A few more thoughts on the ICC Lubanga decision setting out reparations principles

As noted here by IntLawGrrl Naomi Roht-Arriaza, today the ICC's Trial Chamber I issued its “Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations” in the case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo (left). Lubanga was convicted and sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment earlier this year for the war crimes of conscripting and enlisting children under the age of 15 and using them to actively participate in military hostilities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Naomi’s earlier post provides an excellent summary of the decision. I lay out here a number of additional aspects of the decision that I think are worthy of note.
► First, despite the recommendation of observers – including that of the War Crimes Research Office (WCRO), which I run – that the Court proactively issue general reparations principles outside of the context of any single case and prior to the issuance of its first reparations award (see WCRO Report on The Case-Based Reparations Scheme at the International Criminal Court), the Chamber states from the outset that the principles established in the decision are “limited to the circumstances of the present case . . . [and] not intended to affect the rights of victims to reparations in other cases, whether before the ICC or national, regional or other international bodies.” (para. 181) As we stated in our report, the absence of general guidance on a variety of issues related to the scheme, combined with the fact that the judges of the ICC hail from diverse backgrounds, may result in discrepancies in the approach to reparations across cases, which may in turn lead to perceptions that the overall scheme is unfair or arbitrary.
► Second, even though the majority of the Trial Chamber declined in its sentencing judgment to treat sexual violence and rape as an aggravating factor for the purposes of sentencing, the principles announced by the Chamber in this decision suggest that victims of sexual violence may well be among the beneficiaries of a reparations program. Indeed, the decision notes in several instances the importance of taking into account the needs of victims of sexual and gender-based violence, including:

• 'The Chamber recognises that priority may need to be given to certain victims who are in a particularly vulnerable situation or who require urgent assistance. These may include, inter alia, the victims of sexual or gender-based violence, individuals who require immediate medical care (especially when plastic surgery or treatment for HIV is necessary), as well as severely traumatized children, for instance following the loss of family members. The Court may adopt, therefore, measures that constitute affirmative action in order to guarantee equal, effective and safe access to reparations for particularly vulnerable victims.' (para. 200)

• 'The Court should formulate and implement reparations awards that are appropriate for the victims of sexual and gender-based violence. The Court must reflect the fact that the consequences of these crimes are complicated and they operate on a number of levels; their impact can extend over a long period of time; they affect women and girls, men and boys, together with their families and communities; and they require a specialist, integrated and multidisciplinary approach.' (para. 207)

This is surprising, given that Lubanga was not convicted of any sexual violence crimes and it seems unlikely that the Chamber possesses the authority to make an award of reparations against a convicted person for crimes other than those for which he or she was convicted.

Go on! Conference on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia and other events of interest)

The War Crimes Research Office and Women and International Law Program at the American University Washington College of Law will be co-hosting a conference on Addressing Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings with the Royal Embassy of the Netherlands. The event will present a unique opportunity for practitioners, scholars, and advocates to discuss challenges faced by women in conflict and post-conflict situations, and efforts to address sexual and gender-based violence, at both the national and international level. It will take place at the Washington College of Law February 1 from 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
The half-day conference will kick off with a keynote conversation between Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues Melanne Verveer (pictured at right) and Ambassador of the Kingdom of the Netherlands Renée Jones-Bos (pictured at left, courtesy of Embassy of the Netherlands). The conversation will be moderated by IntLawGrrl contributor Diane Orentlicher and until recently Deputy at the Office of War Crimes Issues for the U.S. Department of State. This will be followed by two panels: the first focusing on the prosecution of sexual and gender-based violence by international and hybrid tribunals and the second examining national and international efforts to address sexual and gender-based violence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Further details available here. Registration (available here) is free of charge but required.

Database on Gender & ICL

The War Crimes Research Office and the Women and International Law Program at American University Washington College of Law announce the launch of the Gender Jurisprudence Collections, an online research tool that allows judges, lawyers, and researchers to search the jurisprudence of eleven international/ized criminal courts and tribunals for documents containing information regarding the prosecution of crimes involving sexual and gender-based violence.

Reviewers have analyzed and catalogued more than 17,000 documents from the Jurisprudence Collections of the War Crimes Research Office, for which I serve as Director. Reviewers have noted, for example, when evidence of sexual or gender-based violence appears in the record, when sexual or gender-based violence charges are brought, dropped, or dismissed, or when a defendant is tried for a crime of sexual or gender-based violence. The Gender Jurisprudence Collections features keyword- and targeted-search fields, which eliminate the need to sift through irrelevant documents when conducting research on the rapidly developing jurisprudence in these bodies.
The database was created, with support from the Open Society Institute’s International Women’s Program, in response to requests by experts in the fields of gender and international criminal law who noted that researching the treatment of sexual and gender-based violence by the international tribunals was unduly difficult because of the absence of a central database of materials related to the investigation and prosecution of such cases.
Judge Patricia Whalen of the War Crimes Chamber of the State Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina has called the creation of the Gender Jurisprudence Collections “a great accomplishment,” while former Legal Advisor on Gender Issues at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Patricia Viseur Sellers has noted that the GJC promises to be “a fabulous tool” that she “can’t wait to use and see used by others.”
In the future, the Gender Jurisprudence Collections will feature digests of key documents, which will highlight the facts, allegations, and other factors affecting the investigation and prosecution of sexual and gender-based violence. The project website will in the future also feature space for expert commentaries and discussion.
To access the Gender Jurisprudence Collections and learn more about the project, please visit our site. Please send any questions, comments, or suggestions to Alison Plenge (right), Jurisprudence Collections Coordinator, at genderjurisprudence@wcl.american.edu.

How to speed up ICC proceedings

The War Crimes Research Office at American University Washington College of Law recently launched the latest in its series of reports on the International Criminal Court at the Colombian Embassy in the Netherlands, at an event co-hosted by the Group of Friends of the ICC. The report, Expediting Proceedings at the International Criminal Court, examines means of avoiding delays in proceedings before the ICC.
In its less than one decade of existence, the ICC has achieved a great deal, opening formal investigations into six situations involving some of the most serious atrocities that have occurred since the birth of the Court in 2002 and initiating cases against a number of the individuals believed to bear the greatest responsibility for those atrocities. However, nearly ten years after coming into being, the ICC has yet to complete a single trial, raising concerns among States Parties to the Rome Statute and others regarding the effective functioning of the Court. Thus, while recognizing that the ICC is still a young institution faced with a variety of novel substantive and procedural challenges, the aim of the report is to identify areas of unnecessary delays in proceedings currently before the Court that are likely to arise again, and suggest ways in which such delays may be avoided in the future.
The analysis is divided into three sections:
► Delays arising at the pre-trial stage of proceedings, referring to proceedings conducted before the Court’s Pre-Trial Chambers;
► Delays arising after a case has been transferred to the Trial Chamber; and
► Delays cutting across both at the Pre-Trial and Trial stages of proceedings.

Pre-Trial Stage
The report addresses:
► Delays in the issuance of arrest warrants/summonses to appear.
The Pre-Trial Chambers have in several cases taken more than two months to respond to applications for a warrant of arrest or summons to appear under Article 58 of the Rome Statute, and in only two cases has a Pre-Trial Chamber responded to an Article 58 application in less than one month. By contrast, the ICTY, the ICTR, and the SCSL have regularly issued arrest warrants in a matter of days, rather than weeks or months, even in cases against senior leaders.
► Delays in the confirmation of charges process.
Before a suspect is committed to trial, a Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC must hold a hearing to confirm the charges on which the Prosecutor intends to seek trial. As of the writing of the report, the ICC has concluded confirmation proceedings in five cases and, in each case, the confirmation process has taken anywhere from 8 to 14 months, even though the Chamber need only establish substantial grounds to believe the suspect is responsible for the crimes charged.
►Furthermore, cases are not actually “trial ready” when they move from the Pre-Trial Chamber to the Trial Chamber. Indeed, the period of time between the transfer of a case to a Trial Chamber and the actual first day of trial in that case has ranged between 13 and 22 months. Clearly the cases are not “trial ready” when they reach the Trial Chamber.

Trial Stage

On this, the report addresses:
► Delays related to the number and assignment of trial judges.
There are currently eight judges assigned to the Trial Division of the ICC. Because each Trial Chamber is composed of three judges, in order to run three trials simultaneously, judges either need to be assigned to more than one active case at a time or a judge from the Pre-Trial Division needs to be temporarily assigned to the Trial Division. Yet there are drawbacks to these options. For instance, when the Bemba Trial Chamber was initially constituted, two thirds of the judges assigned to the Bemba Trial Chamber were already serving on the Lubanga Trial Chamber. Presumably, the idea was that the Lubanga trial would conclude well in advance of the start of the Bemba trial, and thus the judges would be able to serve on both trials. However, as the third chart above suggests, even before trial commences, judges assigned to a Trial Chamber have been called upon to render an extensive number of decisions and participate in a number of status conferences. Because the Rome Statute requires the functions of the Trial Chamber to be carried out by all 3 judges, a judge sitting on two Trial Chambers can only dedicate him or herself to one or the other, meaning that the trial proceedings in the Lubanga case and the pre-trial preparation in the Bemba case were likely both adversely affected by the overlap in the makeup of the Chambers. Additionally, as it turned out, the Lubanga trial was nowhere near conclusion by the time the Bemba trial was due to commence, meaning that the two judges who were serving on the Lubanga Trial Chamber had to be replaced for purposes of the Bemba trial. This change in the composition of the bench was one of the reasons that the start of the Bemba trial, scheduled to take place in July 2010, was delayed and only began in November of that year.
► Delays related to the requirement, found in Articles 39 and 74 of the Rome Statute, that.all three judges carry out the functions of the Trial Chamber and that all three be "present" at each stage of the trial and throughout their deliberations.
Obviously, delays are likely where one or more judges are assigned to more than one active case at a time. However, the requirement that all Trial Chamber functions be carried out by three judges may also be a source of undue delay even where there is no overlap in the composition of the various Trial Chambers. Indeed, this provision, read literally, requires all three judges to be involved in each status conference and in every order and decision issued by the Chamber – including coordinating communication between the parties and setting deadlines. Given the volume of work in the lead up to trial, this seems both unnecessary and inefficient. Additionally, the requirement that all Trial Chamber functions be carried out by three judges raises problems when one judge is unexpectedly unavailable, for instance, due to sickness or a family emergency.
► Delays related to the amount of time taken by live testimony.
It is true that the Rome Statute expresses a preference for evidence to be presented through a process of in-court direct- and cross-examination of witnesses. However, it is not necessarily true that all evidence needs to be presented via in-court examination. Indeed, in the context of atrocity trials, a significant amount of the evidence relates to matters other than the conduct of the accused in relation to the crime charged, such as background events, jurisdictional prerequisites, impact on victims, and factors relevant to sentencing. Furthermore, the length of time taken by live witness testimony at the ICC has arguably been exacerbated by a number of factors. For instance, the Trial Chambers’ prohibition on witness proofing has arguably prolonged witness testimony, as witnesses have had to be recalled after recanting testimony or have had to take a break from giving testimony after suffering an emotional breakdown. Similarly, the ban on leading questions – which, as a practical matter, is what has happened in the Bemba case – has also likely contributed to delays, as leading questions are often useful in “bringing witnesses to the point,” particularly on cross-examination or with respect to non-contentious issues.

Cross-Cutting Issues of Delay
Issues the report discusses regarding delays that cut across both the Pre-Trial and Trial stages of proceedings iclude:
► Delays in the interlocutory appellate process.
Delays in this area have occurred for several reasons. First, the Pre-Trial or Trial Chamber responsible for the initial impugned decision sometimes causes delays by waiting a substantial period of time before issuing rulings on whether to grant a party’s request to obtain interlocutory appeal. Second, the Appeals Chamber has regularly taken several months to render judgments on those issues that reach it, even though in many cases the proceedings below have been formally or effectively halted pending the judgment. Finally, although the Appeals Chamber regularly takes multiple months to rule on an interlocutory appeal, the resulting judgment is often brief, providing limited guidance to the parties and lower chambers of the Court.
► Delays relating to the process of disclosure.
Late disclosure of material by the Prosecution to the Defense has been one of the principal causes of delay at the ICC. Based on a review of the jurisprudence, the delays have arisen for several reasons. Among them is the fact that the Prosecution has had to postpone the disclosure of evidence containing sensitive information until any at-risk witnesses have been accepted into the ICC’s Protection Programme or the Chamber has approved an application from the Prosecution to redact confidential information from the evidence, both of which can be time-consuming processes. With respect to the Court’s Protection Programme, it takes an average of two to three months from the moment the Prosecution requests that a witness be included in the Programme until the witness is actually relocated. As the Pre-Trial Chamber explained in the Katanga case, this period increases to five or six months when the Victim Witness Unit is faced with processing dozens of requests in relation to the various cases before the Court. Notably, the Prosecution has applied for a significant number of its witnesses to be admitted into the ICCPP in each of the cases before the ICC. 20 of the Prosecution’s 28 witnesses were admitted into the ICC’s Protection Programme in the Lubanga case; and 19 of the Prosecution’s 25 fact witnesses were admitted into the Programme in the Katanga case. Similarly, decisions on requests for redactions can take weeks, if not, months.

Recommendations
In each section, the report proposes a series of recommendations aimed at expediting the proceedings. Some of the solutions proposed will require an amendment to the Rome Statute or the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, both of which require adoption by a two-thirds majority of the Assembly of States Parties (ASP). Solutions that call for additional resources would also require action by the ASP. Other solutions could be accomplished by an amendment to the Regulations of the Court, which would require a favorable vote by a majority of the judges serving at the time of the amendment. The judges could also enact certain of the recommendations simply by adopting a different interpretation of the Rome Statute, Rules, or Regulations, or by taking a different procedural approach. Finally, some of the proposed solutions call upon the Office of the Prosecutor or the Registry to adopt certain changes in their practices.
The full report is available here.

Kampala launch of ICC reparations report

(Another in IntLawGrrls' series of Kampala Conference posts)

KAMPALA, Uganda – The adoption in 1998 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court marked the first time that an international criminal body was authorized to award against individual perpetrators of mass atrocities a range of reparations for the benefit of their victims. In the years since, the ICC’s reparations scheme has generated a high level of expectations. Indeed, some have gone so far as to suggest that the very success of the Court will depend on its ability to effectively implement the Statute’s reparations regime. Nevertheless, little is known about how the scheme will work in practice. This is due in part to the fact that the documents governing the ICC establish the scheme in very general terms, and in part to the fact that the scheme is sui generis in that it is the first international process designed to award reparations to victims of mass atrocities in the context of criminal proceedings against individual perpetrators.

The aim of the latest in a series of ICC reports by the War Crimes Research Office (for which I serve as Director) of American University Washington College of Law, entitled Case-Based Reparations at the International Criminal Court, is, 1st, to highlight the need for the Court to establish principles relating to the operation of this scheme outside of the context of any single case; and 2d, to offer a number of proposals for the Court to consider when drafting these principles.

Among the issues that the Report suggests that the Court should consider when drafting its principles on reparations are the following:
► Timing. As a general matter, the report recommends that the Trial Chamber hold a separate reparations phase, after the Chamber has made a determination that an accused is guilty for one or more crimes under the jurisdiction of the Court.

► Definition of victims. The report proposes that, consistent with the definition of victim for purposes of participation, the Court make clear that “harm” may include material, physical, and psychological harm, and can attach to both direct and indirect victims; causation should be based on a standard of “proximate cause”; and the standard of proof should be something akin to preponderance of evidence/balance of probabilities. Importantly, the report suggests that the principles should make clear that the Chambers have wide discretion with regards to the evidence they may consider in evaluating whether the standard has been met.
► Types of available reparations. The report emphasizes that the Court should expressly recognize that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to reparations. Rather, the individual circumstances of each case must be considered and any combination of the different forms of reparations may be awarded, including both collective and individual. Significantly, some commentators have distinguished between perpetrators with assets and those without assets, suggesting that reparations should take the form of monetary compensation where the perpetrator is found to have resources. The report takes the position that the Court should not necessarily assume this to be true or that other forms of reparations are only appropriate in the case of perpetrators with limited or no resources. Indeed, it argues that there are a number of reasons why dispensing individual compensation payments directly to victims may not be the most appropriate award, even where the Court has access to a perpetrator’s assets.

► Use of experts. In all but most straightforward of cases, the report recommends that the Trial Chambers invoke its authority under Rule 97(2) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence to appoint appropriate experts to assist it in determining the scope and modalities of reparations awards. It further recommends that experts be used not only for processing awards (that is, making findings of fact regarding who qualifies as a victim and the harm suffered), but also for advising the Court on the substance of reparations awards, after extensive consultation with victims and other potential stakeholders.

► Role for the Trust Fund for Victims regarding case-based reparations awards. The report recommends that, wherever practicable, a Chamber should designate the Trust Fund for Victims as the “appropriate experts” under Rule 97(2) of the ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence to assist it in the processing and determination of a reparations award. Several factors support the use of the Trust Fund for Victims in this context:

1st. Because the Trust Fund is authorized to provide assistance to victims of crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the Court outside the context of case-based reparations, it will often be the case that, by the time a Trial Chamber issues a final judgment convicting a particular perpetrator, the Trust Fund will have already conducted significant activity for the benefit of victims of the more general situation from which the individual case arose.

2d. Moreover, in determining which projects to implement under its general assistance mandate, the Trust Fund engages in many of the activities that will need to be undertaken in the processing and determination of case-based reparations awards.

3d. Finally, the report suggests that the use of the Trust Fund for Victims as the “appropriate experts” envisioned under Rule 97(2) is warranted because the Fund is a permanent institution that will have an ongoing relationship with the Court, which offers a benefit over the use of ad hoc bodies of experts appointed on a case-by-case basis in two ways. The Trust Fund will benefit from institutional knowledge and lessons learned in the implementation of both its general assistance and, over time, court-ordered reparations awards. And as a permanent institution, the Fund will be able to develop processes that its staff will follow across cases and situations, thereby increasing the likelihood that reparation awards will be perceived as fair.

The launch of the report – the twelfth in the ICC Legal Analysis and Education Project of the War Crimes Research Office (prior post) – was held on Friday evening, at the end of the first week of the Review Conference of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court near Kampala, Uganda. The panel discussion included remarks by Miia Aro-Sánchez (Embassy of Finland in The Hague) and Elena Bornand (Embassy of Chile in The Hague) – both of whom served as focal points on the impact of the Rome Statute system on victims and affected communities – Elizabeth Rehn, the Chairperson of the Trust Fund for Victims, yours truly and Katherine Cleary, Assistant Director of the War Crimes Research Office. The launch was attended by representatives of States Parties and nongovernmental organizations as well as ICC officials, including Kristin Kalla, the Acting Director of the Trust Fund for Victims and Paulina Massida, head of the ICC’s Office of Public Counsel for Victims.

(Cross-posted at ASIL Blog - ICC Review Conference)

New report on cumulative charging at ICC

A new report on cumulative charging has just been released by the War Crimes Research Office, American University Washington College of the Law, for which I serve as Director.
Cumulative charging has become an issue in Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, an International Criminal Court case arising out of violence in the Central African Republic. (Prior IntLawGrrls posts available here.)

On 15 June 2009, the ICC's Pre-Trial Chamber II issued a decision that both confirmed and denied various charges lodged against Bemba, and then sent the confirmed charges to trial.

The Prosecution had alleged that Bemba bore responsibility for these offenses based on evidence establishing, inter alia, his role in numerous acts of rape committed against civilians in the Central African Republic. Importantly, the Pre-Trial Chamber did find sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that these acts of rape took place, and that the accused could be held criminally responsible for the acts. Yet, it held that the Prosecution had acted inappropriately by bringing “cumulative charges” based on the acts of rape. Thus it confirmed only the charges of rape as a crime against humanity and rape as a war crime, and dismissed the charges of torture as a crime against humanity and outrage upon personal dignity as a war crime.

The report just issued by our War Crimes Research Office examines 2 determinations of the Bemba Pre-Trial Chamber:

► That the practice of cumulative charging is not warranted in the context of the ICC as a general matter; and

► That, in the Bemba case before it, the charges of torture as a crime against humanity and outrage upon personal dignity as a war crime were inappropriately cumulative.

The report begins with a discussion of cumulative charging in international criminal bodies, where the practice is widely accepted. It then lays out the relevant jurisprudence from the Bemba case. Finally, the report analyzes the Bemba jurisprudence and offers recommendations.

In particular, the report concludes that:

► Nothing prohibits the practice of cumulative charging at the ICC, and

► Persuasive reasons exist to permit the practice.

On this basis, the report recommends that the ICC broadly permit cumulative charging, or, at a minimum, that it permit multiple charges based on the same evidence where each charge contains a materially distinct element.

International Gender Justice Dialogue

From 20-21 April, the Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice in collaboration with the Nobel Women's Initiative hosted the International Gender Justice Dialogue, in Puerto Vallarta, Mexico.

The goal was to bring together gender experts, feminist legal theorists, peace mediators, legal practitioners, jurists, women’s rights advocates, policy makers, members of the media, and activists to identify and develop a strategic, shared agenda for advancing gender justice around the globe.

Although most participants from Europe and Africa were unable to attend because of the volcanic eruption in Iceland (which grounded flights throughout Europe), participants from other regions gathered for a day of panels and a second day of working group discussions. Among the highlights was Women's Initiatives Executive Director and IntlawGrrl guest/alumna Brigid Inder's (pictured right) opening speech, which you can read here.
As Professor Tina Dolgopol (pictured left left), of Flinder Law School in Adelaide, South Australia, noted in her observations about the first day,

A recurrent theme is the necessity of building networks, ensuring that your work
is based on an agreed and transparent set of principles and that you communicate often with your supporters. We hear these ideas from those involved in peace processes, justice networks and from the promotion of women’s rights generally.

IntLawGrrls Kelly Askin and I spoke on a panel entitled "Prosecutions and Jurisprudence - What have we achieved and what remains to be done," along with Professor Catharine A. MacKinnon, who sent in her comments via video. The session was moderated by IntLawGrrl guest/alumna Valerie Oosterveld.

One of the areas I touched on was a project we are undertaking that will hopefully contribute to the process of how we better assess the jurisprudence coming out of the international criminal tribunals, and therefore, the impact these tribunals are having on gender justice.
In October 2008, my office (the War Crimes Research Office at American University's Washington College of Law) organized, in collaboration with the WCL's Women's International Law Program, a two-day conference on “Prosecuting Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes Before International/ized Criminal Courts.” Participants brainstormed about potential strategies and what was needed to improve the prosecution of sexual- and gender-based crimes before these tribunals. High on the list was the need for a modern, searchable, online database of cases (and related documents) coming out of these tribunals, focused on sexual- and gender-based crimes. In response to this need, last year we launched the Gender and ICL Jurisprudence Collections Project. The project has four phases:

1) collection of key decisions, orders and judgments relating to sexual and gender-based violence and making them available online so that you will be able to search them within and across courts;
2) key-wording those cases to facilitate searches relating to how these tribunals have handled cases involving sexual and gender-based violence;
3) digesting those cases with a view to highlighting the facts, allegations or factors affecting the prosecution of such crimes; and
4) providing commentaries on a select number of cases we identify as critical to understanding the development of the law in this area.

The basic aim of the project is to facilitate research in this area by practitioners, advocates and academics, but more importantly to “surface” the decisions that may go unnoticed between indictment and judgment, but which have important consequences for how sexual and gender-based violence is treated by these tribunals.
Follow outcomes from the Gender Justice Dialogue working groups here.

On the Job! Jurisprudence Collections Coordinator

(On the Job! pays occasional notice to interesting intlaw job notices) The War Crimes Research Office (WCRO) at American University Washington College of Law is seeking a qualified and highly motivated candidate for the position of Jurisprudence Collections Coordinator. This individual will be responsible for implementing and supervising the collection, organization, and indexing and digesting jurisprudence from international/ized courts and tribunals. The goal is to create and maintain a highly flexible legal research tool for practitioners worldwide.
After completion of the initial indexing project, the Coordinator will be expected to maintain and improve the Collection, work with the WCRO Director to explore opportunities for expansion, and help to maximize use of the resource among international/ized criminal courts, NGOs working in the field, academic institutions, and other relevant constituencies. The Coordinator may also be called upon to take on discrete research projects, depending on WCRO needs and the Coordinator's abilities.
Position Requirements:
► A high level of proficiency with Internet-based research, Microsoft Office, and Adobe Acrobat essential
► Familiarity with document management software or digital asset management required; familiarity with Extensis preferred
► Familiarity with web content development and content management systems preferred
► Knowledge of international/ized criminal tribunals, international humanitarian law and/or international criminal law
► Excellent oral and written English skills required
► Excellent organizational skills and attention to detail essential
This is a part-time 27 hour/week position at $20/hour with the potential to become full-time.
To Apply: Applicants should send a detailed resume, cover letter, writing sample, and the names and contact information for three references to WCRO Director Susana SáCouto by email at warcrimes@wcl.american.edu.

New Report on Victim Participation at the ICC

The War Crimes Research Office (WCRO) of American University Washington College of Law has recently issued a new report on Victim Participation at the Case Stage of Proceedings, examining the unique and innovative victim participation scheme of International Criminal Court.
This is the WCRO's second report on the subject of victim participation at the ICC. The first was primarily directed at the question of victim participation during the investigation stage of the Court’s proceedings. This report reviews the jurisprudence of the Court since the release of the first report over a year ago, with a particular emphasis on decisions pertaining to victim participation at the case stage.
Despite the wealth of expert analysis on the issue of victim participation -- both inside the Court and out -- there remains little clarity as to the purpose of the scheme or how it should operate. In part, the lack of clarity stems from the fact that Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute, which constitutes the foundational provision for victim participation before the Court, leaves a great deal of discretion to the Chambers to determine how and when victims will be permitted to exercise their right to present their views and concerns to the Court. Nevertheless, more than three years after Pre-Trial Chamber I’s first decision addressing the scope of victim participation, confusion remains as to the purpose of the scheme and how it should operate.
Only a fraction of the victims who have applied to participate in proceedings before the Court have received a response to their requests, and many of those who have had their applications evaluated have had to wait many months or years to learn whether their applications were denied or granted. At the same time, the participation rights granted to victims remain largely potential participation rights, as the Chambers have for the most part held that any victim wishing to exercise any form of participation must apply to the Chamber for permission and that such applications will be evaluated on a ‘case-by-case’ basis. Another issue addressed in the report is that the judges of the Court have adopted differing approaches toward the implementation of the scheme, resulting in victims in some cases having less extensive rights than victims in other cases.
The goal of the report is to contribute to the ongoing effort to render the victim participation scheme meaningful by identifying certain aspects of the scheme as implemented thus far that might benefit from review and offering recommendations consistent with the intent of the drafters that created the scheme.
The report is available here.

Go On! International Criminal Court prosecution of sexual & gender-based crimes

(Go On! is an occasional item on symposia of interest.) On July 1, 2002, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court entered into force, thus establishing the world’s first permanent court set up to try persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern. With four investigations of situations ongoing and pre-trial proceedings underway in its first case (prior posts here), the Court is now grappling with how to implement many of the ground-breaking provisions advocates of international justice fought for in the negotiations leading up to Rome Statute, including those relating to sexual and gender-based crimes.
This issue will be addressed at an all-day conference entitled "Prosecuting Sexual and Gender- Based Crimes in the ICC: Translating Promises into Reality" on October 14, 2008, at Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, D.C. Save the date!
Leading experts in international criminal law and feminist jurisprudence will come together to take stock of whether and how the ICC (left) is living up to the promise of the Rome Statute to ensure accountability for sexual and gender-based crimes committed in times of conflict or in the context of genocide or crimes against humanity.
Patricia Viseur Sellers, the former Legal Advisor for Gender-Related Crimes at the Office of the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, will deliver the keynote address. Panelists of practitioners, scholars, and advocates will address questions such as:
► As an institution, has the ICC staffed itself with the appropriate expertise on sexual and gender-based violence, as envisioned by the Rome Statute? If not, what consequences has this had for victims of sexual and gender-based violence?
► What standards is the Court using to determine which crimes are “grave” enough to investigate and prosecute, and do those standards take into account the possibility of gender bias?
► Do these standards allow for sexual and gender-based crimes to be charged and prosecuted with the same vigor as other crime?
► Are there lessons to be learned from the gender jurisprudence of the ad hoc and hybrid criminal tribunals?
This event is being sponsored by the War Crimes Research Office and the Women and International Law Program of Washington College of Law, American University, and by the Women in International Law Interest Group (WILIG) of the American Society of International Law. Details and registration here.

Welcome IntLawGrrl Susana SáCouto

Delighted to announce that Susana SáCouto has joined Rebecca Bratspies this week as IntLawGrrls' newest members.
Susana (left) is the Director of the War Crimes Research Office at the Washington College of Law (WCL), American University, Washington, D.C., which promotes the development and enforcement of international criminal and humanitarian law. A Professorial Lecturer in Residence at WCL, Susana teaches courses on gender and human rights law and on the responses of international humanitarian law and international criminal law to women in conflict, and further directs WCL’s Summer Law Program in The Hague.
Susana he has a rich background and expertise in the fields of human rights law, international humanitarian law, and international criminal law:
► Her most recent publications include "Reflections on the Judgment of the International Court of Justice in Bosnia’s Genocide Case against Serbia and Montenegro,"15 Human Rights Brief 2 (Fall 2007); with Katherine Cleary, "Victim Participation before the International Criminal Court," 17 Transnational Law & Contemporary Problems 73 (2008); and "Advances and Missed Opportunities in the International Prosecution of Gender-Based Crimes," 15 Michigan State Journal of International Law 137 (2007).
► Susana has directed the Legal Services Program at Women Empowered Against Violence, clerked for the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, and worked with the Center for Human Rights Legal Action in Guatemala.
► She currently serves as co-chair of the Women’s International Law Interest Group of the American Society for International Law, and was recently awarded The Women’s Law Center 22nd Annual Dorothy Beatty Memorial Award, by the Women's Law Center of Maryland, for significant contributions to women’s rights.
Susana's chosen to dedicate her IntLawGrrls contributions to Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz who, as Susana describes in her post below, was a 17th century Mexican nun known as the America's 1st feminist writer. Sor Juana joins IntLawGrrls' other transnational foremothers in list at right, just below the "visiting from ..." map.
Hearfelt welcome!