Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 July 2010
Based on interviews with 23 key figures at the International Criminal Court, this study represents an effort to go beyond the text of the Rome Statute. It tries to understand the different views or interpretations of the law regarding victim participation that exist within the organization and will ultimately shape how victims’ rights are applied in the Court. Rather than being a legal study, this research is rooted in organizational psychology.
1 Stahn, C., Olasolo, H., and Gibson, K., ‘Participation of Victims in Pre-trial Proceedings of the ICC’, (2006) 4 Journal of International Criminal Law 219Google Scholar.
3 Chung, C., ‘Victims’ Participation at the International Criminal Court: Are Concessions of the Court Clouding the Promise?’ (2008) 6 Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights 459Google Scholar.
4 H. Friman, ‘The International Criminal Court and Participation of Victims: A Third Party to the Proceedings?’ (2009) 22 LJIL 485.
5 C. Smart, Feminism and the Power of Law (1989).
6 H. Blumer, Symbolic Interactionism: Perspectives and Method (1969).
7 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Adopted by the United Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court on 12 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF. 183/9.
9 Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Adopted by the Assembly of States Parties, First Session, New York, 3–10 September 2002, UN Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3.
10 Victim Participation and Reparation Section, International Criminal Court, 8 December 2009.
11 For a discussion of ICC decisions on victim participation see Friman, supra note 4. In particular see, e.g., Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo (Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), Decision on Victims’ Participation, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, T.Ch.I, 18 January 2008; Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo (Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo), 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 OA9 OA10, A.Ch.,11 July 2008.
12 E. Viano, ‘Victims, Offenders and the Criminal Justice System: Is Restitution the Answer?’, in B. Galaway and B. Hudson (eds.), Offender Restitution in Theory and Action (1978), 91; M. Bard and D. Sangry, The Crime Victim's Book (1979); Baril, M., ‘Réactions à la victimisation’ (1980) 13 Criminologie 94CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
13 UN Doc. A/Res/40/34, 29 November 1985.
14 Jousten, M., ‘Listening to the Victim: The Victim's Role in European Criminal Justice Systems’, (1987) 34 Wayne Law Review 95Google Scholar.
17 Also known in England and Wales as a victim personal statement.
18 A. Ashworth, ‘Victim Impact Statements and Sentencing’, (1993) Criminal Law Review 498. In the United States, Payne v. Tennessee (501 US 808 (1991)) brought victim participation to the country's Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided to allow the inclusion of VISs in cases involving a possible death sentence, thus reversing a decision by the state of Tennessee to exclude victim input from possible capital cases. For a discussion see E. Erez, ‘Victim Participation in Sentencing: And the Debate Goes On . . .’ (1994) International Review of Victimology 17.
19 E. Erez, ‘Who's Afraid of the Big Bad Victim? Victim Impact Statements as Victim Empowerment and Enhancement of Justice’, (1999) Criminal Law Review 545; A. Sanders, C. Hoyle, R. Morgan, and E. Cape, ‘Victim Impact Statements: Don't Work, Can't Work’, (2001) Criminal Law Review 447; E. Erez and J. Roberts, ‘Victim Participation in the Criminal Justice System’, in R. Davis, A. Lurigio, and S. Herman (eds.), Victims of Crime (2007), 277.
21 See P. Rock, After Homicide: Practical and Political Responses to Bereavement (1998); see also K. Roach, Due Process and Victims’ Rights (1999), who describes how this debate has been fuelled by victims’ groups claiming equal rights for victims.
25 M. Bassiouni, ‘“Quesas Crimes”’, in Bassiouni (ed.), The Islamic Criminal Justice System (1982).
28 For example, Art. 722 of the Canadian Criminal Code obliges judges to ‘consider’ victim impact statements whenever they are available.
29 See J. Wemmers, Introduction à la victimologie (2003), for a discussion of passive and active participation by victims in the criminal justice system.
31 The remaining seven respondents did not talk about when victims should be allowed to participate and whether victim participation should be permitted before an arrest warrant has been issued.
32 Office of the Prosecutor, Policy Paper on Victims’ participation under Article 68(3) of the ICC Statute. December 2009. See also the updated version of April 2010, available at www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/BC21BFDF-88CD-426B-BAC3-D0981E4ABE02/281751/PolicyPaperonVictimsParticipationApril2010.pdf.
34 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in the Case of Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07-1788, Trial Chamber II, 22 January 2010.
35 Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, ICC-01/04-01/06 OA9 OA10, Appeals Chamber. Judgment on the appeals of the appeals of the Prosecutor and the Defence against Trial Chamber I's decision on victims’ participation of 18 January 2008.
36 Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the Case of the Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, ICC-01/04-01/07, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case, 13 May 2008.
38 Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, ICC-01/04 OA4 OA5 OA6, Appeals Chamber, Judgment on victim participation in the investigation stage of the proceedings in the appeal of the OPCD against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 7 December 2007 and in the appeals of the OPCD and the Prosecutor against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber I of 24 December 2007.
39 P. Vinck, P. Pham, S. Baldo, and R. Shigekane, ‘Living with Fear: A Population-Based Survey on Attitudes about Peace, Justice and Social Reconstruction in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo’, Human Rights Centre, University of Berkeley, Berkeley, 2008.
40 P. Pham, P. Vinck, M. Balthazard, S. Hean, and E. Stover, ‘So We Will Never Forget: A Population-Based Survey on Attitudes about Social Reconstruction and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia’, Human Rights Centre University of California, Berkeley, 2009.
41 E. Stover, The Witnesses: War Crimes and the Promise of Justice in The Hague (2005).
42 V. Tochilovsky, ‘Victims’ Procedural Rights at Trial: The Approach of Continental Europe and the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, in J. J. M. Van Dijk, R. Van Kaam, and J. Wemmers (eds.), Caring for Victims of Crime (1999), 287.
43 Shapland, J., ‘The Criminal Justice System and the Victim’, (1985) 10 Victimology: An International Journal 485Google Scholar; see also J. Shapland, J. Willmore, and P. Duff, Victims in the Criminal Justice System (1985); M. Baril, S. Durand, M. M. Cousineau, and S. Gravel, Mais nous, les témoins . . .(1983); J. Wemmers, Victims in the Criminal Justice System (1996); Wemmers, J. and Cyr, K., ‘Victims’ Perspectives on Restorative Justice: How Much Involvement Are Victims Looking for?’, (2004) 11 International Review of Victimology 259CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
44 J. Wemmers, ‘Restorative Justice: The Choice between Bilateral Decision-Making Power and Third Party Intervention’, in Brian Williams (ed.), Reparation and Victim-Focused Social Work (2001), 34.
49 C. Hoyle, C. Cape, R. Morgan, and A. Sanders, ‘Evaluation of the “One Stop Shop” and Victim Statement Pilot Projects’, Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate, 1998.
50 Prairie Research Associates, ‘Multi-site Survey of Victims of Crime and Criminal Justice Professionals across Canada’, Department of Justice Canada, 2004.