Author: Kotapothula Venkat Rao, Damodaram Sanjivayya National Law University
Introduction
In an increasingly interconnected world, the pursuit of justice for victims of human rights abuses, war crimes, and other international wrongs has gained significant attention. International courts and tribunals such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and various ad hoc tribunals play a pivotal role in addressing these grievances. However, a critical question remains: how accessible are these institutions to the victims they aim to serve? This blog explores the mechanisms, challenges, and evolving pathways that enable victims to seek redress through international judicial bodies, shedding light on both their promise and limitations.
The Role of International Courts and Tribunals:
International courts and tribunals are specialized bodies designed to adjudicate disputes and enforce international law. The ICJ, established under the United Nations Charter in 1945, resolves disputes between states, while the ICC, created by the Rome Statute in 1998, prosecutes individuals for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression. Ad hoc tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), were set up to address specific conflicts. Hybrid courts, like the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), blend national and international elements to deliver justice.
For victims, these institutions represent hope a chance to hold perpetrators accountable when domestic systems fail due to corruption, collapse, or unwillingness. Yet, access to these bodies is not straightforward. Unlike national courts, where individuals can often file cases directly, international forums typically prioritize state or institutional involvement, leaving victims to navigate complex procedural and jurisdictional hurdles.
Mechanisms for Victim Access
Victim Participation in the ICC: The ICC stands out for its progressive approach to victim participation. Under Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute, victims can present their views and concerns during proceedings where their personal interests are affected, provided it does not prejudice the rights of the accused. This marks a shift from traditional state-centric international law to a victim-cantered model. Victims can apply to participate through the ICC’s Victims Participation and Reparations Section, submitting evidence of harm suffered. However, participation is not automatic victims must prove a direct link to the crimes charged, and logistical barriers (e.g., language, distance, and lack of legal aid) often limit access.
State Referrals and Indirect Access to the ICJ: The ICJ primarily handles disputes between states and lacks direct individual access. Victims can only seek justice indirectly if their state espouses their claims. This state-centric model excludes victims from non-cooperative or failed states, such as those in Syria or Myanmar, where governments are complicit in abuses.
Ad Hoc and Hybrid Tribunals: Tribunals like the ICTY and ICTR focused on prosecuting perpetrators rather than direct victim access. Victims appeared as witnesses rather than parties. Hybrid courts, like the SCSL, offered limited victim participation but emphasized local engagement. The SCSL’s outreach programs educated affected communities though formal access remained restricted to prosecution-driven processes.
Regional Human Rights Courts: Beyond global bodies, regional courts like the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR), and African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) provide direct access to individuals. Under Article 34 of the European Convention on Human Rights, victims can file applications with the ECtHR after exhausting domestic remedies.These courts require state consent to jurisdiction, limiting their reach.
Triggering Investigations: Victims can indirectly influence international justice by prompting investigations. The ICC Prosecutor can initiate proprio motu (on their own motion) investigations based on victim submissions under Article 15 of the Rome Statute. In 2018, Rohingya victims’ communications led to an investigation into Myanmar’s alleged crimes, despite Myanmar not being a Rome Statute member, due to cross-border elements in Bangladesh (an ICC member).
Abstract
In an interconnected world, international courts like the ICC, ICJ, and ad hoc tribunals aim to deliver justice for human rights abuses and war crimes. However, victim access remains challenging due to procedural, jurisdictional, and logistical barriers. While the ICC allows victim participation and regional courts offer direct access, state-centric models and resource limitations often exclude victims. This blog explores the mechanisms, challenges, and evolving pathways for victims seeking redress through international judicial bodies.
Challenges to Access:
Jurisdictional Barriers: International courts operate within strict jurisdictional limits. The ICC only has authority over crimes committed after July 1, 2002, in member states or by their nationals, leaving victims in non-member states like the U.S., China, or India without recourse unless referred by the UN Security Council a rare occurrence due to veto powers.
Resource Constraints: Legal representation, travel, and translation costs deter victims, especially in war-torn or impoverished regions. The ICC’s Trust Fund for Victims provides some support, but funding shortages exacerbated by states withholding contributions limit its reach. In 2023, the Trust Fund disbursed €2.5 million for reparations, a fraction of the need.
Political Interference: State cooperation is critical yet often lacking. The ICC’s arrest warrant against Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir remains unenforced since 2009 due to non-cooperation from Sudan and allies. Similarly, Russia’s veto power stalled Security Council action on Syria, blocking ICJ or ICC involvement.
Procedural Complexity: Filing claims requires navigating legal technicalities exhausting domestic remedies, proving harm, and meeting deadlines. Victims of mass atrocities, often displaced or traumatized, struggle to meet these demands without robust support systems.
Retribution and Safety Risks: Engaging with international courts can expose victims to reprisals. In the ICC’s Kenya cases (Prosecutor v. Ruto and Sang), witnesses faced intimidation, leading to case collapses in 2016. Protective measures exist, but their enforcement is inconsistent.
Progress and Innovations:
Outreach Programs: The ICC’s field offices in Uganda educate communities about their rights, bridging informational gaps.
Technology: Online platforms allow victims to submit evidence securely, as seen in the ICC’s Ukraine investigation, where digital submissions documented Russian war crimes in 2022.
Civil Society Role: NGOs like Human Rights Watch and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) assist victims in preparing claims, amplifying their voices where states fail.
Reparations Frameworks: The ICC’s evolving reparations regime, including community-based projects like those in the DRC, prioritizes victim recovery over symbolic gestures.
The Way Forward:
Expanding Jurisdiction: Amending treaties to allow broader individual access, such as extending ICC jurisdiction via universal consent mechanisms, could include more victims.
Funding Support: A global victim assistance fund, supported by UN contributions, could alleviate financial barriers.
Simplifying Procedures: Streamlined filing processes and increased legal aid would empower grassroots participation.
Protection Guarantees: Robust witness protection, backed by international enforcement, would mitigate safety risks.
Conclusion
International courts and tribunals offer a vital lifeline for victims of egregious wrongs, yet their accessibility remains a work in progress. The ICC’s victim participation model and regional courts’ direct petition systems mark significant strides, but jurisdictional gaps, resource scarcity, and political hurdles persist. For these institutions to fulfil their promise, they must evolve balancing state sovereignty with the urgent need to centre victims in the global justice narrative. As conflicts multiply and accountability falters, ensuring victims’ voices are heard is not just a legal imperative but a moral one. The path to justice may be arduous, but with concerted reform, it can become a road well-travelled.
FAQS
What are the specific rights of victims in international courts?
Victims are entitled to protection from harm, intimidation, or retaliation. This includes measures like confidentiality and secure communication channels.
How do these rights compare to those in domestic courts?
The rights of victims in international courts and domestic courts share similarities but also have distinct differences due to the scope and nature of these judicial systems.
