|
|
 |
Home > ICC > PREPCOMS > JULY-AUGUST 1999 > WOMEN'S CAUCUS ADVOCACY IN ICC NEGOTIATIONS |
|
Recommendations Relating to Reparations
Submitted to the Second Session of the ICC Preparatory Commission
26 July-13 August 1999
The Women’s Caucus strongly supports the recommendations made by the Group of Experts at the International Seminar on Victims’ Access to the ICC (the “Paris Paper”) regarding the implementation of article 75 respecting the Court’s authority to award reparations.Rule A: Presentation of claims
The Women’s Caucus supports adoption of this rule as it presents a coherent way of handling the initiation of claims for reparations, although we suggest a reference should be made in this rule to Rule H, regarding provisional measures to protect assets or property.
Rule B: Notifications
We support adoption of this rule as it pertains to the Court’s ability to award reparations on both a collective and individualized basis. Paragraph 1 simply implements the Court’s ability to make a determination on its own motion relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims pursuant to article 75(1).
Rule C: Publication of Proceedings
Although this rule states that it is without prejudice to any other rules requiring notice of proceedings, we suggest a clear reference in this rule to the need to publicise and provide notice in ways that do not jeopardize the safety and well-being of victims and that such notice is provided with respect for their dignity and privacy. This could be done by making an explicit reference to the general rules in the Paris Paper on the notice issue.
Rule D: Appointment of Experts
and
Rule E: Assessment of reparations
We support the adoption of these rules, in their entirety. In order to streamline the process of reparations, the Court will necessarily need to seek the assistance of experts to help guide its determination of the scope, extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims. Such determinations may sometimes involve large numbers of victims and the Court will need to respond appropriately in as efficient a manner as possible.
The use of experts is not a substitute for the judges’ determination. Rather, their demonstrated expertise in a particular area is a resource for judges to utilise in what will often be a very complicated and difficult inquiry.
With regard to Rule E, again, we support adoption of this rule as it is consistent with accepted methods of handling claims when there are very large numbers of victims.
Rule F: Trust Fund
We support adoption of this rule and urge that the other concerns expressed in the Paris Paper be developed and incorporated into the Rules of Procedure and Evidence as well, such as: (1) the standing of the Fund to appear before the court; (b) use of the Fund to provide for urgent interim relief in the form of medical, psychological or other needed attention; and (c) the standard of care afforded to victims and witnesses when under the protection of the Court shall be at least that afforded to accused persons.
Rule G: Evidence
We support adoption of this rule in its entirety and urge that a rule addressing the concern expressed in the footnote 14 be developed and incorporated into this rule. While there are other rules in the Paris Document and the Australian Paper pertaining to alternative means of providing evidence, those rules are more concerned with protecting the identity of witnesses from the public or the accused.
Rule G, however, is specifically designed to allow the Court to accept other forms of evidence which would indicate ownership or interest in assets or property. Rule G is needed because the Court will likely have to deal with situations where either: (1) records have been destroyed or (2) the cultural settings in which the Court is operating do not place an emphasis on keeping such records in the first place.
We urge that the concern expressed in footnote 14 be seriously considered and incorporated into this rule. A lower standard of proof on matters of reparations is commonly used as the determination on such matters does not impact the liberty of the accused. While the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is needed for a determination as to the guilt or innocence of the accused with respect to criminal charges, a lower standard of proof is called for on the issue of reparations.
Rule H: Protective Measures
We strongly support adoption of this rule to allow for those instances when the victim’s right to reparations is endangered by the potential for removal of assets or destruction or transfer or property.