ABSTRACT
Introduction The subject of victims in relation to international criminal justice mechanisms is a relatively new area of concern (Musila 2010; Parmentier and Weitekamp 2013; Robins 2011; Rothe 2012; Weinstein 2011). Given the scale and scope of crimes over which institutions such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) have jurisdiction, it seems that the analysis of the role, or lack thereof, of victims in this process merits more attention. This is especially so given that the role of the victim within international criminal justice has been touted as having made major advancements since the early 1990s by providing a greater amount of victim participation. Consider the 2005 survey by Stover (Stover 2005), where most victims and witnesses who testified felt some degree of satisfaction after participating in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) proceedings, and Horn et al.’s (2009) findings, which also found that the majority of those who participated as witnesses felt it was a positive experience and would do so again. Indeed, the value of a punitive system to respond to victims’ desires for accountability may well have merit, at least in some cases. Parmentier and Weitekamp (2013) conducted a population-based survey on the perceptions of Serbian people regarding accountability for war crimes committed, prosecutions, and other forms of transitional justice in the country. Delineated down to two main issues – the quest for justice and the search for truth through the eyes of the population – Parmentier and Weitekamp conclude that a large majority of the respondents believed it was of utmost importance that the “truth” about what happened during the war be established, and that this is most favored when done through the courts and truth commissions. An official validation of “truth,” so to speak. Additionally, they found that the issue of accountability was most noted in the context of prosecutions at the ICTY and linked to the more senior political and military leaders, with less emphasis and concern on “direct”
perpetrators who were seen as carrying out orders (Rothe 2013). One could also consider if an international criminal justice system can provide a form of “symbolic reparations”1 to the massive number of victims inherent in the forms of crimes that international criminal law covers (genocide, crimes against humanity, massive and systematic human rights violations, war crimes). In other words, even if not all inclusive, the international criminal justice process could, theoretically, contribute to restoring a victim’s dignity through the acknowledgment of the harm done, directly or indirectly (symbolically). A similar frame for thinking of the symbolic value would be as a venue for “closure.” On the other hand, scholars have noted that while some studies have found levels of satisfaction with international tribunals, these findings do not reflect the numbers of victims who felt omitted, unsatisfied with their limited abilities to share or explain, lack of ability to travel to the locations outside of their country for the proceedings, and a host of other issues that have been levied against international criminal justice proceedings by victims and scholars of post-conflict justice, transitional justice, and restorative justice (see also Chapter 9 in this volume). Other criticisms include claims that the solution, or redress for victims (in any form) cannot merely come from the top down or be removed from the specific victims to a mass victim representation via punishment of the offender; the local and individual responses and needs must also be met in some form (Rothe and Mullins 2008). It is no secret that the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda (ICTR) and Yugoslavia have had major issues and areas of contention when it comes to dealing with victims and victims’ needs. Given that the ICTR and ICTY are ad hoc tribunals nearing completion, the focus of this chapter will be on the issue of victims in relation to the ICC.
