Speaker A
We're back in open session. Madame President, thank you, Madame President.
Reparations hearing for Abd Al Rahman case discusses phased implementation, ongoing oversight, and adapting reparations to evolving conflict conditions.
Key Takeaways
- Phased reparations allow partial immediate delivery with flexibility for future implementation as security improves.
- Continued judicial oversight and regular updates are crucial for adapting reparations to volatile conflict conditions.
- Maintaining victim trust and legal representation throughout the reparations process is essential.
- Rule 143 hearings provide a procedural tool to revisit reparations implementation without formal appeals.
- Recognition of victims’ community rights, including land restitution, is a key component of reparations.
What the video covers
- The hearing emphasizes a phased approach to reparations, allocating part of awards immediately and preserving the remainder until security is restored.
- Ongoing judicial oversight and regular status conferences every six months are proposed to adapt reparations to changing circumstances in Darfur.
- The importance of maintaining trust and legal representation for victims throughout the reparations process is highlighted.
- Rule 143 is discussed as a flexible mechanism to hold further hearings during implementation to address evolving needs.
- Concerns are raised about severing multi-year relationships between victims and the legal team or trust fund during implementation.
- The reparations order must balance certainty of liability with flexibility to revisit modalities based on conflict developments.
- Victims’ rights to return to ancestral lands and community-led documentation of land holdings are requested to be recognized.
- The role of the Trust Fund for Victims and Registry in adapting eligibility and implementation processes is elaborated.
- The hearing stresses the need for creative solutions and active judicial involvement given the volatile situation in Darfur.
- There is an acknowledgment that reparations feasibility depends heavily on the conflict’s evolution and possible future peace.
Chapters
- 00:00Opening and Introduction
- 01:15Legal Framework and Rule 143 Discussion
- 08:06Impact of Conflict Evolution on Reparations
- 11:11Victims’ Rights and Community Claims
- 14:49Hope for Peace and Future Adaptations
- 18:30Closing Remarks and Summary
- 24:48Victims’ Concerns and Order Limitations
- 28:30Trust Fund Role and Implementation Oversight
- 32:52Registry and Cooperation with States
- 62:20Implementation Phases and Communication Framework
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
again what we mean by that. While we do not wish to rep repeat the points already made in previous submissions, we would emphasize that this issue is particularly important in the present situation. So what do we mean by phased
Speaker A
I'm jumping a bit but coming to a last but important theme on the broader theme of implementation. We have proposed a phased approach and want to explain again what we mean by that.
Speaker A
allocating only part of an award now while preserving the remainder for when security is restored. uh the trust fund um should be best placed to inform the chamber further on the matter. But what we're also asking for is a continued
Speaker A
While we do not wish to repeat the points already made in previous submissions, we would emphasize that this issue is particularly important in the present situation.
Speaker A
involved through regular status conferences, ideally every six months given DAO's volatality so the order can be revisited as circumstances change.
Speaker A
So what do we mean by phased implementation? The chamber will have to consider a phased implementation and distinguish between immediate deliverable measures from those currently impossible or dangerous, with mobile service providers as an interim solution.
Speaker A
team and its trusted field assistance would sever a multi-year relationship of trust with victims uh, who have no established relationship uh, with other entities of this court so far. So undoubtedly I consider continued legal representation to be in the victim's
Speaker A
Financial compensation as a fallback where collective delivery proves impossible and the possibility of allocating only part of an award now while preserving the remainder for when security is restored.
Speaker A
submissions and a review of certain positions. I would invite the chamber to consider the uh possibility of holding further hearings on reparations pursuant to rule 143 upon request by the parties or participants. Um we anticipate that uh our clients needs and the feasibility
Speaker A
The trust fund should be best placed to inform the chamber further on the matter. But what we're also asking for is continued chamber monitoring, which is maybe also a bit unusual or would be a first.
Speaker A
So rule 143 appears to be broadly worded and could encompass a wide range of matters arising within reparations proceedings as seized by the trial chamber. This is uh maybe also important to say without prejudice to the rights of Mr. after Rahman obviously as we
Speaker A
Departing from the recent trial chamber practice of disengaging and leaving the trust fund for victims and the VPRS without judicial oversight, we are urging the chamber to remain actively involved through regular status conferences, ideally every six months given DAO's volatility, so the order can be revisited as circumstances change.
Speaker A
the reparations order to be revisited really legally revisited unless by way of an appeal. Um, however, hearings pursuant to rule 143 could be utilized in the implementation phase uh of those reparations and in the context of the chamber's decisions on the trust funds
Speaker A
Relatedly, I strongly advocate against the practice of ending the CLB's role at implementation.
Speaker A
bit of a novel submission but I don't know why this isn't something that the trial chamber should consider and uh we assert that the duro situation is also a novel situation that mandates an ongoing oversight and creative solutions that
Speaker A
I've explained that in writing. It's not about us. I hope you understand that.
Speaker A
suggesting are you that should matters change in Sudan um that we should hold further hearings to decide whether to alter the order because I'm not sure we can do that.
Speaker A
But we want to note that removing my team and its trusted field assistance would sever a multi-year relationship of trust with victims who have no established relationship with other entities of this court so far.
Speaker A
Yeah. However, I don't see why um uh during now the I would call a deliberation phase until the order is issued um further hearings could be held and even after the order has been rendered. We say that rule 143 could
Speaker A
So undoubtedly, I consider continued legal representation to be in the victims' interests and not a major resource issue in the event of a significant change of circumstances, and I think we should always keep this in mind and not lose the hope that this is a possibility.
Speaker A
how the modalities that you will have decided upon can be shaped given the situation. Imagine, imagine, let because I prefer to think positive, imagine there is peace in Sudan in six months.
Speaker A
That would require additional submissions and a review of certain positions.
Speaker A
get much worse, but do you know what I mean? So I think this case is different.
Speaker A
I would invite the chamber to consider the possibility of holding further hearings on reparations pursuant to rule 143 upon request by the parties or participants.
Speaker A
order when it's there. uh or and not only us, you know, I mean the other the partisan and participants. Um but there is this possibility of you know uh keeping some flexibility um to adapt to to the situation.
Speaker A
We anticipate that our clients' needs and the feasibility of the implementation of reparations will change over time and will depend heavily on how the conflict evolves.
Speaker A
realities. And I don't know, maybe uh, your country or another country might like to do an amendment to the um, Rome statute. Well, it would be helpful if if you know this is something that would reflect in the reparations order because
Speaker A
We think that allowing an avenue to revisit how certain modalities of reparations will or can be implemented over time may be crucial.
Speaker A
your order that it's something that needs to be addressed by those who bear the responsibility and I think that's really important um that that this is another declaration you're asking for is it?
Speaker A
So rule 143 appears to be broadly worded and could encompass a wide range of matters arising within reparations proceedings as seized by the trial chamber.
Speaker A
Yes. Well you got All right. That's it. uh quarter past uh 12 and that's it.
Speaker A
This is maybe also important to say without prejudice to the rights of Mr. Al Hassan, obviously, as we accept that the reparations order must provide sufficient certainty of his personal liability.
Speaker A
have this authority to address the systems shortcomings through creativity, supervision, monitoring mechanism, reporting obligations, face frameworks, and evidence reducing presumptions and by exercising your your discretion to call on the states parties for an internal review of the ICC's victim's
Speaker A
We are also fully aware that the reparations order must, of course, include some type of modalities of reparations, but we do not believe that the court's framework allows for the reparations order to be revisited, really legally revisited, unless by way of an appeal.
Speaker A
Dur offers a particularly apt context for this reflection arising precisely when the court appears unable to deliver reparations consistent with its own Jewish prudence. I would like to express really my it's it's a real concern I have that victims uh and and
Speaker A
However, hearings pursuant to rule 143 could be utilized in the implementation phase of those reparations and in the context of the chamber's decisions on the trust fund's implementation plan.
Speaker A
support the trust fund uh for victims on which any order depends and will as requested did retain active oversight given the involving conditions. So for these reasons I respectfully request that the chamber in its reparations order recognizes the four affected
Speaker A
This would provide the chamber with the ability to receive up-to-date information on the needs of our clients and what reparations are capable of being implemented at that time and in light of the conflict.
Speaker A
This is goes back to what I said this morning that's important. I request that you declare the victim's dispossession of and subsisting right to return to their ancestral lands to order the community-led documentation and mapping of land holdings and the
Speaker A
So this may be a bit of a novel submission, but I don't know why this isn't something that the trial chamber should consider.
Speaker A
those today. And I ask you to order a phased implementation distinguishing immediately deliverable measures from those presently impossible, prioritizing the most vulnerable, and using non-permanent deployable provisions where structures are needed. We also ask you to retain active judicial oversight
Speaker A
We assert that the Darfur situation is also a novel situation that mandates ongoing oversight and creative solutions that, we submit, are covered by the ICC legal framework and ensure that reparations to victims have a chance of becoming a reality despite the challenging circumstances on the ground.
Speaker A
observations and to request the Assembly of States parties and relevant stakeholders to review the current reparations procedure and consider reforms if appropriate. And none of the foregoing I suggest diminishes the liability of the convicted person which of course we need to keep in mind and
Speaker A
So now, sorry, despite saying 10 minutes, I'm just trying to understand what you're suggesting. Are you saying that should matters change in Sudan, we should hold further hearings to decide whether to alter the order because I'm not sure we can do that?
Speaker A
Thank you. Thank you Miss on Mr. Hen. I think the chamber would like to express um its gratitude to you for everything you've done um uh on behalf of the victims both in the trial and at this stage. Um I
Speaker A
No. Well, unfortunately, there is no possibility of altering the order unless it is appealed.
Speaker A
could keep them really short if there's anything you want to add. Yes, your honor. Um, thank you. Uh, Mr.
Speaker A
Yeah. However, I don't see why, during now what I would call a deliberation phase until the order is issued, further hearings could not be held, and even after the order has been rendered.
Speaker A
Good afternoon, Madame President. Your honors, I will be uh making a submission on behalf of the prosecution in accordance with the chamber's direction. The prosecution will not repeat arguments contained in its written submissions, but will briefly focus on three issues
Speaker A
We say that rule 143 could apply in the sense that when we are in the phase of the implementation of reparations and the trial chamber still has oversight, there is no reason why we couldn't come back together and maybe adapt how the modalities that you will have decided upon can be shaped given the situation.
Speaker A
Regarding the financial amount of a symbolic award, the prosecution notes the submissance of the the vi at paragraphs 109 to 126 of the filing number 1344.
Speaker A
Imagine, because I prefer to think positively, imagine there is peace in Sudan in six months.
Speaker A
This symbolic award should not be dependent on or constrained by a mouse provided in prior cases which may not be appropriate in this case.
Speaker A
That completely changes the picture. So wouldn't it be a shame not to be able to come back together and discuss it?
Speaker A
However, I want to take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of this issue and the need to prioritize reparations for particularly vulnerable victims.
Speaker A
Again, I want to think positively, but things can also get worse.
Speaker A
delivered expeditiously. In relation to children, the prosecution further supports the in the CV submission that the students should be given special consideration at victim of transgenerational harm. The same filing 1344 at par 57. And finally, regarding the types and
Speaker A
Can't get much worse, but do you know what I mean? So I think this case is different.
Speaker A
In particular, the prosecution agrees that a method must be identified to provide reparations in a safe, secure, and exped expeditious manner.
Speaker A
Madame President, it's different. So it requires your ongoing oversight and, considering the legal framework as it is, that, as you know, I think should be reformed, but that's another story.
Speaker A
reparations for almost 25 years. Finally, the prosecution emphasized its willingness to provide its full support to the relevant ICC orans in the implementation of the provision of preparations of this case. Thank you, Madame President. Your honors, that concludes my submission.
Speaker A
We can't ask you to amend an order when it's there, or not only us, you know, I mean the other parties and participants.
Speaker A
you more time um than u was originally um estimated of 30 minutes. Um what we'll say is um that we'll we propose to sit until 1:15 then take a break of 1 hour uh not 1 hour and a half one hour and sit again
Speaker A
But there is this possibility of keeping some flexibility to adapt to the situation.
Speaker A
moment uh 45 55 minutes more or less to to conclude and I I will do my my best to to do so and and and stick to the time.
Speaker A
It seems to me, I mean, you've made a very strong point of this thing, hasn't that the situation can change so dramatically that one ought to have the ability to amend an order to meet the new realities.
Speaker A
We have heard um with great respect and consideration the interventions uh that have preceded us and of course all the filings made by the parties and participants.
Speaker A
And I don't know, maybe your country or another country might like to do an amendment to the Rome Statute.
Speaker A
Abdal Rahman has been convicted. In September 2004, 22 years ago, the UN Security Council decided to establish a commission of inquiry to investigate reports of violations to humanitarian law and human rights law. We all know this but it's 22 years ago this month.
Speaker A
Well, it would be helpful if this is something that would reflect in the reparations order because you are the decision-makers who are confronted with this situation, and you can't do a copy-paste from the other situation.
Speaker A
addressing both the individual harm but also the impact at the international level of the atrocities was already recognized.
Speaker A
So you have a lot of, you can't order such a thing, but it can be reflected in your order that it's something that needs to be addressed by those who bear the responsibility, and I think that's really important.
Speaker A
And on this morning, as the proceedings are being listened to by victims in the courtroom and also outside of it around the world, we want to um on behalf of the board of directors with utmost respect convey our
Speaker A
That this is another declaration you're asking for, is it?
Speaker A
we receive and make available. Yeah, I'm it is it is I I understand maybe your comment to succeed. This it helps to the point to a point that I want to make.
Speaker A
Yes. If you give me two or three more minutes I've been asking for, I will come to a conclusion and I will tell you exactly what I've asked you to do.
Speaker A
the chamber decides are delivered. Of course, enabling the participation of other entities and on the basis of these diverse functions we have this fourth function that brings us here and which is to contribute to your considerations.
Speaker A
Yes. Well, you got it. All right. That's it. Quarter past 12 and that's it.
Speaker A
is to convey also the position and the concerns that uh we carry today. There are two questions that we want to uh make sure that we contribute to in addition to addressing your own questions. The first one, does the
Speaker A
Yeah. Okay.
Speaker A
And secondly, will the order be implementable? The second question is particularly important because as you know, we have all these visibility concerns. I will not repeat them. The CLRV and the record shows it very well.
Speaker A
So to conclude, I would like to return to my structural thesis. The documented systemic changes and challenges reinforce your responsibility not only to issue a comprehensive, meaningful order but to use its judicial authority.
Speaker A
Physibility is the situation at hand today. Implementability is what the order will say to enable it to survive across time. And this is a very important point particularly for the issue raised with respect to the potential need to amend a reparation
Speaker A
I think you have this authority to address the system's shortcomings through creativity, supervision, monitoring mechanisms, reporting obligations, phased frameworks, and evidence-reducing presumptions, and by exercising your discretion to call on the states parties for an internal review of the ICC's victims' participation and reparations framework, potentially, in my view, ideally towards reform.
Speaker A
After the consultations we held, we emerged cautious but optimistic. The trust fund envisages a program in which some measures can be implemented in the first phase while the reparations order will provide a framework for other measures to be actively pro and
Speaker A
I have addressed this in detail in our written submissions.
Speaker A
Very importantly we appeal that what is feasible today therefore should not inform the first phase of implementation. It should not it should inform the first of implementation but it should not define the limits of the order and that distinction is very
Speaker A
Darfur offers a particularly apt context for this reflection, arising precisely when the court appears unable to deliver reparations consistent with its own jurisprudence.
Speaker A
The Troan has addressed the nature and extent of harm as well as other submissions have done. So we know that the harm is multifaceted that the crimes were cause physical, psychological harm, loss of life, property etc.
Speaker A
I would like to express really my, it's a real concern I have that victims and a
Speaker A
Why am I pointing this out is because we are aware that victims with whom we consulted or others are apprehensive app apprehensive about the order. They worry that the order will be limiting what they receive. And what it is important
Speaker A
to highlight is that the order needs to be comprehensive and that should include a varied and uh diverse me number of measures that address the complex situation before it. In particular, the chamber asked how the order can practically address land restitution
Speaker A
claims in light of article 82.4. We consider that the order at the minimum should recognize the important safeguarding function of reparations. That is the safeguarding function is that the continuing consequences of the crime are um stopped to protect any further loss before
Speaker A
before fuller repair becomes possible. What is this? What does this mean in practice? It means that through implementation we for for example could preserve knowledge of ancestral land and customary tenure of traditions and culture to support the transmission of community identity which
Speaker A
is at risk of being further eroded by prolonged displacement. At the same time we are conscious that the full reparative response of the harms including land restitution cannot be delivered by the court and the trust fun alone. some dimensions particularly
Speaker A
concerned to safe return do not belong to the mandate of enforcability. This doesn't mean that the objectives of the reparation order should fall outside the reparations framework. As the CLRV indicated, it should be the guiding uh objective of the reparation order. The
Speaker A
reparation order can also provide an authoritative point of reference for the action of states and other actors whose involvement will be necessary to achieve a fuller repair in relation to the return to ancestral land and community reconstitution.
Speaker A
This is one objective which victims have placed particularly clear before of all of us. the possibility of returning. The significance of the return is also apparent from the nature of the harm.
Speaker A
Return by itself would not repair the harm. The will not repair all the harm.
Speaker A
But return and community reconstitution provide the framework within what much of what was destroyed could ultimately be rebuilt. For that reason, the truss submits that the order should recognize return to ancestral land and community reconstitution as a long-term objective.
Speaker A
Can I pause you there because we've had a full um uh we've been addressed fully by this matter uh I'm sorry on this matter by von Vistinghausen um who's made various proposals um as to how we without obviously
Speaker A
ordering that the land be returned uh can at least insist in the in the future. Have you got anything that you can firstly do you agree with what she said and second have you got anything further that you can add to assist us?
Speaker A
The trust for victims agrees with the legal representative. However, the issue of community measures must be addressed in clarification particularly on the point of the recognition of the community dimension which is both linked to the return as well as to community measures if I may
Speaker A
and that is also a question from the chamber. The community dimension of the harm explains why the trustful was invited to recog um has invited the chamber to recognize the full community of Dar for this recognition is not simply ter
Speaker A
terino terminological it has a concrete reparative function. We want to be very clear on this point.
Speaker A
We are not proposing that in recognizing the full community, every member of the full community be recognized as an individual victim. This as the CLRV says would definitely exceed the scope of the case. We agree with the CLRV.
Speaker A
The trust fun's proposal however is that is necessary to recognize that the fure community was the object of persecution and suffer specific harm as a consequence that community harm extends beyond individual harm suffered by the victims commit um of the crimes
Speaker A
committed in the four locations. Recognizing and addressing the harm does not extend beyond the scope of the case, but it allows a reparative response for the crimes for which Mr. Abdal Rahman was convicted. There is no contradiction between recognizing the harm suffered by
Speaker A
the community and separately providing individual or individualized reparations for victims that fall in relation to other forms of harm.
Speaker A
The practical consequence is not only declarative as the CLRV proposes, but it's actually quite concrete is that the reparations program can actually include community measures that can be directed specifically at repairing community harm suffered by the community. In the Almadi
Speaker A
case when community measures were implemented this included planting of trees or even soio economic projects for the community as a whole. In the case of Darur in in this case as we have documented from victim's wishes it may
Speaker A
include documenting cultural traditions documenting oral history which of course has participation of individuals who do not need to be individually uh selected and nevertheless addresses the harm suffered by the community and preserving the values that the order seeks to
Speaker A
protect. The point is not to choose between community and individual but is to identify the harm to be repaired and the appropriate reparative response.
Speaker A
These measures of course would not require individual eligibility and where in contrary if there is a measure providing individual or individualized benefit the appropriate eligibility requirements would depend on that measure based on that other harm separated from the harm of community
Speaker A
harm of the fur. So it was important for us to make sure that our proposition was fully understood and I hope um your honor that we have addressed and clarify your question.
Speaker A
This brings me um to the issue of IND of eligibility which is another question by the chamber.
Speaker A
The starting point of the trust fund is simple and we agree with the legal representative with the common legal representative in the need for adaptation. We would like to further elaborate what does that mean? Also in light with a question from the chamber.
Speaker A
Eligibility is not an end of itself. It has a reparative function. individuals are seen and recognized as victims and promise redress is also the condict through which individualized redress is delivered. The process must be legitimate, fair, ethical, and workable
Speaker A
and proportionate to the measures that are going to be imposed. You have asked us whether we're seeking to depart from the jury's prudence. The jurist prudence is complex. it it contains several elements.
Speaker A
The first one is that different measures will dep will require different eligibility procedures. That is the main point and this has been also the case in previous cases. There is no departure of jurisdiction of of jurist prudence. When
Speaker A
the CLRB referred to the process of um limiting conditions for eligibility in the Almadi case for community measures, she was actually referring to eligibility conditions for individualized measures for individual measures. So it is important to set the record straight.
Speaker A
So that means that different measures will require different eligibility mechanisms, community measures, no need for individual eligibility and and so forth.
Speaker A
Now the jury's prudence also sets out when is the eligibility decided and this is where the trust fund supports a change in the practice. At the moment all the reparation orders have indicated the conditions or the criteria for the
Speaker A
eligibility and has set out the eligibility process as well at the order. The trome for victims posit that it is essential that the the the order contains the conditions for eligibility but that the condition the process for eligibility be set out once the draft
Speaker A
implementation plan is developed. Why is that? Because we need to understand what type of modalities will the chamber choose in the draft implementation plan.
Speaker A
The trust fund in collaboration with the communities, with the victims, with the with the with the participants will design the specific measures that correspond to the modalities and those measures will have these programmatic elements embedded in them. That is that
Speaker A
we also need to listen at the communities into what they consider to be fair, what is proportional and what is feasible.
Speaker A
In this proposal, the trust fund is reinforcing this notion, your honors, that the order should be an instrument that provides a framework for the implementation of reparations, the modalities of the reparations based on the harm that you will recognize and
Speaker A
that it is at the stage of the draft implementation plan that further measures in concrete would be developed with their corresponding eligibility mechanisms.
Speaker A
We are not seeking to depart from the juristprudence in the division of responsibilities between the trust fund and the registry in particular BPRS. So the design of the eligibility process for the specific measures at the specific time would be of course under
Speaker A
their leadership and um and and and designed as part of the programmatic development. This leads me, your honor, to final issues concerning implementation.
Speaker A
The first one, your honor, is the issue of the concept of the moments of um of of implementation of the order.
Speaker A
As we I have spoken about, we're talking about not physibility, but an order that is implementable.
Speaker A
What does that mean? is an order that can live throughout time and that provides the conditions that reflect the harms suffered by the victims and that enables through the draft implementation plan um the development of further uh points as well as throughout the
Speaker A
implementation phase. there is exceptional constraints in the present case. And what does this mean for the victims concretely is that we seek to um develop the implementation plan within one year of the issuers of the reparation order.
Speaker A
This is a considerable extension from the practice in the past. We consider that the circumstances in which victims um are today and the multitude of actors involved in the process and as we have heard who can contribute with creativity
Speaker A
and ideas um need to be involved and therefore time is necessary to be able to involve those appropriately.
Speaker A
The trome proposes that the the draft implementation plan will contain two elements. One, a comprehensive plan that reflects the order as a whole and the second one, a specific plan for the first phase of implementation that looks at the existing conditions today
Speaker A
and addresses from the order what measures are actually feasible today. That means that as the CLRB has proposed, we are speaking of a phase or a progressive implementation that evolves as the conditions also allows us to. It also addresses the issue of
Speaker A
immediacy or urgency that the victim the participating victims call for. In this first phase, we will look closely at where affected communities are located, identify measures, implementing partners, operational modalities, assess access, security available services and this would allow
Speaker A
us together through consultations again as mentioned to develop the specific eligibility measures in this way. As I said in some there are two types of measures to be develop at the DIP. Those that can begin immediately and those that form part of
Speaker A
the reparative framework in future. This brings us to the matter of oversight. For the record, it is essential to clarify that chambers exercise considerable oversight over the implementation of reparations with very clear demanding and close reporting obligations.
Speaker A
The regulations of the trust fund 57 and 58 provide for that accountability. And it is of course welcome to see how this oversight can be reinforced and can be adapted to a situation that is constantly changing in a framework that is implementable.
Speaker A
There is flexibility which the CLRB has called for and that flexibility allows us to come back to the chamber when more information is known to validate certain elements. This does not require um a revision of the reparation order. It is
Speaker A
designing reparation orders like it has been done already in previous cases with important flexibility components.
Speaker A
An important element of flexibility concerns the allocation of the overall liability amount. This is extremely important for the trust fund. The chamber should determine the overall amount of Mr. Adval Rahman's liability in line with the reparations principles.
Speaker A
But contrary to other cases, the trust submits that the order should not predeterminate fixed amounts to be allocated to each reparative modality.
Speaker A
Except as in so far the chamber determines a specific symbolic sum for victims. For example, previous orders have said that a portion with a very clear amount will go to certain type of modality and another portion of the
Speaker A
liability would go to another part of the modality. The need for designing in consultation with victims necessarily means that the distribution of the overall liability amount needs to be consulted on the basis of the specific measures that will respond to the
Speaker A
modalities decided by the judges. That flexibility is not flexibility as to the harm recognized as the reparative objectives established by the chamber or the overall amount of Mr. Abdul Rahman's liability. It makes simply the reparation order implementable with
Speaker A
points of consultation with the chamber to revisit or clarify or validate or finalize any final any decision.
Speaker A
Therefore, the reparation order should establish the harm to be repaired, the relevant victims, the victim's groups, the reparative objectives, the range of modalities and the applicable criteria for eligibility and also in line with the reparations principles, the overall amount of
Speaker A
liability. In the next stage, the draft implementation plan will propose after consultation to translate that framework into concrete measures, eligibility procedures and verification arrangements, delivery models, sequencing cost and proposed allocations between modalities.
Speaker A
This enables the reparation order not to be litigated but at the same time for parties and participant to provide input uh in relation to the draft implementation plan.
Speaker A
Later on, once the draft implementation plan is adopted, there is sufficient flexibility for adjustments as the CLRV has called for to be incorporated based on the feedback from victims and the specific circumstances as they will certainly change and this
Speaker A
of course will always be subject to the chamber oversight as it is already. This provides stability to the judicial determinations you will make while preserving operational flexibility necessary to make those determinations work.
Speaker A
In relation to cost, your honor, as it has been said, costing for measures that can begin now is something that can be developed as part of the draft implementation plan. For instance, the cost of medical or psychological rehabilitation depends on where victims
Speaker A
are located, what services will be brought to them, whether qualified u providers are available, what security and protection arrangements are necessary and what can follow what followup can realistically be provided in a concrete period of time and therefore in this for example first
Speaker A
phase for implementation. We believe that in relation to funding, it is also important to highlight that as long as costs are clear and properly presented, this would not necessarily um undermine the prospects of funding.
Speaker A
That is, it will make the program more expensive, but it would not necessarily be the case that there is a discouragement to the cost as long as donors are presented with clear budgets that correspond to operational realities. This is something common in
Speaker A
the humanitarian sector and in the context in which we operate. What we are altogether indicating is that measures that cannot presently be implemented should not disappear from the reparative framework.
Speaker A
Return and related measures must remain part of the order and if access, security, cooperation or other conditions change materially, these can be adapted in the next versions of the implementation plan which are under chambers supervision.
Speaker A
In relation to funding also to restate funding constraints will certainly affect the pace and sequencing of the implementation.
Speaker A
However, they should not reduce the reparative framework established by the chamber. The present financial capacity of the trust fund or the amount of voluntary funding presented available today should not determine the scope of the harm to be recognized or the amount of Mr. Mr.
Speaker A
Abdul Rahman's liability. We are also certain that once the reparation order is in place and there is clarity even further with the draft implementation plan incentives and um interest from donors can be created around concrete measures.
Speaker A
We need to simply move towards this process. Nearly concluding your honor roles of states and other actors the responsibility of Mr. Abdul Rahman is what is at state at the moment in the reparation order but this order does not extinguish or
Speaker A
replace or discharge any other responsibility for reparations that the state may separately bear as provided by the Rome statute. This is the reparation order will not prejudice the rights of victims under national or international law.
Speaker A
Therefore, the order should make clear limits should make clear that the limits of the court reparations mechanisms should not be understood as transferring those wider responsibilities to the trust fund or to relieving the states or other actors for their own
Speaker A
responsibilities. The chamber has also asked about implications of change circumstances concerning cooperation of bordering states. The registry will address this matter separately and we have consulted uh with them on their position.
Speaker A
What I want to say is that from the trome perspective, what is essential is that the cooperation continues in neighboring states or any other states where victim may be located or where implementation needs to take place. This could also be in other regions or
Speaker A
continents where and if circumstances affecting such operation change. This needs to be considered at the physibility stage which is at the moment of implementation not necessarily at the level of the order with this. Your honor I just wish to
Speaker A
conclude. I will uh just switch um files for this. Can you take this please?
Speaker A
Thank you. It is a historic moment where you're bridging the gap between the past and the future. You will be crystallizing this past. The order must document, identify, and fully recognize what was destroyed by the crimes committed by Mr. Abdal Rahman and the
Speaker A
consequences that those crimes continue to produce. But we also hope that the order will be a forward-looking document that provides that framework for implementation across time. The Rome statute was ambitious in setting up the reparative framework for massive crimes and the situation before
Speaker A
us is one of large scale and the gap between the harm and feibility should not be resolved by narrowing the reparation orders.
Speaker A
The ambition of the reparative measure should correspond to the nature and extent of the harm. We are both realistic as to the realities. We are ambitious. But we are also hopeful on the creativity that exists around the situation. We have heard it during the
Speaker A
closed session. Many ideas, many initiatives, many projects that can be borrowed from. This is the role at the level of implementation for us to convene to design together with the victims and to bring forward for your approval in a draft implementation plan.
Speaker A
We believe that this order is an instrumental tool for the future. as the Rome stat provides in fact for future generations particularly that are for victims future. Thank you Mr. Madame President, if you have any other questions that we're maybe failing to
Speaker A
address, I stay and I'm still within the time. Yes. Uh you are. Thank you very much indeed.
Speaker A
Very succinct. Um uh question 12 you have not dealt with and I think we may need to go into private session for that.
Speaker A
Yeah. I indicated um um your excellence that the registry will providing an answer to this question that we have consulted and we highlighted the importance of cooperation uh of bordering states as well as any other state uh where the victims reside but I
Speaker A
believe that this is for the registry in the format that they consider pertinent. Well, can we get can we go into private session for just a moment?
Speaker A
Rebecca or concession. Madam President. Yes. Um sorry just just before we move to the registry. Um this is not a this question does not come from me if you'd like to start. Um but could you elaborate the TFV on
Speaker A
specific costs for the programs that could be implemented in this case? I'm not I have to say I'm just asking that question without any clear idea of why I'm asking it.
Speaker A
Yeah, unfortunately that's it. Well, I mean I I think you you set out the cause somewhere um in your submissions.
Speaker A
Thank you, your honor. Um the tran did um made some submissions in relation to cost. Uh the main tenate of of of our answer is that the measures need to you will be ordering and determining the harm um
Speaker A
that the victims suffered. the different groups of um of victims. Hopefully you will have individual victims, you will have collectives uh and you will have as we have posited a community to be recognized. Then there are specific measures that will be developed as part
Speaker A
of the draft implementation plan. The trome for victims as I stated in my earlier intervention is able to develop those costings depending on the particular measures that will be developed. Are we going to implement in chat in that particular camp that
Speaker A
specific measure that has been consulted as the phase one of the reparations plan? Therefore, we can produce those costings in relation to those particular activities. We recognize that in the past the liability of the convicted person has been in the determination has
Speaker A
been informed by the costing that have been provided what what the measures cost. Unfortunately, in this case, this exercise is not possible. The CLRB has provided important costing information as well as well as well as other AMI. Uh
Speaker A
this information is is is very helpful from an operational perspective but it is impossible to conduct an hypothetical exercise of everything that may be possible. The principle of participation in the reparations uh principles indicates that we must design the
Speaker A
measures with the victims with the affected communities and once these measures are more specifically determined the costing exercise then is productive and that can inform the funding mechanisms which will of course fall within the broader scope of the
Speaker A
liability. Um there is um a scope in the jurist prudence of the court. We have um reparation orders where the judges have sought to decide every single element in the reparation order and that the entire process that has taken many years have
Speaker A
sought to design by the judges every single element. Other reparation orders have provided a general framework with important decisions. Ultimately another reparation order gives us considerable flexibility.
Speaker A
We are suggesting to learn from the past experiences and seek an order that is not declarative but is in principle and that provides a framework at which then the implementation process and the design in phase stages can be further
Speaker A
developed with also more inclusivity beyond also um only participating victims but also others that may be eligible or or are recognized. Thank you.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yeah, I see. All right. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. Uh so we'll turn to the registry now and you've got 10 minutes before we President I just had one particular point whilst we're still in private
Speaker A
session I take No we're not we're not we're in open session in which case I shall sit down again.
Speaker A
Thank you. Well no you can stand up again now Mr. because it's the register's turn.
Speaker A
Excellent. Thank you very much. Um, Madame President, your honors, let me first start with an expression of our sincere gratitude to the victims and the affected communities who have engaged with the registry throughout these proceedings.
Speaker A
In particular, the registry and BPs colleagues wish to acknowledge the commitment of its intermediaries, community focal points, traditional leaders, survivors, women's groups, youth representatives, and other community members who contributed to the victim participation process and the victim mapping exercise. Despite
Speaker A
displacement insecurity communication challenges and difficult living conditions, they remained in constant engagement with the registry and opened openly shared their experiences, knowledge and perspectives whether from within Daur from ID IDP camps, refugee camps in Chad or from the wider Dafuri
Speaker A
diaspora. So our appreciation goes out there. Coming quickly to the eligibility framework, Madame President, um the registry considers that generally the framework adopted in the Naganda and the Onuan cases provides a sound approach for the chamber also in the
Speaker A
present case with the flexibility that would address the particularities of the present case where required. Um please remember that the Onuin case which has been uh um referred to earlier on was the starting point for the victim identification exercise. As such, a
Speaker A
number of operational improvements have been made and efficiency gains have been made in the meantime in particular through a much advanced IT posture in our operations both externally that is the victim data collection which has by the way led to the substantial amount of
Speaker A
individual victim data collected in the present case. um but also internally in terms of a uh common data handling platform between VPs and the trust fund colleagues who will obviously be the ones that receive the data from VPs for
Speaker A
the implementation of reparations. So where the individualization of victims is a precondition for the implementation of reparations, the registry stands ready to apply this framework and suggests that if this were to be the case, the identification be continued
Speaker A
with immediate effect so as not to um lose time and to continue throughout the process. Benefits that we would have from this are that the registry already has the established communication framework in the field, the network with partners on the ground very much akin to
Speaker A
what the common legal representative for victims has mentioned. We also use a household form. So the capacity for um a broader intake of victim groups is there and the approach works also in a simultaneous uh application of implementation. Um it actually is
Speaker A
designed rather uh around this idea. This said um where reparations are directed at say all members of a community in the affected locations such as the full community as mentioned earlier on. The registry acknowledges the general advantages of a community-based
Speaker A
verification approach such as proposed by colleagues from the trust fund and the common legal representatives. A simplified verification scheme um seems very sensible. This is all the more so in light of the context of ongoing conflict and limited access. Registry
Speaker A
stands ready to assist here too as may be considered um sensible by uh the trust fund at the chamber. Obviously very briefly on the notification a specific question that the chamber had asked. Um the registry considers that a specific modality hinges on two key
Speaker A
factors. The first would be the exact modalities of the reparations in the reparations order and the categories of beneficiaries concerned therein and second the security situation on the ground constantly evolving which presently represents also the main difference from
Speaker A
the ongo process. I already mentioned pot uh improvements that we have made in terms of the general system which will obviously also um have an impact on the notification which will benefit from a much stronger IT posture. But
Speaker A
the sorry what does a stronger a much stronger IT posture mean? um the fact that we will have so from the beginning to now we've much evolved in terms of the use of it means in the collection of tools
Speaker A
palpably this means that we're using tablets in the field that we have a data transfer that is no longer um the delivery of written documents from A to B um and the fact that we also have if you want a data highway uh between
Speaker A
ourselves and our database and the trust fund uh through means that actually are supposed to much facilitate a quick transfer and a quick analysis and the transfer of set analysis um which ultimately will also lead to um an
Speaker A
accelerated notification possibility after the legal assessment has been made. That being said, I hope that this response Thank you. That being said, the um the key challenge that we're going to be facing here is again the bene the
Speaker A
beneficiary's whereabouts and contact details um because they are subject to constant change owing to the circumstances on the ground. If we have a longer lapse between say the registry eligibility um determination and an initial notification of a victim
Speaker A
and an implementation measure that then comes much thereafter. There is a high chance that the contact details will be outdated and um we will no longer know where relevant beneficiaries are.
Speaker A
it will potentially help in this but still this is a very um important factor to consider which is again why I would um respectfully beg the chambers indulgence that we will look into this closely once there is a reparations
Speaker A
order we know more exactly what exactly are the um um measures to take and then we try to model something efficient also on the situation on the ground at that point in Quickly on the um question of modalities
Speaker A
of reparations. I tell you what, Mr. Ambak, if you're moving on to a separate issue which um I think you are I think we'll take the break now.
Speaker A
Fantastic. And um we'll sit again at as I said 2:15. All right. We would have
Topics:Abd Al Rahmanreparations hearingInternational Criminal CourtDarfurphased implementationvictim rightsrule 143Trust Fund for Victimslegal representationconflict adaptation
