Although victims at the International Criminal Court (ICC) are not parties, they can apply to become “victim participants” and may be authorized by an ICC Chamber to directly and orally express their views and concerns in court. Most ICC Trial Chambers, however, have preferred allowing legal representatives of these victim participants to call victims as witnesses to give testimonial evidence about the harm they suffered. Our article focuses on the practical-epistemological challenges that come with forcing accounts of harm into this testimony-format. We draw upon ethnomethodology and conversation analysis to elucidate the discursive techniques by which legal actors in the Ongwen trial manage these challenges. These include eliciting accounts that “exhibit” suffering, posing questions that transform the “inner self” into an object of inquiry, and approaching witnesses as “informal experts”. Furthermore, while questioning related to establishing criminal liability typically proceeds in a granular fashion, testimony-taking about harm is accompanied by a tolerance for extended answers and an orientation to narrativity.
Scholars have examined victim participation and reparations at the ICC. Nevertheless, no academic study focuses on victim participants and victims as parties (reparations claimants) in ICC appeals under international human rights law (IHRL) standards. This article seeks to: determine how victims' roles as victim participants and parties (reparations claimants) take place in ICC appeals; and evaluate ICC's law/practice on victims' procedural roles/rights in appeals under IHRL. Victims at the ICC exercise procedural rights to: voice their views and concerns in appeals against final and interlocutory decisions (victim participants); and appeal reparations orders (parties). ICC's law/practice on victims in appeals is generally consistent with IHRL. However, such law/ practice present some important deficits under IHRL, including scope of victims' procedural rights in ICC appeals and how these rights are exercised. Such deficits should be addressed to better realise victims' procedural roles/procedural rights in ICC appeals.
Among international criminal tribunals (‘icts’), the International Criminal Court (‘icc’) for the first time introduced victim participation and reparations for victims. Against potential African withdrawals from the
icc Statute, this article seeks to demonstrate the need to retain membership of the icc under victim-oriented considerations. Despite its deficits and limitations, the icc is arguably an important judicial forum for victims of mass atrocities committed in Africa for three arguments. First, human rights are invoked as a standard to examine the legitimacy of the decisions of the icc, African Union (‘au’), and African states. Second, international and African regional human rights law on victim rights binds African states. Third, since au regional criminal justice initiatives present important deficits and limitations in terms of victim rights, they are unfit to replace the icc.
Although the academic literature has examined victim participation at the International Criminal Court (ICC), victim participation during the sentencing stage has remained a virtually unexplored topic. Thus, this article assesses the law and, in particular, the practice of the ICC on victim participation during sentencing in light of domestic/international criminal law and human rights law standards. Victim participation during the ICC sentencing stage, i.e. mainly written observations and sentencing hearing participation, is overall consistent with international and domestic criminal law standards, particularly with certain common law jurisdictions and with the Special Tribunal for Lebanon where the trial and sentencing stages are also divided. Additionally, victim participation during the ICC sentencing stage may arguably be justified under international human rights law, especially human rights case law. Importantly, the ICC has introduced some limitations to victim participation to safeguard the convicted person’s rights and procedural efficiency.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.