The central theme of this article is to assess whether the mandate of national reconciliation has been fulfilled in the ECCC. Recent retreats in the scope of victims’ participatory rights reveal a palpable gap between the Court’s rhetorical promises and the manifested reality. This article begins with providing some justifications for the primitive role given to national reconciliation. Then, in traversing the evolution of international criminal justice, this article highlights its departure from the traditional model of the exclusive retributive justice paradigm. Rather, there is a synergy of the retributive justice and the restorative justice paradigms within international criminal trials in the 21st century. The expanded role of victims in proceedings and the ECCC reparation regime will then be examined in this context. This article will thereafter emphasize the recurrent themes that could promote victims’ rights and herald the fulfilment of national reconciliation.
and human rights case-law, particularly that of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACtHR) and the European Court of Human Rights. These sources have been crucial for the iccandeccc to identify reparations principles and interpret reparations provisions of their
’ legal representative(s) at the iccandeccc .
In Lubanga , victims’ lawyers appealed the reparation order and filed responses to the defence. Via their lawyers, victims can appeal reparation orders even if they did not participate in the trial.
Unlike the victim participant
95 per cent and the SCSL has a conviction rate of 90 per cent due to the fact that one person died during the trial and consequently could not be convicted. So far, four courts have had no acquittals. This is not surprising for the ICCandECCC which have only concluded one case but is telling in the
, developments at the iccandeccc reflect an understanding that victim participation is a key contributor to victim satisfaction in international criminal trials. Expeditiousness serves the interests of victims by helping courts to oversee a larger number of cases in a shorter time frame and to hold a wider
, Consultations and the “Statistical Victim”’, 15 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2017) 931, 933–934. 84
Ibid ., 934–939. 85
See generally , R. Killean and L. Moffett, ‘Victim Legal Representation before the iccandeccc ’, 15 Journal of International Criminal Justice (2017) 713, 726–730; E
only offer the appearance of fair trials as the convictions laid down by those tribunals are often profoundly unsafe. 120 That this analysis also seems to apply to the iccandeccc is unsettling, 121 and suggests that international criminal tribunals may not even be able to perform their basic
reap the benefits of all the rights that stem from such a determination, and many of them may later have their participatory status revoked. This has happened both at the ICCandECCC. The problems resulting from this multi-tiered approach are many, including the disillusionment experienced by victims
of the icty , icc , andeccc . I will then provide some impressions on the roles of the judges in international criminal proceedings before delving into the position of the defence and the meaning of ‘having adequate facilities’ in the context of the suppositions and the hypothetical question they
regular basis – are a common expression of such systematic occurrence’. 333 These principles have been followed in the ICCandECCC . 334 A question arises in interpreting the term ‘systematic’ as to how the term should be seen to differ from the policy element. While the majority of tribunals cite