The Victim\u27s Status in the procedure of the International Criminal Court

Mednarodno kazensko sodišče je ustaljenemu položaju žrtve kot priče v mednarodnem kazenskem postopku dodalo še dve vlogi: žrtve lahko sodelujejo v postopku pred sodiščem, v primeru obsodilne sodbe pa lahko od sodišča zahtevajo tudi dodelitev reparacij. Prav možnost zahtevati reparacije je s seboj prinesla visoka pričakovanja žrtev, ki so se v luči odprtih določb v pravnih virih Mednarodnega kazenskega sodišča zdela tudi legitimna. Da bi preverila, ali so ta pričakovanja tudi realna, sem pod drobnogled vzela stališča sodišča v zadevi Lubanga, edini zadevi, ki je že dosegla fazo dodeljevanja reparacij, in se osredotočila na ugotovitve glede namena ter vrst in oblik reparacij. Sodišče je razlikovalo med namenom in cilji reparacij pred Mednarodnim kazenskim sodiščem. Namen reparacij je siliti osebe, odgovorne za kazniva dejanja, da popravijo škodo, storjeno žrtvam, obenem pa omogočiti sodišču, da zagotovi, da bodo kršitelji odgovarjali za svoja dejanja. Primarni cilj reparacij pa je sprava. Ugotovitve sodišča v zvezi z vrstami reparacij so nakazale, da bodo kolektivne reparacije zaradi narave kaznivih dejanj v pristojnosti MKS in pomanjkanja finančnih sredstev prednjačile pred individualnimi. Glede oblik reparacij je ugotovilo, da bodo le-te v močni odvisnosti od vrste škode, ki so jo žrtve v določenem primeru utrpele. Vseeno pa splošno velja, da bo vrnitev v prejšnje stanje zaradi velike časovne oddaljenosti zločinov manj verjetna oblika reparacij, da bo nadomestilo primerno le, ko bodo dodeljene individualne reparacije in bo za to dovolj sredstev, ter da bodo simbolične reparacije služile kot priprava oškodovanih skupnosti in posameznikov na prejem drugih, konkretnih oblik reparacij.Victims before the International Criminal Court have three statuses: the status of witnesses, the status of victim participants and the status of victims as reparations claimants. The latter two are a novelty in the field of International Criminal Law. The possibility to claim reparations triggered high expectations of victims which can be considered as legitimate in the light of the vague provisions in the legal sources of the International Criminal Court. To check whether this kind of expectations are realistic I took a look at the findings of the Court in the Lubanga case, the only case that already reached the phase of awarding reparations. I focused on the findings related to the purpose, types and modalities of reparations. The Court drew a distinction between the purpose and the objectives of reparations before the International Criminal Court. The main purpose of reparations is twofold: to oblige those responsible for serious crimes to repair the harm they caused to the victims and to enable the Court to ensure that offenders account for their acts whilst the primary objective of reparations is reconciliation. The findings of the Court related to types of reparations indicated that collective reparations will likely be prioritized over individual reparations due to the nature of crimes under the jurisdiction of the ICC and the lack of funds. The Court also established that the modalities of reparations would depend heavily on the type of harm the victims suffered in a specific case. However, restitution will likely be considered as a less appropriate modality due to the fact that a lot of time has passed since the crimes were committed. Moreover, compensation will be appropriate only in situations where individual reparations will be ordered and there will be enough funding. Last, symbolic reparations will likely be awarded with the purpose of preparing the communities and individuals for more concrete reparation awards