CYIL 2013

THE ISSUE OF REPARATIONS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT in February 2011. Seven victims were granted participation status as late as July 2011, when only the closing statements of the trial remained. 48 In November 2011, the Victims’ Participation and Reparation Section (VPRS) asked for guidance from the Chamber on how to handle 27 applications for participation which it had not been able to process and file before the closing arguments due to the lack of resources. 49 In response, the Trial Chamber ruled that the applications for participation should only be transmitted by the Registry in the event sentencing and reparation proceedings were to start. 50 However, despite the conviction, these applications were neither transmitted to the Chamber nor ruled upon prior to the decisions on sentence and reparation principles. 51 The VPRS emphasized that, owing to the lack of staff, it was necessary to process all of the applications received in 2011 and 2012 in a manner prioritizing the work ‘according to the progress of judicial proceedings’, and that ‘a backlog exist[ed] in some situations’. 52 Therefore, there is a strong need for additional financial support allowing for increased staff capacity which would be able to process all the applications in a timely manner. This step is absolutely necessary if the process of victims’ participation is to be conducted properly. Taking into consideration the expectation of the Chamber regarding the substantial analyses of the applications, it is clear that there is a need for a well-functioning and scalable database. Although the development of the first phase of the VPRS’ database for processing victims’ applications has been completed, the database does not yet allow application data entry and legal analysis. 53 Moreover, the VPRS field staff, as well as other sections, do not have access to it. 54 It is also not certain whether the database will be ready for use in the event of collective applications, which have begun to be implemented in Gbagbo and other possible situations. Funds essential for the further development of the database have already been requested and should definitely be considered a matter of priority. Speaking more broadly about the victims’ participation process, one needs to be aware of the range of options, varying from a highly individual approach (single application process) to a non-individual one (no applications, legal representation of a group of affected people). For instance, in the Gbagbo case a partially collective application system was adopted, with the possibility for each victim to still present individual claims and be accepted or rejected on an individual basis. This remains a third option between the strictly individual and collective systems. On the contrary, 48 Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-2764-Red), Trial Chamber I, 25 July 2011. 49 Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-2817), Trial Chamber I, 2 Nov. 2011. 50 Prosecutor v. Lubanga (ICC-01/04-01/06-2838), Trial Chamber I, 27 Jan. 2012. 51 The Participation of Victims in International Criminal Court Proceeding, A Review of the Practice and Consideration of Options for the Future, October 2012, available at www.redress.org/downloads/ publications/2011_VRWG_ASP10.pdf. 52 Advanced version of the Proposed Programme Budget for 2013 of the ICC, ICC-ASP-11/10, 13 August 2012, para. 433. 53 Redress. 54 ibid., para. 444.