of the Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice’, 11 October 2016, http://www.4genderjustice.org/pub/Presentation-to-TC-II-Reparations-Hearing-October-2016.pdf (accessed May 30, 2017).
115 Prosecutor v Lubanga, Judgment on the Appeals against the ‘Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparations’ of August 7, 2012 with AMENDED Order for Reparations (Annex A) and Public Annexes 1 and 2, ICC-01/04-01/06-3129, 3 March 2015.
116 ICC-01/04-01/06-3223-Red 2, para. 36, 39.
117 Ibid, para. 41.
118 See for example the controversy over the Mexican el Campo Algodonero, Fregoso, Rosa-Linda, 2012, For the Women of Ciudad Juarez, http://thefeministwire.com/2012/12/for-the-women-of-ciudad-juarez/ (accessed June 8, 2017).
119 Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, ‘ICC Issues First Appeal Judgment on Reparations: The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, Press Release, 3 March 2015 (The Hague: WIGJ, 2015), http://www.iccwomen.org/documents/ICC-issues-first-appeal-judgment-on-reparations_Lubanga.pdf (accessed March 14, 2017), 2.
120 Rashida Manjoo, this special issue; Rashida Manjoo, Report of the Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes And Consequences; Durbach and Chappell, ‘Leaving Behind the Age of Impunity’.
121 For information on the Bemba case (ICC-01/05-01/08), please see: https://www.icc-cpi.int/car/bemba (accessed July 20, 2017).
122 For information on the Ongwen case (ICC-02/04-01/15); please see: https://www.icc-cpi.int/uganda/ongwen (accessed July 20. 2017); Prosecutor v. Ongwen, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-422-red, March 23. 2016, pp. 39-61; International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor, Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, at the opening of Trial in the case against Dominic Ongwen. (The Hague: ICC OTP, 2016), https://www.icc-cpi.int//Pages/item.aspx?name=2016-12-06-otp-stat-ongwen (accessed March 13, 2017).
123 International Criminal Court Office of the Prosecutor, Policy Paper of Sexual and Gender-based Crimes. (The Hague: ICC OTP, 2014).
124 Urban Walker, ‘Transformative Reparations? A Critical Look’.