Abstract
In 2012, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted Thomas Lubanga Dyilo for enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers during the Ituri conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Two and a half years later, the Appeals Chamber of the Court issued an amended reparations order against Lubanga. This paper seeks to examine whether the amended order for reparations and the draft implementation plan for reparations in the Lubanga case failed child soldier victims by only ordering collective reparations instead of individual reparations. This article argues that despite the near impossible task at hand, which involved the diluting of victims’ individual reparations requests, the ICC and TFV have come up with as good a reparations plan as possible, balancing individual victims’ needs and requests with larger, community considerations.
Highlights
In 2012, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted Thomas Lubanga Dyilo for enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers during the Ituri conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)
This paper seeks to examine whether the amended order for reparations and the draft implementation plan for reparations in the Lubanga case failed child soldier victims by only ordering collective reparations instead of individual reparations
Whether one considers there to be a hierarchy of reparations, in that individual reparations should come first followed by collective reparations, or that individual reparations should be conceived broadly enough to benefit the wider community, either approach allows for a broad inclusion of victims who would be able to access the benefits from a reparations order
Summary
In 2012, the International Criminal Court (ICC) convicted Thomas Lubanga Dyilo for enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers during the Ituri conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). This article seeks to examine whether the amended order for reparations and the draft implementation plan for reparations in the Lubanga case failed child soldier victims by not granting their individual reparations requests and only ordering collective reparations instead. This article argues that despite the unenviable task at hand, the ICC and TFV have come up with a reasonably balanced reparations plan, balancing individual victims’ needs and requests with larger community considerations, such as the need to not further exacerbate community tensions, and reaching the most victims possible despite limited resources at the ICC’s disposal. Given the precedent that the Lubanga reparations order and implementation plan will have, there is a need to recognise that if the ICC, or other international criminal tribunals, will lean towards collective reparations because of limited funds and resources, these processes and the reasoning behind the decisions taken by the Court need to be properly explained to victims.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
