No Longer Just a Victim: The Impact of Victim Participation on Trial Proceedings at the International Criminal Court

in International Criminal Law Review
Restricted Access
Get Access to Full Text
Rent on DeepDyve

Have an Access Token?



Enter your access token to activate and access content online.

Please login and go to your personal user account to enter your access token.



Help

Have Institutional Access?



Access content through your institution. Any other coaching guidance?



Connect

The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (icc) adopted an innovative participatory role for victims hailed as a major step towards recognising the rights of victims in international criminal proceedings. However, it is unclear whether direct participation has resulted in a more productive role for victims. This article discusses the goals of trial, focusing on the victims’ interests and the interests of the icc; the statutory and jurisprudential rules pertaining to victims’ participation at the Court; and the testimony of witnesses questioned by the victims’ representatives in the Lubanga and Katanga trials. The article concludes that the victims’ representatives in Lubanga and Katanga achieved some of the goals of trial but had a more limited impact on others. It also warns that the icc needs to continue to protect the rights of the victims and ensure that it does not improperly limit their participation.

Sections

References

12

Haslam, supra note 2, p. 323.

16

Haslam, supra note 2, p. 325; citing Claude Jorda and Jerome de Hemptinne, ‘The Status and Role of the Victim’, in Antonio Cassese, Paola Gaeta and John R.W.D. Jones (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, Vol. 2 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002) pp. 1400–1401.

22

Turner, supra note 22, pp. 533–34; see also Kirsten Campbell, ‘The Making of Global Legal Culture and International Criminal Law’, 26 Leiden Journal of International Law (2013) 155–172, 164.

26

Haslam, supra note 2 at 328–29.

33

Damaška, supra note 30, p. 337.

35

Damaška, supra note 30, p. 337.

47

Chung, supra note 2, 459, 519.

65

Lubanga Decision, supra note 64, paras. 911–914.

75

 See Lubanga Decision, supra note 64, paras. 650–655.

78

 See Lubanga Decision, supra note 64, para. 915.

83

Witness P-0046 Transcript, supra note 69, p. 24, line 20 to p. 25, line 16.

84

Lubanga Decision, supra note 64, para. 1136.

87

 See Witness P-0055 Transcript, supra note 67, p. 23 line 17 to p. 27, line 16, p. 28, line 18 to p. 42, line 10.

88

 See Witness P-0046 Transcript, supra note 69, p. 19, line 13 to p. 21, line 21; p. 25, lines 17 to p. 27, line 3; p. 21, line 22 to p. 23, line 17; p. 28, line 23 to p. 30, line 13; p. 30, line 14 to p. 31, line 18; p. 35, line 17 to p. 39, line 19.

Information

Content Metrics

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 8 8 3
Full Text Views 8 8 8
PDF Downloads 1 1 1
EPUB Downloads 0 0 0