ICC Court Decision on Reparation for Victims of the Post-Election Violence : No Reparation Without Conviction Prosecutor V. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Decision on the Request Regarding Reparations, 1 July 2016

• Autorzy: Joanna Musiał-Budnicka
• Języki publikacji: EN

Abstrakty

EN

On 1 July 2016, the Trial Chamber V(A) (Trial Chamber) of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) in its Decision on the Request regarding Reparations (Decision on Reparations), by majority held that the Trial Chamber cannot proceed further and decide on the reparation issues connected to the joint trial of Kenyan Deputy President William Samoei Ruto and co-accused, ex-journalist Joshua Arap Sang, both of whom faced charges of crimes against humanity for their suspected role in "post-election violence" that led to the deaths of approximately 1,000 persons and over 300,000 displaced persons. In its ruling, two of the three Trial Chamber judges, who terminated the Ruto and Sang case earlier on April 5, 2016, declined to consider the merits of the victims' views and concerns expressed by the Legal Representative of Victims - Wilfred Nderitu (LRV). Therein, the LRV requested the Chamber (1) to establish that the Government of Kenya bears an obligation to provide reparations to victims of the post-election violence of 2007-2008 for various form of harm suffered and/or (2) to initiate and provide assistance for such victims through the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) in accordance with its assistance programme. In other words, the LRV asked the Chamber to be part of the cause to award reparations and assist the victims of the 2007-2008 post-electoral violence in Kenya after collapse of the ICC's Ruto and Sang case. The majority of the Trial Chamber in its ruling reasoned that due to the fact that the Ruto and Sang case was terminated on the Defence Motion on "No Case to Answer", the Trial Chamber has no power to make any decision on the question of reparation in accordance to Article 75 of the Rome Statute for the benefit of the post-election violence victims. The Presiding Judge Chile Eboe-Osuji strongly dissented, explaining further his thinking on the question of reparations he provided earlier in the Reasons of Judge Eboe-Osuji. In his Dissenting Opinion, Judge Eboe-Osuji upraised a number of significant arguments supporting the view that the Court has legitimate power to address reparations for harm suffered to the victims as a result of crimes if such crimes have been found to have taken place but the persons standing trial for his participation in those crimes is not fund guilty. While the Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eboe-Osuji has no solid basis in the international criminal law documents,i n the eyes of the victims and the general public the majority Trial Chamber decision can be seen as the lost hope of being compensated for the suffered harm. This is due to the fact that the reparation principles arising from Article 75 (1) of the Rome Statute are based on the concept of individual criminal responsibility, rather than on the State's responsibility. Nevertheless, one of the aims of this article is to emphasise that the reparations provisions contained in the Rome Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence are vague and that no overarching guidelines exist to assist the different Trial and Appeals Chambers to conduct efficient reparations proceedings. The adoption of principles in the Ruto and Sang case could simply clarified to an extent the reparation process in that case, even when these principles would not necessarily apply to future cases. In such view, the majority decision is seen as a lost chance to clarify the law on the reparation issue in circumstances where the case was terminated on the no-case basis. In the lack of a specialised reparations Chamber, it is clear that the question of reparation following a trial (however concluded or terminated) falls to the Trial Chamber that conducted the relevant trial.(original abstract)

Słowa kluczowe

EN

Law; Compensation

PL

Prawo; Odszkodowania

• Czasopismo: Wroclaw Review of Law, Administration & Economics
• Rocznik: 2016
• Tom: 6
• Numer: nr 1
• Strony: 110--126

Twórcy

autor

Joanna Musiał-Budnicka

• Wroclaw University

Bibliografia

• Decision appointing a common legal representative of victims ICC-01/09-01/11-479 (23 November 2012).
• Decision on Defence Applications for Judgments of Acquittal, ICC-01/09-01/11-2027-Red (5 April 2016).
• Dwertmann Eva, The Reparation System of the International Criminal Court: Its Implementation, Possibilities and Limitations (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers 2010).
• Ferstman Carla, 'The Reparation Regime of the International Criminal Court: Practical Considerations' (2002) 15 Leiden Journal of International Law 667.
• Muttukumaru Christopher, 'Reparations to Victims' in Roy S. Lee (ed), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results (Kluwer 1999) 262.
• Nichols Lionel, The International Criminal Court and the End of Impunity in Kenya (Springer 2015).
• Press Release: ICC-OTP, Kenya's post-election violence: ICC Prosecutor presents cases against six individuals for crimes against humanity, ICC-OTP-20101215-PR615 (15 December 2010).
• Prosecutor v Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Prosecution notification of withdrawal of the charges against Francis Kirimi Muthaura) ICC-01/09-02/11-687 (11 March 2013).
• Prosecutor v Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Decision on the appeal of Mr Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Mr Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 23 January 2012 entitled "Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute") ICC-01/09-02/11-425 (24 May 2012).
• Prosecutor v Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali (Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Summonses to Appear for Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali) ICC-01/09-02/11-01 (8 March 2011).
• Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations) ICC-01/04-01/06-2904 (7 August 2012).
• 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 (3 March 2015).
• Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (Observations of the Trust Fund for Victims on the Appeals Against Trial Chamber I's 'Decision Establishing the Principles and Procedures to be Applied to Reparations') ICC-01/04-01/06-3009 (8 April 2013).
• Prosecutor v Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Decision on the withdrawal of charges against Mr Kenyatta) ICC-01/09-02/11-1005 (13 March 2015).
• Prosecutor v William Ruto and Joshua Sang (Decision on Defence Applications for Judgments of Acquittal) ICC-01/09-01/11-2027-Red (5 April 2016).
• Prosecutor v William Ruto and Joshua Sang (Decision on the appeals of Mr William Samoei Ruto and Mr Joshua Arap Sang against the decision of Pre-Trial Chamber II of 23 January 2012 entitled "Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute") ICC-01/09-01/11-414 (24 May 2012).
• Prosecutor v William Ruto and Joshua Sang (Decision on the Request regarding Reparations) ICC-01/09-01/11-2038 (1 July 2016).
• Prosecutor v William Ruto and Joshua Sang (Dissenting Opinion to Decision on the Requests regarding Reparations) ICC-01/09-01/11-2038-Anx (1 July 2016) (Dissenting Opinion of Judge Eboe-Osuji).
• Prosecutor v William Ruto and Joshua Sang (Second Joint Submission by the Prosecution and the Defence as to Agreed Facts and the Authenticity of Evidence) ICC-01/09-01/11-653-AnxA (15 March 2013).
• Prosecutor v William Ruto and Joshua Sang (Second Joint Submission by the Prosecution and the Defence as to Agreed Facts and the Authenticity of Evidence) ICC-01/09-01/11-653-AnxA (15 March 2013).
• Prosecutor v William Ruto and Joshua Sang (Victims' Views and Concerns on the Issue of Reparation or Assistance in Lieu of Reparation Pursuant to the Trial Chamber Decision of 5 April 2016 on the Defence Motions on 'No Case to Answer' plus 3 annexes) ICC-01/09-01/11-2035 (15 June 2016).
• Prosecutor v William Ruto and Joshua Sang ICC-PIDS-CIS-KEN-01-012/14_Eng (14 April 2016).
• Prosecutor v William Ruto and Joshua Sang, Decision No. 5 on the Conduct of Trial Proceedings (Principles and Procedure on 'No Case to Answer' Motions) ICC-01/09-01/11-1334 (3 June 2014).
• Prosecutor v William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang (Decision on the Prosecutor's Application for Summons to Appear for William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang) ICC-01/09-01/11-01 0 (8 March 2011).
• Prosecutor's Application Pursuant to Article 58 as to Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali ICC-01/09-31-Red2 (15 December 2010).
• Prosecutor's Application Pursuant to Article 58 as to William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang ICC-01/09-30-Red2 (15 December 2010).
• REDRESS, 'Justice for Victims: The ICC's Reparations Mandate' (20 May 2011), available at: <http://www.refworld.org/docid/4def341618.html>accessed 1 July 2017.
• Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Post-Election Violence, EVD-T-OTP-00328.
• Request of the Office of the Prosecutor from Pre-Trial Chamber II to issue summonses to appear for six suspects in the Kenya situation: William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey, Joshua Arap Sang, Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Mohammed Hussein Ali (15 December 2010), available at: