International Criminal Court; joint and several liability; liability for reparations; Ntaganda case; reparations; Political Science and International Relations; Law
Résumé :
[en] In 2021, the Ntaganda case introduced a new approach to evaluating the monetary liability for reparations in the International Criminal Court (ICC) by explicitly recognizing joint and several liability and centring the determination of the quantum of reparations on the harm suffered by the victims and the costs to repair it. As suggested by the Ntaganda Trial Chamber, these two innovations promote a stronger separation between the reparation process and the criminal trial, in order to consolidate a compensatory and victim-centred approach to reparations awarded by the ICC. This article critically appraises the innovations in Ntaganda through the lens of Article 21 of the Rome Statute, focussing on three elements: (i) the evolving jurisprudence on monetary liability in the ICC prior to the Ntaganda case; (ii) the case law on reparations of hybrid criminal courts; and (iii) the notion of general principles of law derived from the national legal systems of the world, in the sense of Article 21(1)(c) of the Statute. The article argues that, despite its victim friendly veneer, the approach introduced in Ntaganda should not be taken for granted. Besides the fact that multiple important aspects and ramifications of this approach remain unaddressed, those two innovations may have serious implications for the victims, the convicted persons, and the ICC's reparations process as a whole.
Disciplines :
Droit pénal & procédure pénale
Auteur, co-auteur :
BIAZATTI, Bruno ; University of Luxembourg > Luxembourg Centre for European Law (LCEL) > LCEL Research ; Federal University of Minas Gerais, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Co-auteurs externes :
no
Langue du document :
Anglais
Titre :
To divide or not to divide: Innovations on liability for reparations in the Ntaganda case
C. Evans, The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict (2012), at 99;
W. A. Schabas, The International Criminal Court: A Commentary on the Rome Statute (2016), at 1138.
1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 UNTS 3, Art. 75(1).
See Evans, supra note 1, at 99.
M. Åberg, The Reparations Regime of the International Criminal Court: Reparations or General Assistance? (2014), at 18;
C. McCarthy, Reparations and Victim Support in the International Criminal Court (2012), at 131.
See Schabas, supra note 1, at 1139.
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Corrected Version of the 'Decision Setting the Size of the Reparations Award for which Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is Liable', ICC-01/04-01/06-3379-Red-Corr-tENG, T.Ch., 21 December 2017;
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeals against Trial Chamber II's 'Decision Setting the Size of the Reparations Award for which Thomas Lubanga Dyilo is Liable', ICC-01/04-01/06-3466-Red, A.Ch., 18 July 2019.
Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Order for Reparations pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3728-tENG, T.Ch., 24 March 2017;
Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Judgment on the Appeals against the Order of Trial Chamber II of 24 March 2017 entitled 'Order for Reparations pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute', ICC-01/04-01/07-3778-Red, A.Ch., 8 March 2018.
Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Reparations Order, ICC-01/12-01/15-236, T.Ch., 17 August 2017;
Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Public Redacted Judgment on the Appeal of the Victims against the 'Reparations Order', ICC-01/ 12-01/15-259-Red2, A.Ch., 8 March 2018.
Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Reparations Order, ICC-01/04-02/06-2659, T.Ch., 8 March 2021;
Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Judgment on the Appeals against the Decision of Trial Chamber VI of 8 March 2021 Entitled 'Reparations Order', ICC-01/04-02/06-2782, A.Ch., 12 September 2022;
Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Addendum to the Reparations Order of 8 March 2021, ICC-01/04-02/06-2659, ICC-01/04-02/06-2858-Red, T.Ch., 14 July 2023.
Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Reparations Order, ICC-02/04-01/15-2074, T.Ch., 28 February 2024.
L. Moffett, 'Reparations for Victims at the International Criminal Court: A New Way Forward?', (2017) 21(9) IJHR 1204, at 1204.
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the Appeals against the 'Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to Be Applied to Reparations' of 7 August 2012 with AMENDED Order for Reparations (Annex A) and Public Annexes 1 and 2, ICC-01/04-01/06-3129-AnxA, A.Ch., 3 March 2015.
For example, the Katanga Trial Chamber innovated by recognizing the concept of transgenerational harm (see Katanga Reparations Order, supra note 7, para. 132).
F. Capone, 'An Appraisal of the Al Mahdi Order on Reparations and Its Innovative Elements: Redress for Victims of Crimes against Cultural Heritage', (2018) 16(3) JICJ 645.
L. Moffett and C. Sandoval, 'Tilting at Windmills: Reparations and the International Criminal Court', (2021) 34(3) LJIL 749, at 751;
T. Hamilton and G. Sluiter, 'Principles of Reparations at the International Criminal Court: Assessing Alternative Approaches', (2022) 25(1) MaxPlanckUNYB 272, at 289.
See M. Lostal, 'The Ntaganda Reparations Order: A Marked Step towards a Victim-Centred Reparations Legal Framework at the ICC', EJIL:Talk!, 24 May 2021, available at www.ejiltalk.org/the-ntaganda-reparations-order-a-marked-step-towards-avictim- centred-reparations-legal-framework-at-the-icc/.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, paras. 96, 217.
Ibid., para. 219.
A. Nollkaemper and D. Jacobs, 'Shared Responsibility in International Law: A Conceptual Framework', (2013) 34 Michigan Journal of International Law 359, at 422.
See Hamilton and Sluiter, supra note 15, at 272.
Ibid., at 276.
Ibid., at 276-84.
Prosecutor v. Al Bashir, Decision on the Prosecution's Application for a Warrant of Arrest Against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir, ICC-02/05-01/09-3, P.T.Ch., 4 March 2009, para. 126.
The ICC noted that 'the decisions of other international courts and tribunals are not part of the directly applicable law under Article 21 of the Statute', to the effect that the judicial decisions of other bodies are 'in no sense binding' or 'automatically applicable' to the Court (Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, T.Ch., 14 March 2012, para. 603;
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision Regarding the Practices Used to Prepare and Familiarise Witnesses for Giving Testimony at Trial, ICC-01/04-01/06-1049, T.Ch., 30 November 2007, para. 44). In any case, pursuant to the goal of delivering solid legal reasoning, the ICC often relies on the case law of other courts depending on the persuasive value of these decisions
A. Z. Borda, 'The Direct and Indirect Approaches to Precedent in International Criminal Courts and Tribunals', (2013) 14 Melbourne Journal of International Law 1, at 7).
Therefore, an assessment based on external judicial decisions is warranted, even though they are not mentioned in Art. 21 of the Rome Statute.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 247.
For a list of errors identified by the Appeals Chamber see Ntaganda Addendum to the Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 7.
Ibid., para. 360.
Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Judgment on the appeals against the decision of Trial Chamber II of 14 July 2023 entitled "Addendum to the Reparations Order of 8 March 2021, ICC-01/04-02/06-2659", ICC-01/04-02/06-2908-Red, A.Ch., 1 November 2024.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 98.
Ibid., para. 96.
Ibid., paras. 97, 223.
Ibid., para. 96;
see Lubanga Principles, supra note 12, para. 20.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 224;
Lostal, supra note 16.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, ibid., paras. 131-135, 217;
Katanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 7, paras. 179-180, 182.
For a different assessment of the causal link, with more focus on the conduct of the convicted person see McCarthy, supra note 4, at 134-56;
see Lubanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 6 (Judge Ibáñez Carranza, Separate Opinion), para. 301.
See Lubanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 6, para. 311.
For instance, in Lubanga, the Appeals Chamber determined that, in principle, the Trial Chamber could have considered Lubanga's efforts to demobilize child soldiers in order to reduce the level of harm suffered by these victims (see Lubanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 6, para. 311).
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, paras. 98, 224.
Ibid., para. 85.
See also E. Dwertmann, The Reparation System of the International Criminal Court: Its Implementation, Possibilities and Limitations (2010), at 183.
See Ntaganda Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 9, paras. 267-274.
See Ntaganda Addendum to the Reparations Order, supra note 9, paras. 324, 337.
Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Registry's Second Report on Reparations, ICC-01/04-02/06-2639-AnxI-Red, Registry, 10 February 2021, paras. 29-31.
This issue would likely have returned in the Al Hassan case, because Al Hassan and Al Mahdi were allegedly involved in identical crimes pertaining to the destruction of protected buildings in Timbuktu, Mali. However, in June 2024, the Trial Chamber acquitted Al Hassan of this particular charge (Prosecutor v. Al Hassan, Trial Judgment, ICC-01/12-01/18-2594-Red, T.Ch., 26 June 2024, paras. 1055, 1181). It remains to be seen whether the Prosecution will appeal the verdict and, if yes, whether the Appeals Chamber will reverse the acquittal.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 219.
Ibid. Experts on reparation had already supported the application of joint and several liability in the ICC (Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Expert Report on Reparation by Karine Bonneau, Eric Mongo Malolo and Norbert Wühler, ICC-01/04-02/ 06-2623-Anx1-Red2, Registrar, 3 November 2020, para. 260;
Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Observations by the Redress Trust pursuant to Article 75(3) of the Statute and Rule 103 of the Rules, ICC-01/05-01/08-3448, T.Ch., 17 October 2016, para. 26).
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 218.
Ibid., para. 221.
See Ntaganda Addendum to the Reparations Order, supra note 9, paras. 338-339.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 221.
Ibid., para. 219.
Ibid., para. 221.
Ibid., para. 215.
Ibid., paras. 99-100.
Ibid., para. 221.
See Ntaganda Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 271.
Ibid., paras. 253-256, 274.
See Ntaganda Addendum to the Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 337.
Ibid., para. 337.
Ibid., paras. 337-339.
The victims in this group were child soldiers exceeding the temporal scope of the Lubanga case, former child soldiers who are also victims of rape and sexual slavery and children born out of these crimes, as well as the indirect victims of all of them (ibid., paras. 340-341).
Ibid., paras. 342-343.
Ibid., paras. 356-357.
Ibid., para. 358.
Ibid., paras. 338-339.
See Lubanga Principles, supra note 12, para. 21.
Ibid., para. 50.
See Katanga Reparations Order, supra note 7, para. 239.
Ibid., para. 254.
Ibid., para. 261.
Ibid., para. 264.
For a critical analysis: A. Balta, M. Bax and R. Letschert, 'Trial and (Potential) Error: Conflicting Visions on Reparations within the ICC System', 2019 29(3) ICJR 221, at 230.
See Katanga Reparations Order, supra note 7, para. 263.
See also M. Henzelin, V. Heiskanen and G. Mettraux, 'Reparations to Victims before the International Criminal Court: Lessons from International Mass Claims Processes', (2006) 17(3-4) Criminal Law Forum 317, at 325.
See Expert Report by Bonneau, Malolo and Wühler, supra note 45, para. 259.
See Al Mahdi Reparations Order, supra note 8, para. 110.
Ibid., para. 134.
Ibid., para. 111.
Ibid., paras. 116-118;
see Expert Report by Bonneau, Malolo and Wühler, supra note 45, para. 257.
See Expert Report, ibid., para. 259.
See Al Mahdi Reparations Order, supra note 8, paras. 119-133.
See Lubanga Reparations Order, supra note 6, para. 269.
Ibid., paras. 269-281.
Ibid., para. 277.
Ibid., paras. 259, 279-181;
see Lubanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 6, para. 301.
See Lubanga Reparations Order, ibid., paras. 279-180.
See Katanga Reparations Order, supra note 7, para. 254.
See Lubanga Reparations Order, supra note 6, para. 273.
See Al Mahdi Reparations Order, supra note 8, para. 110.
See Expert Report by Bonneau, Malolo and Wühler, supra note 45, para. 259.
Cf. Section 3.1.3, infra.
Cf. Sections 2.2, supra, and 5.2, infra.
See Katanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 7.
See Al Mahdi Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 8.
See Lubanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 6.
See Lostal, supra note 16.
See Katanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 7, para. 175.
See Katanga Reparations Order, supra note 7, para. 263.
See Katanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 7, para. 178.
Ibid., para. 180.
See Lostal, supra note 16.
See Lubanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 6, paras. 302-304.
Ibid., para. 308.
Ibid., para. 309.
Ibid., para. 107.
Ibid., para. 108.
See Hamilton and Sluiter, supra note 15, at 292.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 98.
Ibid., paras. 96, 98, 218.
Cf. Section 3.1.3, supra.
Compare Lubanga Principles, supra note 12, para. 21, with Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 96.
For a discussion on the appropriateness of this outcome cf. Section 5.1.2, infra.
See Al Mahdi Reparations Order, supra note 8, para. 111;
see also Lubanga Reparations Order, supra note 6, para. 277.
Statute of the Extraordinary African Chambers (2012), Art. 27.
Law on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor's Office, 05/L-053 (2015), Art. 22(8).
Loi No 18.010 du 2 juillet 2018, portant règlement de procédure et de preuve devant la Cour Pénale Spéciale de la République Centrafricaine (2018), Art. 129.
Prosecutor v. Kaing (Case 001), Judgement, 001/18-07-2007/ECCC/TC, T.Ch., 26 July 2010;
Prosecutor v. Nuon and Khieu (Case 002/01), Judgement, 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, T.Ch., 7 August 2014;
Prosecutor v. Nuon and Khieu (Case 002/ 02), Judgement, 002/19-09-2007/ECCC/TC, T.Ch., 16 November 2018.
Ministère Public c. Hissein Habré, Jugement, T.Ch., 30 May 2016 (EAC);
Specialist Prosecutor v. Salih Mustafa, Reparation Order against Salih Mustafa, KSC-BC-2020-05/F00517/RED/COR/3 of 98, T.Pa., 6 April 2023 (KSC);
Parquet Special c. Issa Sallet Adoum et Consorts, Jugement N° 001-2023 sur les Interets Civils, CPS/CA/PSA/22-001, T.Ch., 16 June 2023 (SCC).
Prosecutor v. Kaing (Case 001), Appeal Judgement, 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, SCC, 3 February 2012, at para. 667;
C. Sperfeldt and R. Hughes, 'Symposium on the ECCC: Extraordinary Experiments in Reparation', Opinio Juris, 1 November 2022, available at opiniojuris.org/2022/11/01/symposium-on-the-eccc-extraordinary-experiments-in-reparation/ ('On the whole, the ECCC's more pragmatic approach to reparations provides a notable counterpoint to the more legalistic approach pursued at the ICC').
H. Jarvis, 'Trials and Tribulations: The Long Quest for Justice for the Cambodian Genocide', in S. M. Meisenberg and I. Stegmiller (eds.), The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: Assessing their Contribution to International Criminal Law (2016), 13, at 32.
See also A. Balta, M. Bax and R. Letschert, 'Between Idealism and Realism: A Comparative Analysis of the Reparations Regimes of the International Criminal Court and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia', (2021) 45(1) International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 15.
N. H. B. Jørgensen, The Elgar Companion to the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (2018), at 132.
The ECCC determined that indigent convicted persons should not be found liable for reparations, under the argument that the Chambers lacked an externally subsidized funding mechanism that could give effect to orders issued against indigent persons - a mechanism analogous to the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) in the ICC. See Case 001 Trial Judgement, ibid., para. 666;
Case 001 Appeal Judgement, ibid., para. 668;
Case 002/01 Trial Judgement, ibid., para. 1112.
See Case 001 Trial Judgement, ibid., para. 666;
Case 002/01 Trial Judgement, ibid., para. 1124;
Case 002/02 Trial Judgement, ibid., para. 4416.
See Case 001 Trial Judgement, ibid., para. 683;
Case 002/01 Trial Judgement, ibid., para. 1124;
Case 002/02 Trial Judgement, ibid., para. 4416.
See Habré Trial Judgement, supra note 123.
Ibid., para. 58.
Ibid., paras. 59-72.
Ibid., para. 82.
Procureur Général c. Hissein Habré, Arrêt, A.Ch., 27 April 2017, paras. 926-941.
See Mustafa Reparations Order, supra note 123.
Ibid., para. 115.
Ibid., para. 209.
Ibid., para. 117.
Ibid., para. 247-248.
See Issa Sallet et al. Reparations Order, supra note 123, para. 3.
Ibid., para. 162 ('la Section estime que la réparation se doit d'être à la mesure de ces préjudices, dans la mesure du possible. La réparation du préjudice doit être intégrale, sans perte ni profit pour aucune des parties').
Ibid., para. 165.
The Registry of the SCC contains a unit responsible for providing assistance to victims and the Defence. One of its tasks is seeking external funding for the implementation of reparations orders issued against indigent convicted persons (see Loi No 18.010, supra note 121, Arts. 47(B)(d) and 129(D)).
See Issa Sallet et al. Reparations Order, supra note 123, paras. 163, 177 ('Elle estime cependant que les montants sollicités sont excessifs au regard des capacités contributives des institutions ou organismes chargés d'indemniser les victimes en lieu et place des accusés, lesquels sont dans une situation d'impécuniosité totale').
Ibid., para. 163 ('il y a lieu de ramener ces montants à leur plus juste proportion en allouant aux victimes').
Ibid., para. 174 ('la Section::: conclut qu'ils sont responsables in solidum de la réparation du préjudice causés aux victimes directes et indirectes de ces crimes indépendamment des différents modes de responsabilité retenus pour conclure à leur culpabilité').
Ibid., para. 175.
Parquet Special c. Issa Sallet Adoum et Consorts, Arrêt no 13 relatif à l'appel interjeté contre le jugement no 001-2023 du 16 juin 2023 de la Première Section d'Assises, No 13-2023, SCC A.Ch., 23 October 2023, paras. 101-103.
Ibid., para. 104.
Ibid., para. 100.
Ibid., paras. 98-100.
Ibid., para. 99 ('qu'une réparation qui, selon toute probabilité, ne pourra jamais être mise en oeuvre, c'est-à-dire qui est de fait fictive, irait à l'encontre de l'objectif voulant que la réparation soit effective et serait source de confusion et de frustration pour les victimes').
Ibid., at para. 100 ('la réalisation des mesures de réparations doit être probable').
Ibid., 52.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, paras. 97, 223.
Originally, the Lubanga Trial Chamber determined that indigent convicted persons are only liable for non-monetary reparations (Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparations, ICC-01/04-01/06-2904, T.Ch., 7 August 2012, para. 269).
This conclusion was overturned by the Appeals Chamber, an outcome reaffirmed in subsequent decisions: see Lubanga Principles, supra note 12, paras. 102-105;
Al Mahdi Reparations Order, supra note 8, para. 114;
Katanga Reparations Order, supra note 7, para. 246.
Although the availability of funds was deemed immaterial to determine the amount of liability, the Ongwen Trial Chamber recently relied on this element to award exclusively collective community-based reparations, to the detriment of collective reparations with individualized components and individual reparations (see Ongwen Reparations Order, supra note 10, para. 579). Thus, even at the ICC, the availability of funds is not an element completely external to the determination of reparations as a whole.
See Mustafa Reparations Order, supra note 123, para. 209;
Issa Sallet et al. Reparations Order, supra note 123, para. 174.
See International Law Commission (ILC), Second Report on General Principles of Law by Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez, Special Rapporteur, A/CN.4/741 (9 April 2020), paras. 16-112.
See Rome Statute, supra note 2, Art. 21(1)(c).
See ILC Report on General Principles of Law, supra note 164, para. 28;
Decision on Witness Preparation, supra note 24, para. 41.
Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Judgment on the Prosecutor's Application for Extraordinary Review of the Pre-Trial Chamber I's 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal, ICC-01/04-168, A.Ch., 13 July 2006, paras. 26-32.
See ILC Report on General Principles of Law, supra note 164, para. 74.
Ibid., paras. 75-84;
Rome Statute, supra note 2, Art. 21(1)(c).
See ILC Report on General Principles of Law, supra note 164, paras. 85-96.
For example: G. Spindler and O. Rieckers, Tort Law in Germany (2019), at 122;
Regio decreto 16 marzo 1942, n. 262 - Codice Civile, Italy (1942), Arts. 1223, 1226, 2056, 2058;
P. Trimarchi, La responsabilità civile: atti illeciti, rischio, danno (2021), at 634. Relatedly, the tort laws of some states make no distinction between principals, accomplices, and accessories in the commission of the tortious act for the application of joint and several liability;
they are all equally liable: Act n. 89 of April 27, 1896 - Civil Code, Japan (1896), Art. 719(2);
Act n. 471 - Civil Code, Republic of Korea (1958), Art. 760(3).
For example: Decreto Lei n. 47 344 - Ćodigo Civil, Angola (1966), Arts. 494, 496(3);
Civil Code, Armenia (1998), Art. 1087.2(5)-(6);
Lei n. 10.406 - Ćodigo Civil, Brazil (2002), Art. 944;
A. Ferrante, Tort Law in Chile (2022), at 235-238;
Civil Code, China (2020), Arts. 1172, 1182;
Civil Code, Eritrea (2015), Arts. 1658, 1698;
Proclamation n. 165 of 1960 - Civil Code, Ethiopia (1960), Art. 2100;
Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code, Hungary (2013), Secs. 2:52(3), 6:522(4), 6:524(2);
Ćodigo Civil Federal, Mexico (1928), Art. 1916;
Civil Code, Mongolia (2002), Art. 514.2;
Civil Code, The Netherlands (1992), Book 6, Art. 109;
Decreto Legislativo n. 295 - Ćodigo Civil, Peru (1984), Art. 1978;
Act of 23 April 1964 - Civil Code, Poland (1964), Art. 440;
Decreto-Lei n. 47.344 - Ćodigo Civil, Portugal (1966), Arts. 494, 496(3);
Civil Code, Russia (1994), Art. 1083(3);
Act n. 471 - Civil Code, Republic of Korea (1958), Art. 765.
For instance, the legal regime of state responsibility proposed by the ILC is centred on the attribution of the act or omission to the state and the illegality under international law of such act or omission. The ILC explicitly excluded from such general regime standards such as culpability, degree of fault, negligence or want of due diligence (ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with commentaries, 2001 YILC, vol. II (Part Two) 31, at 34).
See Balta, Bax and Letschert, supra note 72, at 236.
For a discussion on the procedural detachment of the reparations process from the criminal trial see L. Zegveld, 'Victims' Reparations Claims and International Criminal Courts: Incompatible Values?', (2010) 8(1) JICJ 79.
In support of this position see Lubanga Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 6 (Judge Ibáñez Carranza, Separate Opinion), at 128 and paras. 300-301;
Expert Report by Bonneau, Malolo and Wühler, supra note 45, paras. 255(e), 261(a), 262-265, 272-273;
Åberg, supra note 4, at 21-2;
McCarthy, supra note 4, at 135, 145-58;
Schabas, supra note 1, at 1142;
Henzelin, Heiskanen and Mettraux, supra note 74, at 325.
In support of this position see Dwertmann, supra note 39, at 181-3;
Balta, Bax and Letschert, supra note 72, at 230, 236;
Lostal, supra note 16.
See Moffett and Sandoval, supra note 15, at 754.
see Lostal, supra note 16.
See Hamilton and Sluiter, supra note 15, at 291.
Ibid., at 311.
Ibid., at 274, 311.
Ibid., at 275-84.
Cf. note 172, supra.
Cf. note 176, supra.
Similar to the Trial Chambers in the Al Mahdi and Lubanga cases and different from the Ntaganda Trial Chamber (cf. Sections 3.1.2 and 2.1, supra), some experts referred to Ntaganda's leadership position in his armed group as well as his crucial contribution to the crimes as one the main reasons for the conclusion that his financial liability should encompass the totality of the harm
Expert Report by Bonneau, Malolo and Wühler, supra note 45, paras. 262-273).
H. J. Dijkstal, 'Destruction of Cultural Heritage before the ICC: The Influence of Human Rights on Reparations Proceedings for Victims and the Accused', (2019) 17(2) JICJ 391, at 410.
See Katanga Reparations Order, supra note 7, para. 18.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 100.
See Dijkstal, supra note 187, at 410.
See also Hamilton and Sluiter, supra note 15, at 291.
See Ntaganda Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 9, paras. 258-259.
For an attempt to have further clarity and specificity in this regard, see Ongwen Reparations Order, supra note 10, para. 18 and note 55.
See Moffett, supra note 11, at 1204.
M. Wierda, The Local Impact of the International Criminal Court: From Law to Justice (2023), at 269.
J. Mbokani, La jurisprudence congolaise en matière de crimes de droit international: Une analyse des décisions des juridictions militaires congolaises en application du Statut de Rome (2016), at 116, 129, 147, 157, 169.
Ibid., at 401.
See Ongwen Reparations Order, supra note 10, para. 579 (regarding the type of reparations to award in the case);
Issa Sallet et al. Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 153, paras. 98-100.
Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, First Decision on Reparations Process, ICC-01/04-02/06-2547, T.Ch., 26 June 2020, para. 23.
See Ongwen Reparations Order, supra note 10, paras. 667, 769. Interestingly, two judges in the Ongwen Trial Chamber had previously sat on the bench of the Ntaganda case during the reparations phase. Judge Chang-ho Chung was the Presiding Judge of the Chambers that issued the Ntaganda reparations order and the subsequent addendum. Judge Péter Kovács was a member of the Trial Chamber that issued the addendum. The Presiding Judge of the Ongwen Trial Chamber, Bertram Schmitt, never acted in the Ntaganda case.
For example, Ordonnance n. 75-58 du 26 septembre 1975 portant Code Civil, Algeria (1975), Art. 126;
Decreto Lei n. 47 344 - Ćodigo Civil, Angola (1966), Art. 497;
Lei n. 10.406 - Ćodigo Civil, Brazil (2002), Arts. 264-285;
Negligence Act of British Columbia, Canada (1996), Sec. 4;
Civil Code of Quebec, Canada (1994), Art. 1480;
Civil Code, China (2020), Arts. 1168-1171;
Civil Code, Germany (2002), Sec. 840;
Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code, Hungary (2013), Sec. 6:524;
Regio decreto 16marzo 1942, n. 262 - Codice Civile, Italy (1942), Art. 2055;
Act n. 89 of April 27, 1896 - Civil Code, Japan (1896), Art. 719;
Ćodigo Civil Federal, Mexico (1928), Art. 1917;
Civil Code, The Netherlands (1992), Book 6, Arts. 102, 166;
Decreto Legislativo 295 - Ćodigo Civil, Peru (1984), Art. 1983;
Act of 23 April 1964 - Civil Code, Poland (1964), Art. 441;
Decreto-Lei n. 47.344 - Ćodigo Civil, Portugal (1966), Art. 497;
Civil Code, Russia (1994), Art. 1080;
Code des obligations civiles et commerciales, Senegal (1976), Art. 136;
Act n. 471 - Civil Code, Republic of Korea (1958), Art. 760;
Civil Liability (Contribution) Act, United Kingdom (1978).
Cf. Sections 4.1.4 and 5.1.2, supra.
R. P. Alford, 'Apportioning Responsibility Among Joint Tortfeasors for International Law Violations', (2011) 38 Pepperdine Law Review 233, at 241.
See also Redress Trust, supra note 45, para. 28;
Oil Platforms (Iran v. United States), Merits, Judgment of 6 November 2003, [2003] ICJ Rep. 161 (Judge Simma, Separate Opinion), para. 66;
The Eurotunnel Arbitration (Channel Tunnel Group Limited and France-Manche S.A. v. United Kingdom and France), Case No. 2003-06 (2007), para. 177;
McCarthy. supra note 4, at 145;
Nollkaemper and Jacobs, supra note 19, at 422;
Schabas, supra note 1, at 1142;
J. E. Noyes and B. D. Smith, 'State Responsibility and the Principle of Joint and Several Liability', (1988) 13(2) Yale Journal of International Law 225, at 251-4;
O. Murray, 'Liability In Solidum in the Law of International Responsibility: A Comment on Guiding Principle 7', (2020) 31(4) EJIL 1249, at 1250;
C. Ahlborn, 'To Share or Not to Share? The Allocation of Responsibility between International Organizations and their Member States', SHARES Research Paper 28 (2013), ACIL 2013-26, at 20.
See ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, supra note 173, at 124-5;
Certain Phosphate Lands in Nauru (Nauru v. Australia), PreliminaryObjections, Judgment of 26 June 1992, [1992] ICJ Rep. 240, paras. 48, 56;
Murray, supra note 202, at 1250.
See The Eurotunnel Arbitration, supra note 202, para. 177;
Responsibilities and Obligations of States Sponsoring Persons and Entities with Respect to Activities in the Area, Advisory Opinion of 1 February 2011, [2011] ITLOS Rep. 10, para. 201.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 UNTS 3, Art. 139(2);
1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 961 UNTS 187, Arts. IV, V, and XXII(3);
1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 973 UNTS 3, Art. IV; 1992 Protocol to Amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 29 November 1969, 1956 UNTS 285, Art. 5.
United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, 1833 UNTS 3, Art. 139(2);
1972 Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects, 961 UNTS 187, Arts. IV, V, and XXII(3)
1969 International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 973 UNTS 3, Art. IV; 1992 Protocol to Amend the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 29 November 1969, 1956 UNTS 285, Art. 5.
See Simma, supra note 202, para. 73;
Nauru, supra note 203 (Judge Shahabuddeen, Separate Opinion), at 283-6;
Corfu Channel (United Kingdom v. Albania), Merits, Judgment of 9 April 1949, [1949] ICJ Rep. 4 (Judge Azevedo, Dissenting Opinion), at 92.
See Noyes and Smith, supra note 202;
Murray, supra note 202;
A. Nollkaemper et al., 'Guiding Principles on Shared Responsibility in International Law', (2020) 31(1) EJIL 15;
C. M. Chinkin, 'The Continuing Occupation? Issues of Joint and Several Liability and Effective Control', in P. Shiner and A. Williams (eds.), The Iraq War and International Law (2008), 161.
Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Submission by QUB Human Rights Centre on Reparations Issues, ICC-01/05- 01/08-3444, T.Ch., 17 October 2016, paras. 100-101.
See Schabas, supra note 1, at 1142.
See Redress Trust, supra note 45, para. 24.
Ibid., para. 23;
see Expert Report by Bonneau, Malolo and Wühler, supra note 45, para. 260.
See Expert Report, ibid., paras. 260-261;
Redress Trust, supra note 45, para. 23.
K. N. Hylton, Tort Law: A Modern Perspective (2016), at 180.
See Nollkaemper et al., supra note 207, at 54-5;
Noyes and Smith, supra note 202, at 254.
J. P. Calderon Meza, 'ICC Personal Jurisdiction on Corporations for Criminal Liability and/or Civil Liability for Reparations', (13 May 2021) Harvard International Law Journal Online, available at journals.law.harvard.edu/ilj/2021/05/iccpersonal- jurisdiction-on-corporations-for-criminal-liability-and-or-civil-liability-for-reparations/.
The general assessment of liability in solidum by the Ntaganda Trial Chamber was limited to one footnote, which contains a definition of joint and several liability from the Supreme Court of the United States and the specification from Article 9:101 of the 2005 Principles of European Tort Law that '(1) [l]iability is solidary where the whole or a distinct part of the damage suffered by the victim is attributable to two or more persons:::; (2) [w]here persons are subject to solidary liability, the victim may claim full compensation from any one or more of them, provided that the victim may not recover more than the full amount of the damage suffered by him' (see Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, at footnote 273). No further explanation was offered.
See Noyes and Smith, supra note 202, at 251-2;
A Nollkaemper et al., supra note 207, at 23-4;
ILC Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities, with Commentaries, 2006 YILC, Vol. II (Part Two) 59, at 80;
E. Adjin-Tettey, 'Multi-Party Disputes: Equities between Concurrent Tortfeasors', (2016) 53(4) Alberta Law Review 863, at 863;
H.-D. Lee et al., 'How Does Joint and Several Tort Reform Affect the Rate of Tort Filings? Evidence from the State Courts', (1994) 61(2) Journal of Risk and Insurance 295, at 297.
Dickenson v. Tabb, Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, United States, 156 S.E.2d 795 (1967)
Va. 184, 8 September 1967;
Civil Code, China (2020), Art. 1170;
Act n. 471 - Civil Code, Republic of Korea (1958), Art. 760(2);
Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code, Hungary (2013), Sec. 6:524(4);
Act n. 89 of April 27, 1896 - Civil Code, Japan (1896), Art. 719(1).
L. Pressler and K. V. Schieffer, 'Joint and Several Liability: A Case for Reform', (1988) 64 Denver Law Review 651;
J. J. Scheske, 'The Reform of Joint and Several Liability Theory: A Survey of State Approaches', (1988) 54 Journal of Air Law and Commerce 627, at 633, 642;
S. Todd, Tort Law in New Zealand (2020), at 494-5;
Civil Code, China (2020), Art. 1168;
Act n. 471 - Civil Code, Republic of Korea (1958), Art. 760(1);
Act V of 2013 on the Civil Code, Hungary (2013), Sec. 6:524(1);
Ćodigo Civil Federal, Mexico (1928), Art. 1917;
Act n. 89 of April 27, 1896 - Civil Code, Japan (1896), Art. 719(1). Joint action seems to be the standard for the application of liability in solidum adopted by the Ntaganda Trial Chamber (see Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, at footnote 273), but further clarification is warranted.
Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Trial Judgment, ICC-02/04-01/15-1762-Red, T.Ch., 4 February 2021, para. 2782.
Cf. Section 4.2, supra.
See Ongwen Reparations Order, supra note 10, para. 667.
See McCarthy, supra note 4, at 145.
See Hylton, supra note 214, at 255-6.
See Noyes and Smith, supra note 202, at 256.
Ibid., at 255-6.
see Redress Trust, supra note 45, para. 29.
See Noyes and Smith, supra note 202, at 256.
See Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 219.
See Ntaganda Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 274.
See Ntaganda Addendum to the Reparations Order, supra note 9, para. 337.
The fact that all past convicted persons and current defendants at the ICC, as of June 2024, are indigent makes this issue a less urgent matter.
See Redress Trust, supra note 45, para. 26.
Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Public Redacted Version of 'Decision on Mr Bemba's Preliminary Application for Reclassification of Filings, Disclosure, Accounts, and Partial Unfreezing of Mr Bemba's Assets and the Registry's Request for Guidance', ICC-01/05-01/08-3660-Red2, T.Ch., 20 November 2018, paras. 11-13;
Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision on Mr Bemba's Claim for Compensation and Damages, ICC-01/05-01/08-3694, T.Ch., 18 May 2020, paras. 57-58.
C. Ferstman, 'Reparations, Assistance and Support', in K. Tibori-Szabo and M. Hirst (eds.), Victim Participation in International Criminal Justice: Practitioners' Guide (2017), 385, at 386.
See Hamilton and Sluiter, supra note 15, at 288, 291.
Ibid., at 291;
see Moffett, supra note 11, at 1204.
At the ICC, victims often stress their preference for reparations that timely and meaningfully fulfil their practical needs, to the detriment of reparations that are symbolic or lack any tangible practical purpose (see Ntaganda Reparations Order, supra note 9, paras. 9, 192;
Ongwen Reparations Order, supra note 10, para. 579).
See Ongwen Reparations Order, ibid., paras. 578-579;
Issa Sallet et al. Appeal Reparations Order, supra note 153, paras. 98
Notably, the ECCC adopted a pragmatic approach to its entire reparation framework (see Sperfeldt and Hughes, supra note 124).
F. Megret, 'The Case for Collective Reparations before the International Criminal Court', in J. Wemmers (ed.), Reparation for Victims of Crimes against Humanity (2014), 171, at 179.
See Ongwen Reparations Order, supra note 10, para. 578.
See in general D. Kennedy, The Dark Sides of Virtue: Reassessing International Humanitarianism (2004), at 3-35.
See Hamilton and Sluiter, supra note 15, at 291.
T. Krever, 'International Criminal Law: An Ideology Critique', (2013) 26(3) LJIL 701.
See L. G. Minkova, 'Expressing What? The Stigmatization of the Defendant and the ICC's Institutional Interests in the Ongwen Case', (2021) 34(1) LJIL 223, at 245.
