Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ws8qp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T22:31:12.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Types of Injury in Inter-State Reparation Claims: A Guide for the International Criminal Court

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 July 2015

Hirad Abtahi*
Affiliation:
Legal Adviser Head of the Presidency Legal and Enforcement Unit International Criminal Court

Abstract

In determining “the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims” under article 75(1) of the International Criminal Court (“ICC”) Statute, the ICC will progressively lay the foundation of reparations in international criminal justice. In the process of establishing the typology of harms sustained by natural and—under some qualifications—legal persons, inter-state claims practice may prove to be of assistance to the judges in light of the particular circumstances of each case. In addition, such an exercise illuminates how the doctrinal methods adopted in public international law scholarship categorize and describe the harms that have given rise to reparation claims during both war and peacetime.

Résumé

Dans sa détermination de « l’ampleur du dommage, de la perte ou du préjudice causé aux victimes » en vertu de l’article 75(1) du Statut de la Cour pénale internationale (« CPI »), la CPI jettera peu à peu les fondements du concept de réparations en justice pénale internationale. Dans le processus d’établissement de la typologie de dommages causés à des personnes physiques et—avec certaines qualifications—morales, la pratique relative aux réclamations inter-Étatiques pourrait assister les juges dans chaque cas d’espèce. De plus, tel exercice illumine la façon par laquelle les méthodes doctrinales adoptées dans les travaux de publicistes en droit international public classent et décrivent les dommages ayant donné lieu à des demandes de réparations en période de guerre et de paix.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Law and Society Association / Association Canadienne Droit et Société 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Article 21 of the ICC Statute provides that the ICC’s applicable law shall be, in the following order: its own legal framework; “applicable treaties and the principles and rules of international law, including the established principles of the international law of armed conflicts” where appropriate; “failing that, general principles of law derived by the Court from national laws of legal systems of the world [...]” provided that they are not inconsistent with the ICC Statute, international law, and internationally recognized norms and standards.

2 This study focuses on universal and bilateral legal instruments and mechanisms, excluding regional human rights courts.

3 Chorzow Factory Case (Germany v Poland), 1928 PCIJ, (Series A) No 17 at 21; as reaffirmed in Reparation for Injuries Suffered in the Service of the United Nations, Advisory Opinion, 1949 ICJ REP 174, para 184 (April 11). See also article 36 (2) of the Statute of the ICJ.

4 See e.g., ILC Draft Articles, 117.

5 Ibid., 95–96.

6 “Convention on Rights and Duties of States (Monte Video Convention), Dec. 26, 1933,” American Journal of International Law 28 (Supp) (1934): 75, art 1.

7 García-Amador, F.V., Sohn, Louis B., and Baxter, R.R., Recent Codification of the Law of State Responsibility for Injuries to Aliens (Dobbs Ferry, NY: Oceana, 1974), 91, paras 29–30.Google Scholar

8 One exception is the UNCC, which accepted claims of natural and legal persons: http://www.uncc.ch/claims/c_claims.htm (last updated October 16, 2014).

9 ILC Draft Articles, 91.

10 Ibid., 91–92, para. 5

11 Ibid.

12 Some have argued that mental injuries are purely pathological and that medicine can potentially cure them, whereas moral injuries include loss of reputation and those injuries that are purely “intellectual.” This study will consider as moral injuries all non-material injuries—those that are not physical, SeeGarcía-Amador, et al., Recent Codification of the Law, 115–16.Google Scholar

13 “Situation in DRC, Lubanga, Judgment on the appeals of The Prosecutor and The Defence against Trial Chamber I’s Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008,” ICC-01/04-01/06 OA 9 OA 10, 11 July 2008, paras 32 and 39.

14 García-Amador, et al., Recent Codification of the Law of State Responsibility, 92, para 34.Google Scholar

15 “Final Award: Ethiopia’s Damages Claims (Ethiopia v Eritrea),” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 26 (Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission) (Aug. 17, 2009): 631, paras 104–10. See also “Final Award: Eritrea’s Damages Claims (Ethiopia v Eritrea),” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 26 (Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission) (Aug. 17, 2009): 505, paras 234–39, for a discussion of rape charges and methods of calculating damages for rape.

16 “Ethiopia’s Damages Claims,” para 98.

17 Ibid., paras 99–100.

18 Ibid., paras 101–102.

19 See the American Civil War’s Trent Incident: Moore, John Bassett, ed., A Digest of International Law as Embodied in Diplomatic Discussions, Treaties and Other International Agreements, International Awards, the Decisions of Municipal Courts, and the Writings of Jurists, and Especially in Documents, Published and Unpublished, Issued by Presidents and Secretaries of State of the United States, the Opinions of the Attorneys-General, and the Decisions of Courts, Federal and State (1906), 7: 768–71. See also the Union USS Wachusett capture of the Confederate vessel Florida off the coast of Brazil in 1864. Ibid, 1090–91.Google Scholar

20 “Eritrea’s Damages Claims,” paras 208–16.

21 Whiteman, Marjorie M., Damages in International Law, vol. 3 (US Government Printing Office, 1937), 523–24.Google Scholar

22 “États-Unis et Israël: Règlement de l’incident du Liberty (18 décembre 1980),” Revue Générale de Droit International Public 85 (1981): 562.

23 Whelton, Carmel, “The United Nations Compensation Commission and International Claims Law: A Fresh Approach,” Ottawa Law Review 25 (1993): 620.Google Scholar

24 García-Amador, et al., Recent Codification of the Law, 92, para. 36.Google Scholar

25 “Corfu Channel, Assessment of Amount of Compensation (UK v Albania), Judgment,” International Court of Justice (Dec. 15, 1949), 249–50.

26 ILC Draft Articles, 101-102, para. 16.

27 “Opinion in the Lusitania Cases (United States of America v Germany),” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 7 (United States-Germany Mixed Claims Commission) (Nov. 1, 1923): 40.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid., 37.

30 “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), Compensation Owed by the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the Republic of Guinea,” International Court of Justice General List No 103 (June 19, 2012), para 18.

31 García-Amador, et al., Recent Codification of the Law,, 9293, para 37.Google Scholar

32Gladys Bilicke (United States) v Germany, and Gladys Bilicke, Individually and as Guardian of the Estate of Carl Archibald Bilicke, and Others (United States) v Germany,” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 7 (United States-Germany Mixed Claims Commission) (Sept. 24, 1924): 264; García-Amador et al., Recent Codification of the Law, 115, para 127.

33Elizabeth McKechan (United States of America) v Germany, United States-Germany Mixed Claims Commission (Feb. 24, 1924),” reprinted in Consolidated Edition of Decisions and Opinions: 1925 (1925), 416–18.

34 “Eritrea’s Damages Claims,” paras 181 and 188.

35 Ibid., paras 289–302.

36William McNeill (Great Britain) v United Mexican States, Decision No 46,” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 5 (British-Mexican Claims Commission) (May 19, 1931): 165, 168.

37 “Affaire Chevreau (France v United Kingdom),Reports of International Arbitral Awards 2 (June 9, 1931): 1113–43. An English translation is available in “Arbitral Award, In the Matter of the Claim Madame Chevreau Against the United Kingdom,” American Journal of International Law 27 (1933): 153–82.

38 “Affaire Chevreau,” 1118–22; “Arbitral Award, In the Matter of the Claim,” 155–59.

39 “Affaire Chevreau,” 1143; “Arbitral Award, In the Matter of the Claim,” 182.

40 United Nations Compensation Commission, Category “C” Claims, at http://www.uncc.ch/claims/c_claims.htm (last updated October 16, 2014).

41 “Eritrea’s Damages Claims,” para 232; “Ethiopia’s Damages Claims,” para 212.

42 “Eritrea’s Damages Claims,” para 238; “Ethiopia’s Damages Claims,” para 109.

43 For an example of moral injury suffered as a result of insults and threats of ill treatment during a lawful arrest and detention, see “Gage Case (United States v Venezuela),” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 9 (Mixed Claims Commission United States-Venezuela) (1903–1905): 226–29.

44 Diallo compensation decision, paras 14, 18–25.

45 “Ahmadou Sadio Diallo (Republic of Guinea v Democratic Republic of the Congo), Merits, Judgment,” International Court of Justice Reports 2010 (Nov. 30): paras 1, 15–21.

46 Ibid., paras 18–19, 59–60, 79.

47 Ibid., para 21.

48 Ibid., paras 73–74, 85, 97, 160, 165.

49 Ibid., paras 79, 82.

50 Diallo compensation decision, para 21.

51 Ibid., para 23.

52 Ibid., paras 19, 21.

53 Ibid., paras 21, 25.

54 “Affaire des biens britanniques au Maroc espagnol (Spain v United Kingdom),” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 2 (May 1, 1925): 621–25, 651–742.

55 “Différend Dame Hénon–Decision No. 109,” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 13 (French-Italian Conciliation Commission) (Oct. 31, 1951): 248–49.

56 Ibid.

57 “Différend Dame Hénon–Decision No. 153,” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 13 (French-Italian Conciliation Commission) (June 16, 1953): 251.

58 Zyberi, Gentian, “The International Court of Justice and Applied Forms of Reparation for International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law Violations,” Utrecht Law Review 7 (2011): 206207; “Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion,” International Court of Justice Reports 2004 (July 9): paras 149–53. See also “Application for Review of Judgement No. 158 of the United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Advisory Opinion,” International Court of Justice Reports 1973 (July 12): para 14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59 Wall advisory opinion, paras 152–53.

60 “Ethiopia’s Damages Claims,” paras 111–35.

61 “Eritrea’s Damages Claims,” paras 51, 76.

62 Parties agreed that the tribunal would settle their claims in accordance with equity and the summary procedure devised by the Second Hague Peace Conference of 1907. “Affaire des Propriétés Religieuses (France, United Kingdom & Spain v Portugal), Reports of International Arbitral Awards 1 (Sept. 4, 1920): 9. “Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 18 Oct. 1907,” Bevans 1 (1968): 601–02, arts 86–91; “Pacific Settlement of International Disputes, 29 July 1899,” Bevans 1 (1968): 230. Judicial settlement was preferred to diplomatic adjustment of the claims. Religious Property Case, 9; see also “Peaceful Settlement of International Disputes, 18 Oct. 1907,” Bevans 1 (1968): 591–92, arts 37–38 (describing the purposes and conditions of international arbitration).

63 Religious Property case, 22.

64 Ibid., 20.

65 Ibid., 13, 16.

66 “Affaire des forêts du Rhodope central (fond) (Greece v Bulgaria),” Reports of International Arbitral Awards 3 (March 29, 1933): 1423, 1426, 1432.

67 Diallo compensation decision, paras 1, 3, 26–55.

68 Ibid., paras 14, 26.

69 Ibid., para 27.

70 Ibid., paras 29–36.

71 Based on equitable considerations, a more modest sum than that requested was awarded. Ibid., paras 33, 36.

72 Ibid., para 40.

73 Ibid., paras 41–50.

74 Ibid., paras 51–54.

75 Lubanga victims’ participation judgement, para 32.

76 Ibid., para 39.

77Lusitania Cases (United States of America v Germany),” Administrative Decision No. VI, Reports of International Arbitral Awards 7 (United States-Germany Mixed Claims Commission) (Jan. 30, 1925): 156 (quoting Administrative Decision No. II).

78 Lusitania cases opinion, 34–35.

79 Ibid., 35.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid., 35–36.

82 USS Liberty case, 562.

83 See also “Bahamas et Cuba: Versement par le gouvernement cubain au gouvernement des Bahamas de l’indemnité dûe pour l’incident maritime du 10 mai 1980 (16 décembre 1980),” Revue Générale de Droit International Public 85 (1981): 540, regarding the families of sailors killed during the sinking of a Bahamian patrol boat by Cuba.

84 “International Claims,” American Journal of International Law 83 (1989): 561–62.Google Scholar

85 Ibid., 563.

86 Ibid., 563–64.

87 “Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Application Instituting Proceedings filed in the Registry of the Court,” International Court of Justice General List No 89 (May 17, 1989), 4–5, 8–11.

88 For the settlement agreement itself, see “General Agreement on the Settlement of Certain I.C.J. and Tribunal Cases (9 Feb. 1996),” (“General Agreement”) attached to “Joint Request for Arbitral Award on Agreed Terms,” 32 Iran-U.S. C.T.R. 212 (1996), 213–16.

89 “Iran-United States Claims Tribunal: Partial Award Containing Settlement Agreement on the Iranian Bank Claims Against the United States and on the International Court of Justice Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of July 3, 1988,” (“Partial Award”) International Legal Materials 35 (Feb. 22, 1996): 553.

90 “General Agreement,” 213–16; “Case Concerning the Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Order of 22 February 1996,” I.C.J. Reports 1996, 9-11, reprinted in International Legal Materials 35 (Feb. 22, 1996): 550–52; “Partial Award,” 553–54.

91 Différend Ottoz–Decision No. 85, Reports of International Arbitral Awards 13 (French-Italian Conciliation Commission) (Sept. 18, 1950): 233–34, 39–40.

92 For compensation for the pecuniary loss suffered by an eligible heir as a result of losing a brother of “ordinary ability and affection,” see “Heirs of Jean Maninat Case (France v Venezuela), Reports of International Arbitral Awards 10 (France-Venezuela Mixed Claims Commission) (July 31, 1905): 81–83.

93 García-Amador, et al., Recent Codification of the Law, 9293, para 37.Google Scholar

94 For reparation claims to persons who lost family members, see Lusitania cases opinion, 35–37; F.V. García-Amador et al., Recent Codification of the Law, 115, para 127.

95 Di Caro Case (Italy v Venezuela), Reports of International Arbitral Awards 10 597 (Italy-Venezuela Mixed Claims Commission) (1903): 597.

96 Ibid.

97 Ibid., 598.

98 Ibid.

99 Ibid.

100 Appeal from a Judgment of the Hungaro-Czechoslovak Mixed Arbitral Tribunal (The Peter Pázmány University v The State of Czechoslovakia), 1933 P.C.I.J. (ser. A/B) No. 61 (1Dec.), 216 & 226.

101 Ibid., 240-41.

102 Ibid., 249.

103 Ibid.

104 Treaty of Peace with Italy, signed at Paris on 10 February 1947, Reports of International Arbitral Awards 14 (1952–1961): 3, art 78(1).

105 Ibid., 3, art 78(2).

106 Différend Société Foncière Lyonnaise–Décision No. 65 du 19 juillet 1950, Reports of International Arbitral Awards 13 (French-Italian Conciliation Commission) (July 19, 1950): 217–19.

107 “Ethiopia’s Damages Claims,” paras 454–55.

108 Ibid.

109 Report and Recommendations Made by the Panel of Commissioners Appointed to Review the Well Blowout Control Claim (the “WBC Claim”), UN Doc. S/AC.26/1996/5/Annex (Nov. 15, 1996), paras 66–86, 233.

110 Wall advisory opinion, paras 152–53.

111 Aerial Incident of 3 July 1988 (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America), Application Instituting Proceedings filed in the Registry of the Court, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal General List. No. 89 (May 17, 1989), 4–5, 8–11.

112 “General Agreement,” 213–16.

113 M/V Saiga (No 2) (St. Vincent and the Grenadines v Guinea), Judgment, Case No 2 (ITLOS) (July 1, 1999), paras. 31–39, 156, at http://www.itlos.org/fileadmin/itlos/documents/cases/case_no_2/merits/Judgment.01.07.99.E.pdf.

114 Ibid., para 172.

115 Ibid., para 175.

116 Desert Line Projects LLC v The Republic of Yemen, Award, ICSID Case No ARB/05/17 (Feb. 6, 2008), paras 3–49.

117 Ibid., paras 191–94.

118 Ibid., paras 289–90.

119 Ibid., paras 286, 289–90.

120 Ibid., para 290.

121 Ibid., paras 286, 290.

122 García-Amador, et al., Recent Codification of the Law, 93, para 41.Google Scholar

123 See Arzt, Donna E. and Lukashuk, Igor I., “Participants in International Legal Relations,” in International Law: Classic and Contemporary Readings, edited by Ku, Charlotte and Diehl, Paul F. (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 1998), 155–76.Google Scholar

124 Zyberi, “The International Court of Justice,” 206–207; Wall advisory opinion, paras 149–53.

125 Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime of Abuse of Power, UN General Assembly, A/RES/40/34, November 29, 1985.

126 Lubanga victims’ participation judgment, paras 32 and 39.

127 See “Policy Paper on Preliminary Examinations, the Office of the Prosecutor, November 2013,” paras 59 et seq, at http://www.icc-cpi.int/en_menus/icc/press%20and%20media/press%20releases/Documents/OTP%20Preliminary%20Examinations/OTP%20-%20Policy%20Paper%20Preliminary%20Examinations%20%202013.pdf .

128 Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of Statute) ICC-01/04-01/06-2842 (March 14, 2012) para 605; Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Judgment on the appeals of the Prosecutor and Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against the “Decision on Sentence pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute”) ICC-01/04-01/06-3122 (December 1, 2014) para 18. The Trial Chamber also cited expert evidence that child soldiers can be hampered in their healthy development, their ability to function fully after the cessation of the hostilities, and can suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and lack “civilian life skills.” Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Decision on Sentence Pursuant to Article 76 of the Statute) ICC-01/04-01/06-2901 (July 10, 2012) paras 39-42. Earlier, the Appeals Chamber had acknowledged how indirect victims, including child soldiers’ family members, can suffer psychological trauma or the material loss of that child’s contributions. Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Redacted version of "Decision on ‘indirect victims’") ICC-01/04-01/06-1813 (8 April 2009) para 50.

129 Situation in DRC, Lubanga, Judgment on the appeals against the “Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations” of August 7, 2012, ICC-01/04-01/06-3129, March 3, 2013, paras 1, 184, 187.

130 Ibid, para 191.

131 Situation in DRC, Lubanga, Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations, ICC-01/04-01/06-2904, 7 August 2012, paras. 32 and 39 para. 65

132 Ibid, para.186, footnote 377.

133 Ibid, para. 230, footnote 230, where, on the type of harm, the Trial Chamber held that the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ “damage to a life plan” “may be relevant to reparations at the ICC.”

134 Lubanga reparations judgment, paras 127–28.