ICC Lubanga ruling sets out reparations guidelines

10 March 2015 by Stephanie van den Berg, The Hague (The Netherlands)

In a landmark appeals ruling last week, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued guidelines on reparations to victims in the Lubanga case that are expected to lead the court in future cases.

Congolese warlord Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was convicted in 2012 to 14 years in prison for enlisting and conscripting child soldiers. The verdict was confirmed in December [IJT-171], paving the way for the appeals chamber to assess the principles applied to reparations laid down by the trial chamber after the initial ruling.

The appeals chamber made significant changes to the trial chamber's guidelines, namely in deciding that a reparations order must be directed at a convicted person who remains personally liable for reparations. In this case, because Lubanga has been declared indigent at present, the court said the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) will advance the cost of the reparations and can claim it from Lubanga “at a later date”.

Victims’ representatives had appealed the lower court's decision to award only collective reparations and not individual payments. However, the appeals chamber said the ruling was appropriate because there is likely a high number of victims who did not participate in the trial proceedings. The appeals judges also specified that only people who suffered direct or indirect harm from the crimes of which Lubanga convicted are illegible for reparations, thus derailing efforts by victims’ advocates to also include those who suffered sexual and gender-based violence.

The issue is very delicate, as the recognized victims in this case are mostly Hema child soldiers who fought in the militias Lubanga commanded. Because Lubanga was prosecuted only for using child soldiers, the victims who suffered atrocities at the hands of these units, mostly from the Lendu tribe, are ineligible for reparations.

The ICC had earlier established that indirect harm must arise from the direct harm suffered by victims, meaning child soldiers’ family members can be considered indirect victims, but victims of child soldiers’ conduct, such as killings and sexual violence, cannot be considered as such.

“Giving reparations to one group, especially in the case of child soldiers who committed crimes, will cause problems in the community,” Luke Moffett, a legal expert on reparations from Queen's University Belfast, told IJT, adding that it seemed judges have tried to limit the number of victims eligible for reparations.

The TFV now has up to six months to produce a draft plan to implement the reparations, which will then be reviewed by a trial chamber.

While the Lubanga case does give insight into how the ICC plans to handle the complex issue of reparations, Moffett warns that the court itself was very clear that this ruling applies only to Lubanga and judges in the other case with an imminent reparations ruling – that of rival Congolese warlord Germaine Katanga [IJT-173, IJT-163] – could decide differently.

“This is not the final chapter [of reparations at the ICC],” said Moffett. “There is a lot still to go.”

ICC's office of public counsel for victims at the Lubanga appeals hearing on 3 March 2015 (Photo: Flickr/ICC-CPI)

Related articles

19 February 2007 by Laetitia Grotti

One year ago on January 6, 2006, the 17 members of Morocco's Equity and Reconciliation Commission (IER) were closing up shop after submitting their final report to King Mohammed VI. The Moroccan truth commission had received a flood of compliments from the international community praising the recommendations in its report, especially those advocating legislative and constitutional reforms. One year later, however, the results have been rather mixed.

11 September 2006 by our correspondent in Arusha

After having tried high-ranking officers, ministers, businessmen, priests, journalists, local officials and militiamen, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is in uncharted waters. On September 11, the most famous rwandese troubadour of his generation will stand trial for genocide. 

23 October 2006 by Christine Chaumeau

China is keeping a polite distance from international criminal justice. Beijing is hardly disinterested, but China does want to make sure that these new global mechanisms are not going to infringe upon its sovereignty by delving into particularly sensitive cases such as Tibet. 

United Nations Operation in Burundi disarms rebel forces in Mbanda in February 2005 (Photo: Flickr/UN Photo/Martine Perret)
03 June 2015 by Janet H. Anderson, The Hague (The Netherlands)

Over the last month, Burundi has hit the headlines as the president put himself forward to be elected for a controversial third term, resulting in street protests, thousands of refugees who fled instability and an attempted coup. Behind the issues of elections and constitutionalism are also those of justice following Burundi’s long-running civil war. The international community supported an intensive process of negotiation and the signing of the Arusha Accord in 2000. But in the decade and a half since, its provisions on justice have been debated though never fully implemented.

06 November 2006 by Pierre Hazan

France's attitude towards international criminal justice is marked by ambiguity. Paris subscribes to a vision of the world in which international humanitarian law is considered a way to curb violence against civilian populations, but at the same time it is wary of an unchecked judicial system that could end up prosecuting French soldiers engaged in areas where it has old and deep-rooted interests.