Speaker A
All right, we please be seated at VU as well. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Amber.
Reparations hearing on Abd Al Rahman case discusses land restitution, victim demographics, and reparations methodology at ICC session.
Key Takeaways
- The ICC has legal authority to order land restitution and enforce reparations with state cooperation.
- Victims who witnessed crimes may be considered direct victims due to intentional psychological harm.
- Accurate population and victim data are critical for effective reparations planning and implementation.
- Most victims reside in Sudan and Chad, with a significant number living in IDP and refugee camps.
- Comprehensive reparations require recognition, documentation, and innovative approaches to address victim needs.
What the video covers
- The hearing focuses on the modalities of reparations, especially land restitution under Article 75 of the ICC statute.
- The registry explains legal bases for ordering land restitution and state cooperation, including references to Security Council resolution 1593.
- Victim recognition, displacement, and documentation of land-related rights are emphasized as key priorities.
- The registry details the methodology for population estimates in affected localities Kudum and Bind, relying on UNHCR data and victim mapping forms.
- Discussion on whether witnesses to crimes qualify as direct victims due to psychological harm caused by public acts of violence.
- Registry provides data on victim residence, including percentages living in Sudan, Chad, IDP camps, and refugee camps.
- Data sources include victim application forms, case files, and consultations with community leaders and field interlocutors.
- The hearing addresses criticisms of household assessment methods and overlaps with submissions from related cases like Yakaton.
- The session includes dialogue on reparations jurisprudence and the practical challenges of enforcing restitution orders.
- Further discussion covers financial support, complementary measures, and safeguarding future claims through documentation and satellite data.
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Thank you very much, President. Dear judges, I continue my submission on the modalities of reparations and in particular the question concerning the land restitution.
Speaker A
Specific to the question whether the court could order restitution of land under article 75 of the statute.
Speaker A
The registry notes the powers of a chamber under article 754 together with article 931 to solicit state party cooperation including on the seizure of property.
Speaker A
Also article 755 together with article 109 seems to vest the chamber with the power to bind a state party to enforce the content of a restitution order.
Speaker A
It is submitted that a different, more restrictive reading of the chamber's power would risk to effectively leave the word restitution in article 75 without practical application.
Speaker A
Furthermore, Security Council resolution 1593 provides a legal basis for the chamber to actively seek cooperation from Sudan and other actors in support of restitution-oriented measures.
Speaker A
Now turning quickly to the practical ways in which a reparation order could address victims' concerns.
Speaker A
The registry very much follows the very eloquent submissions of the legal representative of victims in this regard.
Speaker A
First of all, regarding the recognition, the recognition of the displacement and the dispossession of victims, recognition that restitution and return are appropriate forms of reparation for the harm suffered.
Speaker A
And finally also the immediate priorities of victims in terms of documentation and preservation of land-related rights is something that the registry can confirm from its own data collected from victims is very much in the center of their needs in terms of the also mentioned sequential approach.
Speaker A
Briefly on the mapping methodology. I'm coming now to question six. The chamber requested the clarification regarding the methodology underlying the population estimates in the mapping record for Kudum and Bind.
Speaker A
Here I briefly want to point out that first in order to estimate the number of Fur households in each locality the registry relied on the UNHCR report cited in the mapping report and before this resulted in estimates of approximately 2,250 Fur households in Bindi and 1,600 Fur households in Kudum.
Speaker A
The registry did not use the completed victim application victim mapping forms for this purpose because it did not consider them sufficiently complete or representative to provide a census of the population.
Speaker A
Second, however, the registry then did use the completed victim mapping forms to better understand the household composition.
Speaker A
The second point in the equation when reviewing the forms the registry observed that roughly 99% of the residents identified in Bindi and Kudum were Fur.
Speaker A
Registry then identified individuals who appeared to be heads of household and examined the size of their households.
Speaker A
This analysis suggested an average household size of about seven persons in Bindy and eight persons in Kudum. Hence the slight difference in location regarding the locations.
Speaker A
However, the registry did not rely solely on those figures. It also considered consultations with community leaders and external demographic data that it had priorly received.
Speaker A
After comparing all available information, the registry then adopted a cautious average estimate between six and a half and seven persons per household.
Speaker A
Again, we're cognizant that no household can have six and a half members. But this is obviously then a statistical data figure.
Speaker A
The registry therefore combined the UNHCR household estimates with its own estimate of average household size to arrive at the population estimates set out in paragraph 120.
Speaker A
The registry is happy to also submit this in a written submission if there is any remaining lack of clarity on it.
Speaker A
Just, Mr. Rambach, I mean, you were asked to break them down by location and I think you have. I'm just reminding myself, but that's still coming, Madame President.
Speaker A
Ah, right. Um, there's a, but that somebody and I'm trying to remember who it is. There's criticism of your household form of assessment from somebody and I can't remember which of the submissions this comes from.
Speaker A
I have just visually confirmed with my colleague who likewise doesn't remember. It's from Yakat, your honor, here the Trust for Victims from Yakat. It's from [laughter].
Speaker A
Thank you very much indeed. Just so it's clear, I am in fact on the reparations case of Yakaton and there's a lot of overlap in the submissions and I had [laughter] I muddled up the two.
Speaker A
Yes. Sorry about that, Mr. Rambach. You're quite right. But if it's criticism in Yakaton, I wonder why it's not a criticism.
Speaker A
Yeah. Anyhow. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Like to carry on.
Speaker A
Yes. Fantastic. Which leads me now to the next point that is question seven.
Speaker A
Witnesses to crimes. Here the registry recognizes that reparations jurisprudence in Taganda, Al-Hassan, and Onwen cases has characterized witnesses of the commission of a crime as indirect victims.
Speaker A
The registry respectfully submits here that the chamber may reach a different conclusion.
Speaker A
Because in the registry's view, the psychological harm suffered by those who witnessed the crimes was inflicted directly upon them.
Speaker A
I say this because we see that these crimes were committed on purpose in the presence of and the victims in the presence of wider communities in places visible to everybody whether in public squares or central locations.
Speaker A
Victims understood these public acts of violence as a means of spreading terror throughout the community.
Speaker A
In other words, the onlooking victims were the target audience, not just a bystander, which in turn should establish their direct victimhood.
Speaker A
Or again, put differently, victims didn't suffer as a result of harm suffered by a direct victim, but rather independently and at the same time.
Speaker A
Turning now quickly to paragraph eight or question eight, which is what Madame President had in mind earlier on.
Speaker A
Here the chamber requested the registry figures relating to numbers and percentages of victims currently living in Sudan, Chad, and or other countries and in particular the percentage of victims presently living in IDP and refugee camps in Sudan and Chad.
Speaker A
As a disclaimer, the registry's data set contains information concerning roughly 68,000 persons connected with the four affected localities.
Speaker A
This is however not complete and stems from the completed victim application forms.
Speaker A
Again the registry has checked its figures with field interlocutors including community leaders in DAPU and Chad.
Speaker A
On the numbers, a total of 51,000 persons or approximately 75% are recorded as residing in Sudan.
Speaker A
Roughly 3,900 persons or approximately 6% are recorded as residing in Chad.
Speaker A
The rest of the total of 68,000 would be residing in other countries in the diaspora around 1%, recorded as deceased around 11%, or otherwise in an unknown current location 7%.
Speaker A
Turning to the specific question concerning the camps, who or how many of the victims live in camps?
Speaker A
We're looking at again the full data set of 68,000. Approximately 65% are recorded as residing in IDP camps in Sudan.
Speaker A
That is roughly 44,600 persons or almost 90% of the persons residing in Sudan.
Speaker A
Approximately 5% of the overall victim figure are recorded as residing in refugee camps in Chad, representing more than 3,500 persons or again almost 90% of the victim population present in Chad.
Speaker A
This concludes the registry's remarks. Thank you very much.
Speaker A
Be honest. Where does, just remind me, where does that information come from?
Speaker A
Is that the registry's own research or is it other databases or what?
Speaker A
So, we are looking at number one the victim application forms and in particular the mapping forms that we have collected.
Speaker A
We're looking at then other reports that we already had at our disposition through access to the case file.
Speaker A
We're looking at also consultations with field interlocutors, local l
Speaker A
All right. Yeah. Thank you. Certainly. Yes. Um, I pass to my colleague Francisco. Thank you.
Speaker A
Microphone. Microphone. Thank you. Thank you so much. And I'm happy to uh indeed uh develop on this uh question that refers specifically to our observations and I will take a few minutes to explain what we have proposed is that
Speaker A
as quickly as possible. Okay. Um so basically we address the question of illegibility in the sense of what does it mean to be illeible and um illegibility is actually a matter that says um you have a right to
Speaker A
reparations. That is what allegibility means. Um and we have proposed indeed that the F community is an allegible victim just for um matters that um refer to um specifically symbolic and um satisfaction measures and we think that is a determination
Speaker A
that can be and should be taken by the chamber whether the F community is an allegible victim in its own right.
Speaker A
Then um we have basically said there is the community of victims of the four case locations made up of all the members. We have just heard 99% full in these four case locations um of these communities and we have proposed that there should
Speaker A
be measures directed at this community as such at this collective of the four um communities and these measures should actually bring a benefit for the these communities and their members and not every member of that community will have specific will receive specific
Speaker A
[cough] reparations. So we have developed this program embedded approach by basically proposing that in um implementing this um these measures specifically for the community of the four case locations. It would not be possible to first determine all the members of this
Speaker A
community. All the many victims we just heard will be in this case in a situation also where we have no access at the moment and in the perhaps in the next few years.
Speaker A
So our proposal is to work with the communities. It's very similar to what the legal representative has proposed earlier today with the four different steps already in a lot of detail. We are not yet at this detail because we first
Speaker A
want to discuss with the community and the victims how this would look like and is that illegibility?
Speaker A
Not really. It is basically uh determining who within with every measure every measure is in the end carried by someone is uh directed at someone.
Speaker A
That is not a question of allegibility in the right to reparations. they are part of that community in our view and that is where we are proposing that this is not necessarily part of allegibility.
Speaker A
But uh and this is where we are proposing that together with the VPIS once we know exactly which measures at which stage of the implementation process that will be faced as the executive director has explained ideally with your permission of course uh that
Speaker A
at each of these steps we will sit with VPS and say are these measures that are now uh directed at specific individuals or not? How do we proceed? How do we make sure that uh this is all within the
Speaker A
bigger allegibility criteria developed by the chamber for the community of the four case locations.
Speaker A
Then there is a third there is a third uh there is a third part it's complicated perhaps and it's a bit but this is what we have done in Almadi for the collective reparations there uh we had basically several measures like for
Speaker A
example um psychological support was directed at the groups uh at at groups and people participated in that who were members of the community of Timbuktto and they were basically um selected in a process um that was led by the TFV to
Speaker A
make sure of course that these are not members of a different community and similarly uh the economic measures they were in the end carried out by beneficiaries um you can say by people of the community um who um were selected in processes
Speaker A
that involved victims and they got funding to run a business and this business was at the advantage of the community as a whole. So these are the ideas behind it.
Speaker A
Okay. Ju just I have a simple mind and I like simple answers. Um simple. Okay. Uh is what you're saying this that instead of doing individual eligibility um verification let's say because the there's an award to to individuals or
Speaker A
whatever. If the if the if the proposed mode of reparation is one that involves a community, you simply check to see whether the those who are eligible are in fact members of this community and not members of another community. Is that is
Speaker A
that what it comes down to? Yes. um in a way with two um small issues I want to address right so award individual award that's 982 we are 983 so the award is a collective award and there can be individualized or
Speaker A
more community measures we said this is a whole or I'm too fast and my my apologies this is a whole range uh of measures that um and um different communities we have to look at it how it looks under
Speaker A
983 uh and the other one was um now I forgot but uh yeah so it is basically the idea that h it's not a question of um alleibility in that sense it is one where we say because the measure is
Speaker A
directed at the entire community who actually in the end benefits might not necessarily be a matter of illegibility. So we are posing that as a question rather we haven't really completely drawn a conclusion ourselves and I I do follow that
Speaker A
and if you um permit me um so the the the third category basically is that we are um proposing that indeed we do allegibility VPS does allegibility for those um who are actually um receiving receiving for example cash awards or
Speaker A
those victims who have suffered from rape and torture and have persistent harm that we indeed determine their allegibility for specific measures. So that is what we are proposing. Um and for that process again we are also saying it is very important that this is
Speaker A
who these people are is based in the community and also BPS is helped with to determine who was there at the time because who can determine that without documentation better than the victim community as we have also heard from um
Speaker A
the uh the common legal representative. so that VPS can rely and lead such a process.
Speaker A
Thank you so much. Um thank you very much. That's very helpful. I think yes.
Speaker A
Um it you want to make some corrections. I hope they can be quick. Please.
Speaker A
Um your honor, I do not want to distract you from the train of thought that you're following. So it would be going back to some other points we mentioned.
Speaker A
So, we're in your hand whether to address it now or maybe at a later stage for clarification.
Speaker A
It doesn't concern the specific matter that you're asking right now on eligibility. Well, yeah, I'm Well, I'm not I'm I'm going to go um on to the next um um the next organization. Um so, uh in fact, I think I'm going to leave
Speaker A
whatever corrections you want to make until until we see where we've got to the end of this afternoon.
Speaker A
Okay. Thank you. Yes. Uh very well. Thank you very much. Um so that brings us uh to the um uh the GCC um whose proper title I'm afraid I'm just going to look up the General Coordination Committee. Yes. Thank you.
Speaker A
Thank you your honor madame president. Your honor, my professional language and the common tongue of my people I represent is Arabic.
Speaker A
I will address you in English and I ask the chambers patient with my voice.
Speaker A
My name is Abdul Bas Muhammad. I am a lawyer with Foundation and I speak on behalf of the general coordination committee of the camps in Sudan.
Speaker A
I am from central foria garcila and I am a member of the for community.
Speaker A
This is not my first time representing my people in a courtroom. I used to do it routinely during bashir regime when my people were arbitrarily arrested, detained or worse.
Speaker A
And when I won those cases, my reward would often be detention and mistreatment prison.
Speaker A
The locations in this case, Kum Bindi, M and De are not to me just counts on an indictment.
Speaker A
They are real town where I have real memories where members of my family reside and when my ancestors were buried.
Speaker A
I will make two submissions. First on liability and the second on what this chambers findings mean on the ground.
Speaker A
I will also answer Jamber's question on women and girls liability. Your honor, I will begin with what the what the GCC asked for in one sentence.
Speaker A
So there is no doubt about it. The GCC asked this chamber to state in its repressions order that Mr. Abd Rahman is jointly and severally liable together with the men who committed these crimes with him. That is the
Speaker A
individuals and the commanders who committed these crimes with him. that is the individuals and the and the at the time composed and the and commanded the forces of the government of Sudan to repair in full the harm suffered by the victims of the crimes
Speaker A
which he was convicted. That is a request. Let me explain what it means and what it does not mean.
Speaker A
It does not mean that the chambers asked it to hold the state of Sudan liable.
Speaker A
The GCC has never asked that and does not ask now. Article 25 program one confine this court to natural persons and the GCC request names natural persons individuals officials individual commanders each responsible for what he himself did where a name is unknown the shorthand of
Speaker A
the go forces identify them what it means is This the trial judgment found that Mr. Abd Rahman acted together with go forces he committed these crimes together with others under article 25 paragraph 3A what those others did attributed to him
Speaker A
through the common plan. So the harm he must repair is the whole harm, not the share of it.
Speaker A
The GCC asked the chamber to say so because it follows for the chamber's own findings.
Speaker A
This court has done exactly as before in ongoing at prograph 667 of reparations order. Trial Chamber 9 stated that Mr. Anguin and his co-perpetrators were all jointly liable to repair in full extent of the harm.
Speaker A
That this did not diminish Mr. ongoing's own liability to repair the harm in full and that is and that he and his co-petrators were jointly and severally liable all remaining liable to reimburse the trust fund.
Speaker A
The paragraph speaks of his co-petrators. Who they were is established by the trial judgment in that case. Joseph Con indicted by this court and commanders who were never indicted at all.
Speaker A
The appeals chamber left this underserved. The GCC's asked the chamber to mirror that prograph using the using its own findings.
Speaker A
The trial judgment define that defines the GC the go forces at paragraph 278 and findings more than 80 times that Mr. Abdul Rahman committed these crimes jointly with them.
Speaker A
We ask only that responsibility is reflected in the reparation order. Why are we asking for this?
Speaker A
Because it's fixed a depth truthfully. A depth caused by many men is one depth and the man before you is on all of it.
Speaker A
Not a share, not a fraction. That has two consequences. And I will be come back to the second at the end of my submission.
Speaker A
The first is inside this case. The amount is not reduced because other men are also responsible and it's not divided into share that no one can calculate.
Speaker A
There is one figure and every sum ever reside is is measured against it. The second is outside this case.
Speaker A
adept has has been judicially established. It does not disappear because it is not paid. It is stays on the record and article 75 paragraph 6 provide that nothing in this in this reparations order prejudice the right of the victims under
Speaker A
national or international law. So what this chambers determines remain available to these communities wherever else those rights can be pursued.
Speaker A
This is not a novel idea. It is what the courts in every legal system do when several people cause one harm together and only one of them is before the court.
Speaker A
It is the law of Sudan itself. The chamber is not being asked to invent anything. It is being asked to say plainly what its own judgment already found and the GCC proposed the safe guard itself.
Speaker A
Let the chamber stated that these findings are made for reparations only and without prejudice to the innocence of any person not convicted.
Speaker A
The GCC can elaborate on the full legal basis should a final written submission be permitted.
Speaker A
Second, land and chambers question on restitution. The chamber has asked what its powers are to order restitution of land under article 75 in the light of article 82 paragraph 4 and in what practical ways an order can address the victim's claims. The GCC
Speaker A
welcomes the question and answer it from the ground. In Wadisali where Garcia lies, land is not property. It is hakir the holding ties a family a place across generation to a place across generations where you farm where you bury your loved
Speaker A
one and who you are. The judgment order the judgment records that she and were killed.
Speaker A
Those men were the land registry. They hold in memory. They held in memory which family held which he land and their word settle every boundary dispute.
Speaker A
To kill them was to burn the record. That is that is why the trust fund has told the chamber that returning became not only physically impossible but institutionally impossible.
Speaker A
Now the chamber's question. Article 75 names restitution first among the forms of repression. And article 82 paragraph 4 shows that drafters contemplate orders that touch property.
Speaker A
It grants a right of appeal to the bonafide owners of property adversely affected by the reparations order.
Speaker A
The status does not create appeal against order that court has no power to make and the and it and the protection it grants instructive in both directions.
Speaker A
It shields owners in good faith and it does not shield one who took land through these crimes or knowing of them.
Speaker A
From a crime no right can grow. The GCC is equally hornest about the limits. The court cannot cannot today put a family back on its land in Sudan and it cannot make orders against those who occupy that land from they are not
Speaker A
before it. The GCC asked for neither. The GCC asked the chamber for what it can practically do four things.
Speaker A
First adjudicate is a dispossession find that removal was wrongful and the communities are entitled in law to return.
Speaker A
Second, gives that findings its effects as a notice. From the date of this order, the criminal origin of the dispossession stand judicially establish it. And whoever takes this land afterward will never be able to say he did not know.
Speaker A
The second, the order cannot return the the order cannot return the land yet. it can protect the claim to it.
Speaker A
Third, the order third order what restitution requires and what can be done now as part of the convicted person liability.
Speaker A
The community led documentation and mobbing the villages and and the hawakir rebuilding the registry the crime destroyed.
Speaker A
A wedo cannot produce a title deed to the land zustri was killed but her community can say who she is and what she held.
Speaker A
Fourth preserving through article 75 paragraph 6 the victim's right before whatever body one day gives the entitlement effect.
Speaker A
the land commission of job agreement, the compensation architecture of DHA document or a future claims mechanism.
Speaker A
The GCC can elaborate on each of these should a final return submission be permitted.
Speaker A
These proceedings are likely the only opportunity to have these facts judged. The finding of the the finding of entitlement is the foundation of which on which every future land process in therefore will build.
Speaker A
The chamber's question on women and girls. The chamber asked what modalities of the GCC proposes for the specific harm suffered by women and girl described it at the prograph 22 of its observations.
Speaker A
We put that question to the representative of the GCC's of the GCC's women's group. The modality they identify women's centers psychological and rehabilitation service for the survivors of sexual violence and rebuilding community infrastructure.
Speaker A
corresponding to what the trust fund has already placed before the chamber at prograph 95 140 117 and 120 of this observation of its observation the GCC endorsed them the woman add one thing for their own that individual award should wait until
Speaker A
until the war has ended because there is no stability. Now that is also the trust fund's position at prograph 119 the woman reshitted independently and the GCC as a chamber to hear it to hear it as their considered view.
Speaker A
Finally I said I would return to the second consequences uh of the liability findings. This is it your honors.
Speaker A
A finding that these communities are entitled in law to return is not consolation of money that has not arrived.
Speaker A
It is instrument that communities carried into every future forum where someone can in a time be made to pay.
Speaker A
The chamber is being asked. The chamber is not being asked to look beyond its own f its own case. It is being asked not to look away from what its own judgment already found. Merely because the truth has consequences
Speaker A
outside this room. The people of the camps have been promised much by many for over 20 years.
Speaker A
They can bear the truth that the money does not yet exist. What they cannot bear is another promise that quietly disappear.
Speaker A
A finding of this court cannot be stolen in a checkpoint. It cannot be delivered or ransomed or made to depend on donor's court will.
Speaker A
It will rain through in the calm on the day it is pronounced it and and it may be the truth that one day makes return to the land possibility.
Speaker A
Thank you your honor. Yes. Thank you very much um Mr. Muhammad for those um eloquent words. Thank you.
Speaker A
Yes. Um we'll move then please to uh the next organization uh which on my list is I act Mr.
Speaker A
Traldley. Thank you your honors. I I'd had Glenn next on our schedule but I'm happy to go now.
Speaker A
Oh yeah. It's the appearances. Um I don't mind. Well, I mean, I think you're likely to be shorter than than Dan, so why don't you go first, Mr. Crowley?
Speaker A
I I think so, too. And I appreciate your indulgence, Madam President, and also Miss Sutherland's indulgence.
Speaker A
I'm okay. As this chamber noted in your order inviting these submissions, the interests of justice require that these proceedings advance as efficiently and expeditiously as possible, particularly since you have already made many of the findings necessary to issue a
Speaker A
reparations order. I mentioned this knowing you're aware of it because the point we heard most in our consultations wasn't about what kind of reparations survivors was would eventually get. It was about the urgency they felt. Not for everything to be done tomorrow, but to
Speaker A
know what reparations are going to be and how victims can access them. The refugees I Act works with, after all, have been dealing with the harms of these crimes and other similar ones for almost as long as this court has
Speaker A
existed. They have been waiting for decades. Now, the aid they receive is dwindling, and they are too often overlooked, even as their displacement and dispossession continue.
Speaker A
One refugee we spoke with told us about a man who had died and they believed he'd died in part due to the mental trauma of always believing reparations would come the next day and then the next day and then the next.
Speaker A
Beyond that initial observation, I will limit myself to four quick issues. First, as to prioritization of victims groups, we generally agree with the submissions that have been made by the other participants, but emphasize two additional considerations.
Speaker A
first that victims who are still in Darur or the 5% of participating victims living in Chad in refugee camps should be prioritized because of the challenging circumstances they live in at least to the extent that distributing reparations to them is is presently
Speaker A
possible. Second, in going beyond those geographic categories, we agree with other participants on prioritizing elderly victims, victims with life-threatening conditions, and victims of sexual and gender-based violence.
Speaker A
We argue additionally that victims who are children now should be included as well as victims who were children at the time of their victimization. We say that victims who are children now should be prioritized because it's something we
Speaker A
heard from refugees in our consultations because considering the reparations that lots of participants in this proceeding agree are important. Several are particularly needed for victims who have been born in displacement like birth registration and educational programming.
Speaker A
We say it because victims who are children now are particularly vulnerable. And we say it because mitigating the harms they have suffered is essential to the future of the communities whose members were targeted for the crimes.
Speaker A
Those harms are in a clear sense a result of the crimes of conviction. Being born in displacement, perhaps outside ancestral lands, perhaps as orphans, in conditions their families were driven into that this chamber is described in the sentencing judgment as
Speaker A
very harsh. We address this in paragraphs 20 and 24 of our brief. And as we note in footnote 31, to the extent that this is properly characterized as intergenerational harm, the Al-Hassan's Chambers's decision not to use such harm
Speaker A
as a basis for reparations dealt with different facts. And so its reasoning we we respectfully suggest is not persuasive here.
Speaker A
Next, as to prioritization of modalities, we note it seems clear that the groups all the participants have spoken to have emphasized the urgency of practical modalities over symbolic ones. And we suggest that subsequent to further conversations with the victims
Speaker A
themselves, the prioritization should reflect that. The only kind of technical note I'd attach to that is that many of the focus group participants emphasized payments which other chambers have characterized as stop gap measures. A stop gap measure of course has to be a high priority has
Speaker A
to come first before other reparations are implemented. So to the extent that the chamber may be inclined to characterize such payments as symbolic, we would say our symbolic uh measures come last approach does not apply to those payments.
Speaker A
Third, on question two, which is directed in part to us, we agree with others that declarations should be made acknowledging victim's rights to land that was lost as a result of the crimes of conviction in this case. We've noted
Speaker A
that what the Lebanga judges termed issuing certificates that acknowledge the harm particular individuals experience can be an important part of the reparations process. We support the various mapping proposals. We just understand certificates for individuals as a natural result of those processes.
Speaker A
Certificates for individuals or communities, whatever the appropriate uh ownership and victim is. Then finally, your honor, I want to briefly pull together some strands of what we've heard today. The extraordinary seriousness of the harm the victims in this case have all
Speaker A
suffered, which the judgment properly terms immense, which continues, which is impossible to fully repair. We think of families of the more than 200 people murdered, according to the trial judgment, who still feel the profound absence of their murdered family
Speaker A
members. Think of the many thousands who remain displaced, never recovered, pillaged, or destroyed property, the people living with harms due to sexual and gender-based violence, and the children born into displacement and deprivation. Those strands together in our submission underscore the importance
Speaker A
of a robust and efficient reparation process. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed, Mr. Charlie.
Speaker A
Um, yes, go back to the proper running order. Um sorry but um I think your intervention uh Mr. Trardy was as I hoped uh short. Uh so we move please to it is now Glenn's um opportunity.
Speaker A
I was just wondering Madame President whether you'd prefer to hear from redress first in the interest of time.
Speaker A
Uh is red address is redress likely to be relatively short? I don't want to speak for for them but relatively. Yes.
Speaker A
All right. Yes. If you don't mind going next. Thank you, Madame President and uh your honors. Um this is again I'm just thanking you again for the opportunity uh on behalf uh of victims that we have consulted with. Um, we held interactive
Speaker A
two-day focus group discussions with victims in six different locations inside Sudan, uh, the majority and also outside Sudan. Um, and it is on that basis that we, uh, made the submission.
Speaker A
Um, I've got only four points. Uh, one of the fifth has already been dealt with in in closed um, in the closed uh, part of the hearing. Um the first point really concerns acknowledgement of individual and collective harm.
Speaker A
The victims of the Ali Kushb case have waited more than 20 years for some settlements of justice and in this time their harms have only really become compounded and aggravated.
Speaker A
It's also quite possible that this process will be the only opportunity they will have to be awarded and to receive reparations. And so it is really important to recognize the practical and symbolic moment of the reparation order and to issue an order that is really
Speaker A
commen commensurate with this occasion. At the same time we um submit that it is important to set out an approach that is co-designed with the victims that is practical and that is nimble namely that can adapt as the situations evolve.
Speaker A
Um the importance of this acknowledgement and the recognition of individual and of the collective harms suffered should not be overlooked. It's in and of itself a form of satisfaction and if it connects meaningfully with the harm suffered, it can have important
Speaker A
reparative value. While we recommend collective reparation with individualized components, we also stress the need for acknowledgement of the collective harm to the four as a group, echoing the CVLR and the trust fund for victims. This is as a result of
Speaker A
the campaign of persecution for which the U defendant has been um convicted. Colombia provides a good example of acknowledgement of collective harms of groups or of peoples. And this also chines with notions found in the African charter and also in terms of the law in
Speaker A
Sudan itself. Um this isn't just in terms of uh looking at applicable laws that may be relevant uh given the um difficulties with the rules of procedure in terms of defining uh victims as either individuals uh natural persons or or
Speaker A
groups. Um in our case, crimes committed by Ali Kashb against the four victims has caused profound transgenerational harms affecting not only victims as individuals but also to the four community. Um in this and to this end we um submit that it is important to be
Speaker A
clear of the recognition of the transgenerational impacts of the victim's displacement, the loss of their ancestral harms, the targeted killing of their leaders and also the destruction of the social fabric.
Speaker A
Collective me reparation measures are required to address that collective harm. This message is important to articulate in the reparations order not least as a measure of satisfaction but because it it reflects the targeted nature of the pain and suffering um of
Speaker A
the entire community. So that is really about the first point which is all about the importance of acknowledgement and how that can be used to maximum effect.
Speaker A
The second point really very quickly as it's been covered already uh factual presumptions in eligibility um as already submitted by the trust fund for victims the chamber should avoid an ownorous multi-stage individual eligibility process for collective measures. I think that point has been
Speaker A
made uh quite well and clear. Um the second uh point we had here was strong factual presumptions uh should apply for four people resident in or present at the relevant crime locations given the nature of the targeted the targeting of
Speaker A
the convicted crimes. Individual assessments should remain available for individualized components where they are appropriate. But given the urgency of victim's needs as well as the risks for mitigation, the risk uh as well as risk mitigation, this process should not
Speaker A
obstruct or delay the implementation of community-based reparation. The third point um that I wanted to touch on again has been covered extensively and that result uh regards land um that again we also echo others uh goes to the heart of the suffering of
Speaker A
uh the community. Um we note that there are significant legal and practical obstacles to making specific restitution orders to specific land. Um, however, in this regard, we submit that article 824 of the Rome Statute on bonafide landowners [clears throat] is not an
Speaker A
obstacle to the chamber making appropriate declarations or enabling complimentary measures like some that have already been elaborated by the CVLR.
Speaker A
So, we just wanted to provide uh so as not to repeat what others have already said, just some maybe additional points about what declarations might include as a minimum. Uh from our point of view um declarations could uh specify that
Speaker A
number one Kushb's uh crimes specifically targeted the full community on the basis of ethnicity. Number two that there is a clear causal link between the crimes and victims displacement and loss of land. Number three victim's dispossession of their
Speaker A
land was unlawful and victims have a right to safely return to their ancestral land. And finally, number four, because of the scale and public nature of victim's displacement, sub subsequent occupiers would have been on constructive notice that the land was
Speaker A
acquired unlawfully, even in the case of third parties acting in good faith. Now, I've mentioned Colombia before, but Colombia again provides useful juristprudence on how good faith has been applied. There is an excellent uh book written by um one organization
Speaker A
Deusticia on uh the application of the concept of good faith with respect to land restitution. And essentially an useful point to note is there is a reversal of the burden of proof. Um so that the third parties are the ones who
Speaker A
need to prove that they took sufficient steps to identify the rightful owners to establish indeed their actual good faith.
Speaker A
Um as regards the complimentary measures, uh we had also similar um uh ideas and creative solutions in our submission regarding um the uh safeguarding of future claims, namely the documentation of historic land rights through community gathering, but also satellite data um and other
Speaker A
evidence, not just um records that may stay with the communities, but more broadly um to provide a practical record of the ownership. And such a record could also be a measure of satisfaction in and of itself if it was for instance
Speaker A
um published as a as a book or as some kind of um memory of the locations.
Speaker A
Um this brings me to my final point which is about the chambers continued oversight and of victim representation.
Speaker A
This again has already been mentioned by others, but just to reiterate that we are advocating uh for a nimble approach that is co-designed with victims. In response to the defense, we note that this approach is not necessarily in
Speaker A
tension with any oversight role that the chamber may wish to have at the implementation stage. Indeed, we agree with the defense that continued chamber oversight would be desirable given the fluidity of the situation. And we also recognize the importance of committing
Speaker A
the trust fund for victims to taking certain actions. Our submission is rather that the language of the reparation order should not confine the trust fund to only taking actions that are only feasible today or that are based solely on consultations that have
Speaker A
already taken place to date. Therefore, the continued oversight of the chamber is part of this uh submission. trust fund should have an ability to adapt its strategy should the implementation situation improve or if its engagement with with victims raises novel
Speaker A
opportunities or indeed obstacles. To this end, we um suggest that the common legal representative of victims should have a continued mandate to act in the present case where implementation, security and changing circumstances require it even once the draft implementation plan has been
Speaker A
approved. While we acknowledge that this is not existing practice of the court and would require changes to its legal aid policy, we believe that this is necessary in this case which has several defining characteristics that justify a departure and should set a precedent for
Speaker A
similarly complex reparations. Some of these characteristics include one the targeted nature of the vict of the convicted crimes and the ongoing revictimization of uh many victims as well as the targeted group. Two, the importance of co-designing implementation strategies
Speaker A
with victims in order to deliver meaningful and safe reparation. Three, the strong relationships that the common legal representative for victims has built with participating victims over five years. And I just want to emphasize that uh for communities who have
Speaker A
suffered significant amount of trauma as this one has the important of trust and lasting relationships cannot be overemphasized.
Speaker A
And finally for the importance of preserving and building trust with victims in a fluid environment amidst amidst significant access and outreach challenges. This brings me to the end of my um contributions. Um, finally, we just want to reiterate
Speaker A
reparations should be are urgent and must be feasible. The chamber should issue an order that is ambitious as well as pragmatic and flexible to avoid leaving victims without full reparation because the current situation does not allow it or may not allow as much as um
Speaker A
would be urgently needed right now. We're grateful for this opportunity. Thank you. Thank you very much, Miss Girtz. Um right then um we come now to um Glenn and Son.
Speaker A
[cough] [clears throat] Uh many thanks. Can you hear me? Anyone hear me? Um we agree with um everything that we've heard today really and and want to emphasize of course that Sudan and its peoples certainly cannot continue to be defined
Speaker A
by bitter predatory war um incalculable loss and the abject neglect of the international community.
Speaker A
We also agree that transforming abstract concepts of justice into tangible rather than merely symbolic reparative interventions is essential.
Speaker A
As we've argued in our written submissions strategic well-designed and implemented, well-implemented reparation processes hold the potential, we say, to build and maintain the social conditions that deliver real repair to the lives and futures of those who continue to suffer the consequences of
Speaker A
the crimes identified by this chamber. I will not repeat those here. But for all the reasons discussed therein and today, this chamber is very much encouraged to set and the states parties and wider international community to meet, as Miss Girtz has put it, very
Speaker A
ambitious funding goals. Um, in this regard, I'd like to just clarify and emphasize that the sliding scale prepared by Dr. Benson Stromier and Miss Mara and reproduced at page 19 of our submissions was intended to serve as an illustration of the minimum points
Speaker A
at which reparations programs could be considered practically advantageous and encourage significantly higher investment to remedy such a long-running and horrific humanitarian situation.
Speaker A
Um, just to clarify, it was emphatically not intended to in any way suggest a maximum threshold Addressing such a complex web of interlin, compounding and intergenerational harms in an unpredictable conflict environment as outlined in detail by the common legal
Speaker A
representative for the victims and by the trust fund for victims and as mentioned by our fellow Amichi requires we agree an iterative and flexible response that remains sensitive to the views of and the needs of the affected communities.
Speaker A
We similarly submit that a reparations order must be guided by principles of efficiency, urgency and flexibility both with regard to programming and with regard to continuing authoritative oversight and that this must be tailored to engender and preserve conditions to
Speaker A
support eventual return rather than entrenching displacement. We are in full agreement with that. Despite the significant complex and dynamic obstacles posed by the ongoing conflict, we recommend additionally that the reparations order is guided by a focus on reccalibrating and catalyzing
Speaker A
the economic environment of those impacted by the um Mr. Abdul Rakman's crimes, including by utilizing existing structures. uh in part what was covered in close session earlier today.
Speaker A
There has been a focus on the eligibility and eligibility verification process today and we have submitted that the chamber will gain efficiencies and avoid contributing to social division by taking an expansive interpretation of victim to ensure that the
Speaker A
intergenerational and ongoing impact of these crimes especially displacement and persecution um are recognized and rec and also encapsulate how harm is lived and experienced today.
Speaker A
We have argued, as you know, that a presumption of victimhood for displaced communities would help avoid funds being absorbed into cumbersome bureaucratic processes which are themselves inherently vulnerable to capture and also heighten the risk of failing genuine victims who may be excluded from
Speaker A
such processes by stigma, fear, or the last lack of basic legal documentation. In this way, we largely support the arguments of the CLRV and the TFV regarding the chambers application of rule 983 and note that they too refer to those
Speaker A
born after the commission of the crimes. However, our Sudanese partners do wish to emphasize that for those victims in Sudan, sensitivities remain in relation to characterizing victim communities by tribal identity.
Speaker A
Um they have argued that this risks inviting further targeting of them as a beneficiary group and potentially creating conflict within the displaced communities. Um and that those communities themselves cannot often cannot be cleanly reduced to a singular identity whether collectively or
Speaker A
individually. Um that said I I will emphasize that we do think um a broad interpretation of victim will um be the most efficient approach um uh holistically with um uh on the programmatic um implementation.
Speaker A
Madam yeah not entirely clear what you're saying there. Um I mean it we appreciating in these camps there are refugees from other conflicts as well.
Speaker A
Yeah. Um but well that that's that's that's sort of easy to delineate I suppose but that's that's a that's a nationality question.
Speaker A
Um but the we were just uh I'm just the vehicle through which the um concerns of the our Sudanese partners are being um voiced. Um that's their uh limited concern about the um persons in camps within Sudan right now.
Speaker A
Right. Within Sudan. Within Sudan. Only within Sudan. Only within Sudan. All right. Does that clarify?
Speaker A
Uh yes, let's go with that. Thank you. Um Madame President and your honors. Turning to the specific questions that were posed to us. Um, as emphasized already by the trust for victims, our observations considered how the loss of male family
Speaker A
members as a consequence of the crimes committed by Abdul Rakman means that women, I quote, endure additional burdens associated with lack of social status, protection, and economic opportunities while also often bearing caring responsibilities and conditions of very precarious labor.
Speaker A
We've also noted that fiscal and economic harms fall disproportionately on women across all categories of harm and that gender must therefore function as a crosscutting analytic dimension in the course of determining the modalities of your reparations order.
Speaker A
We agree that these must be inclusive, responsible responsive sorry flexible, victim- centered, and shaped by the relevant communities as we've outlined above.
Speaker A
And as such, we propose that the modalities of those reparations um best to address those identified specific disproportionate harms must be determined by the affected communities.
Speaker A
and that that would be achieved through the urgent and ongoing consultations that have already been described by the trust fund for victims.
Speaker A
You can't suggest anything. You say consultation should take place. That's our primary um suggestion. That said, I do have some um articulated potential remedies. those in. Uh so the remedies for the loss of physical and legal protection and rights including
Speaker A
those uh to ancestral land associated with the loss of male family members could if so desired by the affected communities. um include, for example, personal documentation or certification of legal status that is uh conferred without reliance on the involvement of
Speaker A
or approval of a male family member, which has historically been an impediment to to um accessing such documentation.
Speaker A
Um or equitable access programs that um you know ensure uh access to generative economic activities and structures. Um and that's of course uh detailed uh in our in our um economic report. Um the establishment of programs geared towards
Speaker A
ensuring that access to labor is more stable with greater protection from sexual and other forms of violence.
Speaker A
Again, that's um something that would be a very case-byase pragmatic um approach that would require a lot of community engagement.
Speaker A
Um those I represent today along with their respective partners would be very happy. We've already discussed this with the trust fund for victims uh to provide practical support for that ongoing programming and of course we remain at the court's disposal to assist in any
Speaker A
practical way um we can in that regard going forward. Um but fundamentally we also submit that be by reccalibrating the fiscal and economic environments of the displaced and targeted populations as recommended in detail in our observations and of course the economic
Speaker A
report that you'll hear more about in a moment. Such measures would be better supported and where they'd be inherently better supported and more sustainable just by the shift in the um general economic architecture.
Speaker A
As regards uh the levels of financial support such programming would require the costing I will have to defer to Dr. Benson Strowmire um who will discuss commenurate efforts in other conflicts and the sort of rough uh financial investment that's been required by
Speaker A
those. If you'll permit me I'd like to move to the second question that was directed to us.
Speaker A
In our written submissions, we suggested that access to education programs could be enhanced by a number of relatively cost-efficient interventions, including through partnership with relevant local actors and/or international agencies.
Speaker A
And we've been asked to explain the basis on which a UN relief organization could become involved in the application of a reparations order. I'll first address the legal basis and then the practical basis if that's if that's where if that's where you were going.
Speaker A
Thank you. The legal basis uh is provided for um under a number of different provisions.
Speaker A
Uh rule 984 of the rules of procedure and evidence uh provide following consultations with interested states and the trust fund. The court may order that an award for reparations be made through the trust fund to an intergovernmental, international or
Speaker A
national organization approved by the trust fund. We submit that the court is further empowered to seek cooperation and programmatic support under the umbrella of the foundational negotiated relationship agreement between the international criminal court and the United Nations. And in that regard, I'd
Speaker A
like to point you to article 152 under which any UK UN program, fund or office may agree to provide to the court other forms of cooperation and assistance compatible with the provisions of the charter and of the Rome Statute.
Speaker A
In this regard, I also invite you to consider article three of the same agreement, which mandates the court and the UN to quote, cooperate closely whenever appropriate with each other and consult each other on matters of mutual interest pursuant to the provisions of
Speaker A
the present agreement and in conformity with the respective provisions of the charter and the Rome Statute.
Speaker A
Article nine of that agreement demands cooperation on use of staff and services with a view to avoiding the establishment and operation of overlapping facilities and service which I argue also supports utilizing pre-existing UN programs.
Speaker A
Um there are similar provisions in the OTP's policy on complimentarity and cooperation but of course that's um a different body.
Speaker A
Um I have we've as I've mentioned we've discussed matters with the trust fund for victims and they have noted that they're not aware of an inter intergovernmental or national organization that would be willing to carry out the reparations program
Speaker A
pursuant to rule 984. Recognizing that however um there are turning to the practical um basis I'd like to highlight that there are already local and regional initiatives that could be supported directly by the trust fund for victims as part of a
Speaker A
reparations order. I certainly don't want to tread on their um capacities or or um authority and I I'm mindful of the provision that it has to be approved by the trust fund for victims.
Speaker A
Warchild, for example, provides in Sudan right now digital learning platforms, safe learning environments, teacher training and support as well as catch up and remedial classes especially designed for children and young people to recover education process uh opportunities lost
Speaker A
to them as a as a consequence of displacement and conflict. UNICEF, Save the Children and other partners supported by the Global Partnership for Education have recent recently launched um the Bridges program which similarly includes um the same the
Speaker A
same um safe lings learning spaces and accelerated education for those who've been excluded from their education due to conflict.
Speaker A
Um, as mentioned, we've discussed this and recognized the sensitivities associated with agencies that may be seen to represent the international community's radical neglect of the victims of of this criminality.
Speaker A
That said, our submission remains that supporting, enhancing, or working from established programs such as those outlined explicitly to reach children impacted by the ongoing effects of the criminality recognized by the chamber would be more efficient and effective than using resources to design parallel
Speaker A
initiatives. And this could be achieved either independently by the TFV or through consultation or partnership with the relevant approved regional, intergovernmental or international organization as accommodated by rule 984. Um, essentially let's not reinvent wheels um or create parallel or
Speaker A
contradictory programming where um where it's not necessary. Well, I I understand all that, but the part of the reason that we asked this question is is this um UNHCR uh and the other relief organization like the Red Cross and
Speaker A
whatever all conduct their own programs funding funded by other donors or whatever it is, isn't it going to cause I won't say massive confusion but difficulties at least if um any reparation program is being run through a UN relief agency of
Speaker A
some kind or another or any other relief agency as to the mixing of funds and who's providing what for whom? That's what occurs to me.
Speaker A
I think that's an inherent difficulty in anything in any programming, is it? Is it not? if you're well I I mean I I'm unaware of um uh and the trust fund conviction probably answer that of any situation where this court has ordered reparations
Speaker A
um and it's been delivered in some form whatever has been delivered has been delivered in some form or another through another relief agency.
Speaker A
I mean, if that happens regularly, well, then then then that that that allays my concerns.
Speaker A
But it seems to me that um unless it it does, we you may face a problem with um you and Ch are saying, well, we can help you. We can give you the expertise if you like, but we can't get
Speaker A
involved because because we're funded by a completely different um organization. Uh then I would direct you to non non-UN bodies as well. I mean I think the point is that we we don't we also don't know how effective these programs are. Um I
Speaker A
think it will come back to the if you'll forgive me for freestyling here the um and and I don't again I don't want to tread on the um trust on victims um authority but the um uh my sorry my brain has stopped
Speaker A
working. um the [laughter] uh uh utilizing existing programming and make making sure that that those funds are um genuinely serving the the many many children caught up in this again going back to that kind of presumption of victimhood um which has been outlined
Speaker A
both to affect uh cover children in the camps then I I don't see any um impediment to you seeking that kind of cooperation if UNHCR or UNICEF or whoever have a have a fundamental concern or can't ring fence the funding
Speaker A
or direct the funding fine so be it. But I don't think that precludes you from um examining that as a possibility. Um and like I said there are other programs so that that would not be UN reliant.
Speaker A
Sorry, just finally on this then it it it's not that you're suggesting that we order that that that there's cooperation between you and HCR as part of the reparations um delivery if you like.
Speaker A
I I'm afraid I don't think you have the authority to order that. Yeah, I don't think I did either. I mean we that we did. No, but I I we've been arguing that one of the core um requests
Speaker A
or identified needs from the communities that we've been talking to and as has been echoed by all of the others um the aside from the land restitution, it's education and healthcare provision. So there will have to be some recognition
Speaker A
and you know steps taken to make sure that that is um you know enacted and and um explored how that would happen. I think the fundamental point that we were trying to make is don't reinvent the wheel um and don't don't create parallel and
Speaker A
and contradictory um programming. Yes. Um as regard regards the third of the questions directed to us which was um tripartite in its uh nature. I believe the first part was answered this morning and the relevant private session um and
Speaker A
that the latter will be covered by Dr. Benson Strowmire and with your permission I'd like to hand over to him for the remaining questions that were directed.
Speaker A
I think the remaining questions do actually concern his report. Absolutely. Yeah. Yes. Thank you very much.
Speaker A
Um can I just remind you please Dr. Benson Stro that you must not speak too fast.
Speaker A
Um I I think I'll ask Miss Sutherland to um I'm watching the interpreters closely.
Speaker A
They are very familiar with telling me off. So I'm quite glad I got through that session without it.
Speaker A
I'll I'll do my very best. Um but I don't Yeah, I'll do my very best.
Speaker A
Um so yeah thank you very much. Um I prepared some responses. Uh I think the first one is in relation to question 16 about the apparent contradiction. Um so this is between where funds are severely constrained relative to the victim
Speaker A
population whether individual monetary dispersement is the le least efficient vehicle for achieving durable impact. Uh and then we we argue that um immediate individual cash transfers to victims um we we still argue for that. So essentially we don't see a contradiction
Speaker A
between the two. We we actually see that these statements operate at different levels of allocation. So to break it down a little bit more in paragraph 41 we address the strategic architecture of of the overall award which is how the
Speaker A
bulk of severely constrained funds should be deployed to achieve durable and structural impact. And at that scale, individual monetary transfers are inefficient because they're too small to change anyone's economic circumstances and are quickly absorbed into daily consumption, particularly if one of the
Speaker A
smaller announce is the one that the court decides to go with, which we don't advocate for, I should say. Um, and then paragraphs 55 and 54 address a different question, which is that there there's a need for recognition and relief function
Speaker A
of reparations at the fund at the point of dispersement. So immediate individual transfers serve as an acknowledgement function that collective programming cannot replicate. So we want um an acknowledgement of replica of of um reparations at the individual level.
Speaker A
However, there's um there's a need to have something that's very time-sensitive. Um so thinking about um testimony documents such as the direct plea to let us eat. So I mean it's really addressing the fact that the communities are under immense duress and
Speaker A
it um we really recommend a mixed portfolio. So one that has a bulk of funds directed towards collective um and structural investment with smaller deliberately bounded component for immediate individual transfers. And just to say that this has a precedent in
Speaker A
the Angongwan case in which 15 million euros was granted for collective programming alongside 37.4 4 million in individual symbolic awards. So the two elements are not competing for the same purpose. U they're actually answering different questions that the chamber is
Speaker A
arguably seeking to resolve. Um and I should also say that um the economic literature and postconlict reconstruction and transitional literature rep uh justice reparations literature is also consistent on this.
Speaker A
So really where funds are severely constrained relative to the victim population, individual monetary dispersement is the least efficient vehicle for achieving durable impact.
Speaker A
And this has three compounding reasons which is first that it's just a very small amount for anything to take shape.
Speaker A
Secondly, that there's a huge transaction cost as has more or less been acknowledged throughout the course of the day of uh identifying, verifying and dispersing individual payments. And then third, individual cash uh distributions um in severe in context of
Speaker A
severe scarcity such as Darur and Chad carry a real risk of generating or exacerbating intercom community conflicts. And then to move on to question 17. Uh this is yes in effect given the reality of the situation that exists at present um you
Speaker A
would suggest that that that the the more effective delivery of reparations uh would be those which are communitybased in one form or another.
Speaker A
I think they're both effective and I think they both need to take place. So there's a symbolic reparations you'd need cash transfers on an individual level but the most impactful on this largest scale is that that is collective
Speaker A
and one is collectively decided but you as you that's mean it is a bit contradictory because you've just said a moment ago that one of the problems with delivering um cash payments as it were is identifying who's actually entitled
Speaker A
and getting them to them exacerbating as you say community problems. So, so what would be the purpose of doing that? Why would you why would we want to do that?
Speaker A
Well, it would the point would be to really recognize that there is an individual harm that has taken shape and also a collective one. So, I mean I think it's to be able to show that. So I mean it it would be a small amount
Speaker A
that's that's why the dispersal should go as little as possible towards the individual cash transfer and more towards the larger um cash trans larger programming on collective side but I'm afraid I feel as though I'm not accurately answering your question.
Speaker A
Well, I think you are answering it, but yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, and as Christie has corrected me, there's a really an acute need for um I mean, communities are under huge duress on an individual level. So, there's a
Speaker A
real need for something anything. I mean, as as participants have said in in one of the reports, I mean, there's a real need to people need to literally eat. So there is an and not only that but um
Speaker A
huge thing that comes with multi-donor trust funds across all types of postconlict context is where you can either crowd in or crowd out capacity.
Speaker A
So if you have too much money at any one time people fight too long about how that money ought to be spent or if you have too little it doesn't go anywhere.
Speaker A
So there's a real need to deliberate uh to get to show something immediately to show that the court was actually taking seriously what is taking shape on the ground and listening to 20 odd years of um of testimony and of of harm. So
Speaker A
there's a real need to show something immediately even just symbolically whilst recognizing that the larger process as I'll get into when thinking about ways that you can actually structure a far more deliberative liberative and inclusive process would would actually enable different civic
Speaker A
groups on the ground to decide how funds ought to be decided. So it's really think recognizing like hey here's one payment that sort of it's not in any way representative of what you've gone through but we recognize that you're
Speaker A
under immense need. However, there's a much larger process which is going to take time and which you will lead that that you will that that will be essential to this and that's where the larger discussion will take shape about
Speaker A
how um reparations ought to to take shape. But also that's so important because it it gives agency to those who have been made agencyless throughout this entire process. And arguably that was the main point of the crimes against
Speaker A
humanity that took shape was to make these individuals and communities agencyless. Um does that help clarify?
Speaker A
Yes. I mean I still um I I still think what you're actually saying um is that um it's community-based um reparations that absolutely should stop.
Speaker A
My fear really is just that if community based reparations are are absolutely the way forward. However, if it's the only way forward, it is going to be a slow process to a communities as as my colleagues have already pointed out.
Speaker A
It's already a very slow and painful process. People who are 20 are now 40.
Speaker A
People who are 30 are now 50. That we risk replicating that if there's not something that takes shape immediately.
Speaker A
Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Um so I'll move on to question 17 now. So this is about channeling mechanisms for direct beneficiary engagement. Um and so the real key here is which actually comes to the point that was being made just a
Speaker A
moment ago is to think about how there can be um work through what's already on the ground rather than rep creating a parallel instrument. Um and this isn't about replacing what's on the ground.
Speaker A
It's literally about working through it. Um and so there's a concrete mechanism which I would recommend. First and foremost, um this would be something that is along the lines of a woman specific advisory or consultation service structures which is separate
Speaker A
from the camp's general leadership and it's modeled on the same methodology that was actually used to gather the testimony that was been that informed the report. So this is direct gender segregated engagement rather than engagement mediated through elders.
Speaker A
Um and this is to recognize that there is all types of intersectional tension. Not from the interpreter. Can we slow down please?
Speaker A
I'll do my best. I'm really I apologize. Um it's really important uh there is to come up with a unified voice in any society especially one which has been affected by by these kind of crimes. It takes time. There are there are
Speaker A
fractures amongst them. And so we really encourage a model of um that that centers or at least takes um gives women specific advisory or consultation um its own lane essentially. And so this would be this would have protected representation on
Speaker A
allocation or oversight committee which is has reserved seats for women and where relevant for survivors of sexual violence and persons with disabilities rather than leaving the composition to existing hierarchy. We recognize that um a new type of hierarchy emerges in the
Speaker A
situation in which the victims are in um which is which is very unfavorable to certain groups particularly women and and other um and disabled individuals.
Speaker A
And third, we really encourage working through and resourcing structures that already exist and are already trusted. I have to say this is probably the most important point um which is really thinking through first and foremost as all of us will be familiar with the
Speaker A
current conflict women emergency response rooms and Takaya networks which are documented in the testimony are extremely important as delivery partners in their own right and they've done this despite um the lack of international support in the in the country and
Speaker A
actually have done this through remittances and the broader um international um diaspora And so it'd be really important to work with uh these particular groups. Um and and also I will also say that um in the current conflict particularly in the the
Speaker A
last year or so just going to tell you that translating English into Arabic involves a lot more words in Arabic.
Speaker A
All right, I'll go even slower to account for. Um so even in the midst of the current conflict or especially in the midst of the current conflict, it has now been possible to direct more humanitarian assistance through um from
Speaker A
international the international community despite the pull out of um US aid and these kind of things. Working more in collaboration with um emergency response rooms. There has been more of an effort that has been reasonably successful to actually connect
Speaker A
international mechanisms of which this would certainly be a in line with to work through community groups that are on the ground and recognize that these are delivery partners in their own right and they're not really consult consult and so um and the fourth draws upon
Speaker A
experiences um from other conf conflicts particularly the Syrian conflict where there's this civil society support room um which has been really important for um getting around 500 different civil society groups in Syria to come together and deliberate about how humanitarian
Speaker A
assistance could be um delivered in an active conflict. And um this took time. It was done under the um umbrella of Stefan de Mura, the UN special envoy to Syria at the time, but it was a UNled um
Speaker A
entity. And uh this was enabled an independent grievance and feedback channel which was um administered through the implementing partner rather than through camp leadership. So it's actually a way that you can kind of um work with what's there whilst also leveraging the
Speaker A
international communities and so that the beneficiary who feels excluded or mis implementing partner sorry um and a beneficiary that feels excluded or mis misallocated has a route that does not require the endorsement of the same authority structure that may be the
Speaker A
source of the problem. So it's actually tries its best to find a way to avoid conflicts over how to disperse um things to to create a collective um redress and the Syrian civil society support room um was really important for ensuring
Speaker A
community buyin as I've already argued and I think one thing that's come up really really distinctly today and I really want to esage your concerns as much as possible though they are they are very reasonable and and deeply
Speaker A
important in the Sudin context is that this is one way that you can work around the militarized capture which defines the war in Sudan both 20 years ago and the war in Sudan now. This is a militarized um kleptocracy which uh the
Speaker A
war is about being able to control resources um many of which do not flow through the national budget um and have not done so for decades. And of course aid of which anything that would would come from this court uh would in part be
Speaker A
a kind of of aid um does get caught up in that. So it's really thinking about how is it that you can desenter the armed men with guns uh and actually center civic group communities on the ground who are invested in a darur and
Speaker A
in a Sudan that is peaceful and does not fall trap to this enduring persistent predatory political economy in Sudan and especially Darur which uh does not work for everyone and actually works very effectively for a small minority um of
Speaker A
for those who can be entrepreneurs for violence um arguably um which is certainly what's taking shape um with with in this particular case. So it's really thinking about how is it that we can disrupt and create a kind of um
Speaker A
cocoon against this really predatory um and coercive and extortionate political economy. Um and so I think they're not capturing the nuance in the Arabic.
Speaker A
Okay, I will go even slower. And what's the answer? All right, thank you. I'll repeat.
Speaker A
Should I rephrase that again? Would that Yeah, that the question is you say um uh sorry, Madam President, that we're being told that the um the full nuance is not being captured in the Arabic because of the speed, but we're so he's suggesting
Speaker A
he rephrase just to make sure that's captured. Yeah, it is. Yeah. Thank you. So, I'll say it again and and I sincerely apologize to um Arabic translators. It's especially important that this is made across. Um it's basically the way of working
Speaker A
through something like the Syrian civil and [clears throat] maybe let's call it a Darur civil society support room u just for the time being. The whole point of this would be to create a way that you can insulate the dispersal of any
Speaker A
type of aid, in this case reparations, that would actually um not be subject to the capture which defines the war in Sudan 20 years ago, of which one of the entrepreneurs who who was very effective um at imposing violence at that time is
Speaker A
is here. but also um forges a type a new type of um society that actually um is trying its best to work for everybody rather than those who are really good at at um taking up arms essentially. So I hope
Speaker A
that reasonably Yeah. Yes. But sorry then then can I go back to my question um now that you've reexplained it?
Speaker A
Um how do you insulate the delivery of reparations? That's that's the the the answer that we're looking for if at all possible.
Speaker A
Okay. So I know that um some colleagues have been very they want more of a principled response. I will give a few more um sort of conc relatively comparatively concrete examples to to hopefully um Syria I mean you know you've given that
Speaker A
example and you say that that's been effective um do you know I mean you've been working in Sudan and all the rest do you know of any organization that either presently exists or could be established um uh to um to deal with that.
Speaker A
It's absolutely the emergency support support rooms. These are they are they deserve the Nobel Peace Prize. They won the Chattam House award just this past just this year. Um they have done the impossible under the most horrific circumstances. And these have been women
Speaker A
led uh enormously so by everyday people who are doing their utmost working through a diaspora in many instances providing funds rather than the international community because the international community as you rightfully raise objections about the fear that money will go into the wrong
Speaker A
hands. there has been uh there's been so little assistance in what is literally the world's worst humanitarian crisis precisely for the reasons which you raised which are entirely reasonable.
Speaker A
However, it has meant that we the world has neglected the the the most pressing humanitarian uh crisis certainly in my lifetime and hopefully within the rest of my lifetime though if if we don't disrupt this trend we are at risk of
Speaker A
reproducing it. So I would say it's absolutely incumbent to take seriously those community groups who have worked um who who really have doing all the things that colleagues have described to think about how you can be um both
Speaker A
transparent and hidden in a con an active conflict um how they can you can and not only that but prior to the war they were actively documenting this militarized kleptocracy that I've described and detail in my academic work
Speaker A
um they were the ones at the forefront of that of really saying these are military held businesses. We need to not work with them. We need to stop them and so on. So, it's really building with what's there rather than actually trying
Speaker A
to impose or create something entirely different. I think that's that's not at all what would be encouraged.
Speaker A
We need to distinguish that reparations. Yes. And I'm making a clumsy distinction here when reparations are not humanitarian aids. I will say um I I respect that. I I'm just as a economic historian, I'm thinking about resource flows more broadly. Um so it's analogous
Speaker A
but it is not the same and I I fully recognize that and I hope the court does.
Speaker A
Um I will now move on to the third question um which is for me to answer which is about Otach camp and whether Otach is um really how how much how indicative or sort of how representative it is of Darur. And so I'll just say um
Speaker A
yes we might need to ask to go into private session, but I don't think Can you just be sensitive about that?
Speaker A
All right. I'll just say in very general terms without um in to prevent having to go into a private session that um Madame President, I wonder if it is sensible to just briefly dip into private session.
Speaker A
Yes. All right. Uh let's go into private session. Thank you. Now that we're on close session, a point in relation to humanitarian organizations.
Speaker A
Yes. Also because you refer that it was maybe relevant for the trust. Thank you.
Speaker A
Um, thank you very much. I think it is. Um, I think we're back in open now, aren't we?
Speaker A
Yes, we we are in open session. We are in open session. Yes. Just one We're back in open session. Madame President, um I'll be extremely brief. I just want to say um that we are indebted to the tireless work of not only our Sudin
Speaker A
partners and Dr. Benson uh Strowmire and Miss Mara, but also to the bravery and tenacity of all those victims who were interviewed um and engaged with this process and all of you who've been involved in the trial proceedings. I
Speaker A
know how challenging uh the evidence must have been. Um our simple um argument to conclude is that we strongly advise that the reparations order is iterative, flexible and pragmatic and that and and fundamentally ambitious um and truly reparative um and that any the
Speaker A
most ambitious it can be uh will be a clarion call to the international community and that's fundamentally what we need. So thank you very much.
Speaker A
Yes. And um we've come now to the defense. Uh Mr. Li. [clears throat] Yes. Thank you, Madame President. Your honors. And because we were in private session when this was discussed, I expect my um submissions to be no longer
Speaker A
than 30 minutes. And we have actually read your interesting ideas, Mr. Lee, if I may put it that way.
Speaker A
Um, the defense for Mr. Abdel Haman [clears throat] takes the floor uh before you for the final time in this case and in a full cycle moment. It does so on the very first substantive issue it addressed over six years ago on the
Speaker A
17th of July 2020 before pre-trial chamber 2 that is reparations six years later later following the confirmation of charges a full trial and your judgment of conviction now pending appeal the defense stance on reparation has not shifted by an inch
Speaker A
driven by the resolve of Mr. Abel Haman who has repeatedly expressed himself to this effect. The defense addresses you one last time to demand as it always has that the victims of the crimes committed in 2003 and 2004 in Kodum Bindi Mukjar
Speaker A
and the ledge obtain reparations whenever he spoke on this matter Mr. Abdul Raman was met with disbelief.
Speaker A
His words were discarded as simple lip service and assigned no weight at all. I am not here to challenge that determination today. The matter is currently pending before the appeals chamber and it would be inappropriate to reopen it.
Speaker A
Furthermore, it is out of deference to the appeals chamber ongoing deliberation that Mr. Abd Raman will not speak today.
Speaker A
All that needed to be said has been said. He prays for the salvation of the victims and demands that they Your honor, very sorry to object, but I don't have the sights because I did not see this coming. But you, I believe, in the past
Speaker A
have been very clear about council representing how much Mr. Abdul Ramen cares about the victims and have talked about that. Um, the LRV has also spoken about the effect on the victim's community when uh we hear these um
Speaker A
submissions about how strongly Mr. Ablo Ramen feels for the victims in Wadisawa and Mukjar.
Speaker A
Your objection would have any merit if I was adding anything to what he said repeatedly in this courtroom.
Speaker A
Moment um Mr. Nichols, I appreciate the objection. I was um going to point out that we had already said we didn't accept this, but Mr. Louch has already pointed out that we have said we do not accept um what he says uh in relation to
Speaker A
the victims. Um however, Mr. Louche remembering that this is the one real occasion when the victims of this um uh these attacks um are listening in. Um I think as a matter of if nothing else common courtesy it is probably better to
Speaker A
move to another topic. What has been said has been said and today the defense takes the floor to match these words with action. Demar um the chamber did not consider it necessary to address questions to the defense regarding its
Speaker A
submissions on reparations. I infer from this that they are perfectly clear and have been understood without any need to revisit them.
Speaker A
The defense has articulated its submissions and proposals around the adoption of three additional principles of reparation which the defense asks the chamber to endorse under article 751 of the statute.
Speaker A
I will not repeat them here. The defense has provided an extensive demonstration of the customary law nature of these three principles.
Speaker A
The demonstration of these three principles of customary international law has been challenged by none of the participants in these proceedings.
Speaker A
Only the office of the prosecutor requested that you reject the defense submissions on this aspect yet without disputing either the substance of the demonstration nor its conclusion.
Speaker A
But the office of the prosecutor is fighting yesterday's battle. In paragraph four and five of its observations, the prosecution relies on judgment 0 A4 delivered by the honorable appeals chamber in this case on 18th of December 2020 concluding that the defense submissions
Speaker A
have already been ruled upon. No, they have not. The precise question decided by the appeals chamber in its OA4 judgments was whether as requested then by the defense preliminary reparations proceedings could be opened as early as the pre-trial phase.
Speaker A
The adoption of the three principles of reparations proposed by the defense was not put forward in 2020.
Speaker A
Nor had the demonstration of their customary status been made. What is now before the app your chamber is therefore an entirely novel issue regarding the adoption of these three new principles.
Speaker A
Not a single submission presented before you by the parties or participants dispute these principles.
Speaker A
In fact, the LV praises in our filings the constructive and victim-friendly character of the defense submissions.
Speaker A
There is therefore a clear consensus surrounding the adoption of the principles we advance with the sole exception of the prosecution's unsubst unsubstantiated objection that runs counter to all its official statements in favor of victims.
Speaker A
In any case, the OTP will have no standing to appeal your reparation order under article 82 paragraph 4 of the statute which reserves that right to appeal for the LV, the convicted person or a bonafide owner.
Speaker A
It is hard to conceive how the LV could reconcile an appeal against these victim friendly principles with the interests of a client.
Speaker A
Adopt the three principles advanced by the defense, your owners, and your reparations order will acquire the force of rescue decart without delay.
Speaker A
There will be no appeal. It will stand as a landmark advancement for victims of international crimes redounding to the eternal credit of the institution we serve in this solemn o the international criminal court.
Speaker A
In so doing, you will deliver the only interpretation of article 75 of the statute that is compatible with international law, treaties, the practice of international organizations, the jurisprudence of regional human rights courts and general state practice accepted as law, that is international
Speaker A
custom applicable before this court. pursuant to article 211B of the statute. You will thus interpret article 75 of the statute as mandated by article 213 of the statute. That is in a manner consistent with internationally recognized human rights.
Speaker A
First and foremost, the right of victims of international crimes to reparations. That right is enshrined in the Bastion Vanboven principles and guidelines on reparations.
Speaker A
In doing so, you will achieve a giant leap forward for the international criminal court and for victims in relation to what the appeals chamber identified in the Lubanga case as I quote a key feature of the court from
Speaker A
which its success is to a large extent linked. This opportunity to achieve a landmark breakthrough and secure your place in the history of international criminal law is made possible by an al an an alignment of spheres unique to this
Speaker A
case. One of which one in which the defense driven by Mr. Abd Raman's resolved stands before you merely endors not merely endorsing but calling upon you to adopt these three principles in support of reparations.
Speaker A
Such a moment is unprecedented and will not recur anytime soon for this court. I invite you, your honors, not to miss this trrist with history brought before you in this case by the defense through its proposals and by the
Speaker A
by the participants through their absence of opposition. The opportunity is unique and time is of essence.
Speaker A
The following words are not mind nor are they those of the defense. I quote, "The court's activities have gradually strayed from the original objectives given its modest track record and inconsistent effectiveness.
Speaker A
Furthermore, other factors resulting from the breakdown of the world order have compounded these inherent flows, thereby dealing a fatal blow to the credibility of the ICC." End of quote.
Speaker A
These are evidently not the defense's words. What I have just read is an extract from the notice of withdrawal from the Rome statute issued by Chad on the 27th of July 2026.
Speaker A
Unless this process is revoked, Chad will cease to be a state party on the 27th of July 2027, less than 11 months from today.
Speaker A
The defense is committed to actively engaging with the Chadian authorities to persuade them to help this withdrawal process. Yet Chad remains a sovereign nation that will ultimately make its own determination in which as matters stand has decided to depart from this court
Speaker A
for the re very reasons I just cited. On account of its geography, Chad has constantly served as a crucial pillar for the court's operation in Daur.
Speaker A
This holds even greater weight regarding the delivery of reparations to victims as a significant significant number of them presently lived within its borders and the country pro often provides the safest and most practical access route into daur.
Speaker A
Sudan remains embroiled in war and refuses to cooperate as your chamber as your chamber has expressly observed.
Speaker A
Sudan's answer to the chamber's questions on reparations alongside with the complete absence of any Sudanese representatives at this hearing are unmistakable proof that no cooperation can be expected from that quarter.
Speaker A
Bereft of both Sudan and Chad, executing reparations, which is already a daunting task, may well prove impossible.
Speaker A
Clock is thus ticking. We have under a year to execute the core reparations for victims. Beyond that point, it is highly probable that every step will become infinitely more challenging.
Speaker A
This is the reason why the defense submitted concrete recommendations in paragraph 52-61 of its consolidated response aiming for the rapid delivery of core reparations to victims via a multi-phase approach.
Speaker A
It is also why the defense requests in paragraph 13 to 18 of its response to the trust fund that you reject the trust fund submissions seeking to expand reparations to the entirety of the four Masalit and Zagawa communities of Zafur
Speaker A
while prior prioritizing collective measures and postponing individual compensation to a later date with Chad's withdrawal and Sudan persistent non-ooperation There will be in all probability no later.
Speaker A
Now is already late enough when it comes to repairing harm inflicted back in 2003 and 2004.
Speaker A
The multi-phase approach advanced by the defense places financial compensation for the 1,592 participating victims represented by the LV in this case at the very forefront.
Speaker A
This initial phase could have been launched immediately had the trust fund taken a proactive stance in securing funds for victims in Daur.
Speaker A
It failed to do so. However, now is not the moment for blame, but for swift and determined action.
Speaker A
Your chamber has made its has made it known that it does not plan to deliver its reparations order immediately. So be it, but this ought not to stop the chamber from directing the trust fund without delay from directing the trust
Speaker A
fund without delay. Ideally at as this hearing draws to a close to mobilize all available resources towards fundraising for D force victims.
Speaker A
This multi-phase approach may require the delivery of a ruling order instead of a oneoff order to adapt as events unfold.
Speaker A
Contrary to what was submitted earlier, issuing such an order falls within the scope of your discretionary powers and does not require an amendment to the statute.
Speaker A
The defense took initiative back in November 2025, securing some limited fusion and remain fully prepared to support the trust fund fundraising campaign in any way needed.
Speaker A
A three months period seems a fair window to meet again and review the sums the TFV has successfully gathered for the victims.
Speaker A
Given that the next session of the ISP is set to close on the 17th of December 2026, the defense suggests that the trust fund deliver its initial report on fundraising progress and state commitments right after the ISP around
Speaker A
the 21st of December. Should the collected and pledged funds suffice, the chamber could then order the commencement of phase one reparations in January 2027.
Speaker A
Otherwise, the chamber could grant an additional grace period for fundraising to proceed. Phase one will contest consist in paying financial compensation for the benefit of the 1592 participating victims. The exact amount will depend on the funds raised and made available by the trust
Speaker A
fund as well as the individual arm assessed for each victim based on the schedule for preium duris proposed by the defense at paragraph 31 of its consolidated response of the 3rd of July.
Speaker A
This financial compensation can be paid individually to each participating victim. These victims are known, identified, located and reachable.
Speaker A
Their arm is likewise likewise documented. There is therefore no reason to delay the payment of their compensation.
Speaker A
Secure money transfer mechanisms to Sudan to which the defense refers at paragraph 61 of its consolidated response do exist and can be utilized.
Speaker A
These pro these provide in our view the simplest and most efficient response to your question madam madame president uh about insulating the del the delivery of reparation.
Speaker A
The objective the defense asks the chamber to set is for this phase one of reparations to be completed before Chad's withdrawal, should it be confirmed, becomes effective, namely prior to the 27th of July 2027.
Speaker A
The defense will remain fully mobilized towards this end. Parallel to phase one, the defense submits that the registry should undertake the identification of all other direct and indirect victims of the attacks in Kadum and Bindi and of the detentions, mistreatment and
Speaker A
executions in Mugjar and Dej. The registry should likewise assess the arm in preparation for a second phase of reparations involving financial awards for their benefit. As soon as these other victims are identified and their arm are quantified, this phase two of
Speaker A
operations can be considered drawing upon additional resources raised by the TFV. In the meantime, once all identified direct and indirect victims have received individual compensation for their arm, the chamber may order that further reparations of a more collective nature be awarded
Speaker A
subjects to the availability of remaining funds. That's the phase three. Orders regarding restitution, land recognition and other modalities of reparations can be issued at this stage.
Speaker A
If adopted by the chamber, the multi-phase reparations framework proposed by the defense will ensure that effective implementation of reparations for the victims at the very least the 1,592 victims participating represented by the LV within a tight time frame compatible
Speaker A
with Chad's announced withdrawal. If it is to succeed within the remaining window of time, this strategy cannot be put on hold pending the appeals chamber judgment on Mr. Abdel Raman's conviction. It must start now, ideally at the close of this
Speaker A
very hearing for both the TFV's fundraising campaign and the registry's identification of additional victims.
Speaker A
reparations operations must be set in motion without waiting to know whether the conviction will acquire the force of resudic approach we advance demand that this chamber affirm the first additional principle proposed by the defense a principle that will liberate the grant
Speaker A
of reparations from the precondition of a finalized conviction and spare this quote a rerun of the tragic breakdown found seen in the BMBA case.
Speaker A
There is no prospect of this first principle being successfully appealed by the parties holding standing under article 82 paragraph 4 of the statute and can it can thus be executed immediately free from any threat of being overturned to optimize the mobilization of funds
Speaker A
triggering the responsibility of the government of Sudan and its members while accessing assets frozen under Security Council resolution 1591 represents an available and practical solution that fully complies with paragraph 2 of Security Council resolution 1593.
Speaker A
Both the courts, the court and the victims stand to benefit from the imple implementation of this solution in accordance with the second additional principle proposed by the defense. As with the first principle, no appeal is seriously conceivable under
Speaker A
article 82 paragraph four of the statute save by the bonafide owners of the funds drawn upon namely members of the Sudanese government.
Speaker A
It will then be up to those individuals such as Mr. Albashir, Mr. Usain or Mr.
Speaker A
Aruin to appear before this court should they so choose to appeal the chamber's order placing their assets and property at the disposal of reparations as is their right under article 82 paragraph 4 of the statute.
Speaker A
The absolute priority accorded to individual reparations measures in the form of financial cons compensation is anonymously favored across all submissions before this chamber. Even the trust funds conceds that victims consistently and strongly expressed a desire for direct individual financial
Speaker A
recognition. It's a quote of paragraph 110 of the mission. before going to propose going on to propose something else.
Speaker A
The award of individual financial compensation constitutes the sole direct and immediate measure capable of prompt execution and subject to the outcome of the trust fund immediate fundraising under the first and add and second additional principles proposed by the
Speaker A
defense within less than a year. That is why the third additional principle giving priority to individual measures is necessary complementing the preceding two additionals principles to achieve the swift delivery of reparations.
Speaker A
Like the first two, the adoption of the third additional principle by the chambers by the chamber carries no risk of appeal under article 824.
Speaker A
It can therefore be implemented immediately free from any threat of subsequent reversal. International criminal justice is not a a smooth journey.
Speaker A
Yet there are moments when the stars of international criminal justice align perfectly to permit to permit a monumental leap forward.
Speaker A
Thanks to the position chosen by Mr. Hamman and the instructions conveyed to his defense. Such an alignment exists today in this very case.
Speaker A
You have before you, your honors, an unobstructed path to interpret article 75 of the statute in full accordance with internationally recognized human rights principles, most notably the individual right of victims to individual reparations free from any condition as proclaimed in particular by the
Speaker A
Bassuni Vanbven principles and guidelines adopted by the UN General Assembly. In so do doing, you will exercise the discretion vested in you strictly as mandated by article 21 paragraph 3 of the statute.
Speaker A
You will guide this court across a major milestone in fulfilling the ICC mandate. Ultimately, you will achieve a monumental stride forward for the victims of international crimes in Daur whose perpetrators the security council entrusted this quote to prosecute in
Speaker A
resol resolution 1593. and you will demonstrate that despite the criticisms that I quote, the ICC remains worthy of the magn magnificent man magnificent magnificent mandate bestowed upon it by states in Rome in 1998 and it merits their continued the
Speaker A
continued and unwavery commitment of states. Seize this hour your honors. sees this seize this moment to forge a historic leap forward for the victims in Daur for this court and for the future of international criminal justice. I thank
Speaker A
you um Mr. As you are well aware, this hearing is being um attended remotely and I also think partly in the public gallery by victims or relatives of victims.
Speaker A
And what you have just outlined to us very fluently and eloquently as is your won't um is a set of steps which you make sound as though they can happen just like that.
Speaker A
And that may have the effect of misleading those who listen into thinking that is what may happen.
Speaker A
It is only right, I think, to point out that these reparation proceedings are in effect um against uh uh uh your lean um Ali Abraham, but he has absolutely no means, as far as the court knows, of ever meeting any
Speaker A
such claims. And accordingly any money that uh is is going to be there for the meetings of any reparation uh for the for to meet the terms of any reparation order we make has to be as you point out raised by [snorts]
Speaker A
funding. And it is also well known that that is a long and torturous exercise and your proposed reparation principles would have no effect whatsoever on that exercise.
Speaker A
So if the idea is to persuade us that your principles mean that money will be f more quickly raised um then I have to say um we do not accept that submission and it would be quite wrong uh as I say
Speaker A
um I believe to mislead anyone who is listening to this um that it is the simple ABC that you seem to suggest.
Speaker A
So I want to make that [snorts] quite clear. Thank you, Madame President. The difficulties that you mentioned are actually the perfect demonstration of the relevance of principles one and two proposed by the defense and I thank you for that. Now the solutions that def the
Speaker A
defense is asking you to implement there is one thing that is sure is that they have never been tried. And there's also another thing that is sure is that all the parties and and the participants in this room who had full opportunity to
Speaker A
explain why the propositions of the defense were uh stupid or could not be implemented did not do so. So I think you have all elements before you and you will make your determination. That's your role and I defer to it. But this is
Speaker A
what we had to propose and without any impression or doubt that we were misleading any victim listening to us.
Speaker A
What we are are proposing is based on a very comprehensive you know it I could not repeat it now but a very comprehensive demonstration of international law and especially especially customary international law. Article 21 paragraph 3 requires the Rome statute to be
Speaker A
interpreted in this light and this is what we are asking. Yes. Um as you point out and that's why we didn't ask any questions.
Speaker A
um nor did we expect any further submissions. This is a matter of pure law and interpretation and we understand full well um what you are submitting and it's our decision as to whether or not and I would be very glad if I assisted
Speaker A
you in doing that. Um however, what I am um pointing out Mr. L here is that um even with your principles were they to be um adopted by um the court it would still take considerable time to raise them any money that might be
Speaker A
appropriate as reparations in this case I don't want to remake story but that's why I regretted that these fundraising efforts did not start earlier Yes. Well, uh this is where we are.
Speaker A
I think with uh strong rulings on your side, on the side of your chamber, uh the commitment of the state parties to support operations for the court is strong. As the trust fund uh told you, we can insist on the urgency, including
Speaker A
as a result of Chad's withdrawal. And well, I cannot predict you now that this the trust fund will be successful in raising enough money before the end of December. And that's why I also suggested that this pos period could be
Speaker A
uh uh Yeah. Yeah. Mr. Liy, I think we we've dealt with this. I've made the point um and and that is the point that I'm most concerned about is that nobody is misled by what in what are submissions by you.
Speaker A
That's that's it. This is what you're submitting can happen. I hope that nobody is misled.
Speaker A
Right. Thank you. Yes. Um right. Thank you, Mr. Lry. Um yes. Um we we've really sat um I know um sorry microphone. Um I I really think we've sat long enough on on on this occasion. Um so firstly can I um thank
Speaker A
um all the um the the parties the um uh to this um uh hearing uh the participants and the amichi uh for their helpful um submissions.
Speaker A
Um contrary to Mr. Lache I don't know where Mr. got the um impression from um that there was any chance um or why he said that we were not going to deliver our judgment straight away. Um he is perfectly
Speaker A
correct in that. Um, as everyone will have gathered, this is a complicated an extremely complicated um set of facts and submissions uh to consider uh and in particular um given the uh situation in Sudan um how any reparations uh can be
Speaker A
delivered and we are of course aware of how long the victims have been waiting but in the end we have to consider what is the best way of delivering those reparations.
Speaker A
Um many of the victims as I said earlier um have been following or at least will be made aware at some stage of what has happened in these proceedings.
Speaker A
And the trial chamber wishes to make it plain that whatever the outcome of their deliberations, it fully appreciates the pain and the suffering which the victims have undergone and which as a result of the continuing seemingly intractable and regrettably
Speaker A
underpublicized conflict that still continues in Sudan. That pain and suffering has not only been further exacerbated but also in fact created um a new uh body of such victims.
Speaker A
Um, as um, Professor uh, Benson Strommyer said a moment ago, uh, this is the world's worst humanitarian crisis and we are fully appreciative of that.
Speaker A
So having said all that uh we will um now adjourn this hearing and we will have to deliberate as quickly as we can uh to decide uh what is the best course of action to take. So um with that uh
Speaker A
this hearing is adjourned. All right.
Topics:Abd Al Rahman caseInternational Criminal Courtreparations hearingland restitutionvictim recognitionIDP campsrefugee campspopulation estimatesSudanChad
![[FLOOR] Abd Al Rahman Case: Reparations Hearing, 8 Sept… — Transcript](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PyO_KAAIm0I/maxresdefault.jpg)
