Speaker A
All right. The International Criminal Court is now in session, panel international. Please be seated.
ICC reparations hearing for Abd Al Rahman case focusing on victims' interests and reparations in Darfur, Sudan, held on 8 Sept 2026.
Key Takeaways
- The ICC reparations process prioritizes victims’ interests and aims to provide meaningful redress beyond prosecution.
- Confidentiality in private sessions is critical to protect sensitive information and ensure fair proceedings.
- Reparations for mass crimes require balancing symbolic recognition with practical benefit distribution to victims.
- Durable solutions such as reconstruction and rehabilitation are favored over temporary displacement assistance.
- The legal framework and prior jurisprudence guide reparations but face challenges in large-scale conflict contexts like Darfur.
What the video covers
- The hearing is the first reparations session in the ICC case against Ali Muhammad Ali Abd al-Rahman related to Darfur, Sudan.
- Victims' representatives, defense, prosecution, registry, Trust for Victims, and various NGOs participated in the open session.
- The court emphasized the importance of confidentiality during private sessions and ordered all parties to maintain strict confidentiality.
- The hearing shifts focus from prosecution to victims’ reparations, reflecting the ICC’s dual role in justice and victim redress.
- Written submissions from all parties were reviewed in advance, with oral submissions expected to be succinct and focused.
- Discussions included challenges in reparations for mass crimes, the legal framework under Article 75 of the Rome Statute, and feasibility issues.
- Victims highlighted the need for durable reconstruction and rehabilitation rather than temporary assistance in camps.
- The court considered jurisprudence on restitution aiming to restore victims to pre-crime conditions as much as possible.
- The hearing addressed collective and individual victim recognition, ethnic targeting, and the complexities of reparations implementation.
- The session included expert testimony and participation from Sudanese displaced persons’ committees and human rights coalitions.
Chapters
- 00:00Opening and Introduction of Participants
- 02:56Representatives of IDPs and Refugee Camps
- 12:00Court’s Procedural Orders and Confidentiality
- 17:23Focus on Victims and Reparations Framework
- 26:41Victims’ Needs: Rehabilitation and Reconstruction
- 40:13Jurisprudence on Restitution and Collective Victim Recognition
- 49:42Implementation Challenges and Community Impact
Full Transcript — Download SRT & Markdown
Speaker A
Yes. Good morning to all. Madame Registrar, no, Mr. Registrar, can you call the case, please?
Speaker A
Good morning, Madam President. Good morning, honors. This is a situation in Darfur, Sudan, in the case of the Prosecutor versus Ali Muhammad Ali Abd al-Rahman. Case reference ICC 02/05-120.
Speaker A
And for the record, we are in open session this time. We'll start, please, with the representatives of the victims.
Speaker A
Wasn't expecting to see you there. Yeah, I was seeing you looking over there. No, we are here, Madame President. Good morning, Madame President, your honors. Good morning, colleagues. Good morning to everyone in and around the courtroom. And special greetings to all of those who are following us in Darfur. The participating victims this morning are represented by Metra, Melissa Bolucier, Kelsey Ryan, Safe Cases, Muhamad Petar, and myself, Natalie from Visting.
Speaker A
Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Visting Housen. Yes, the defense. Good morning, your honors. Good morning, Madam President. Good morning, your honors. Good morning, colleagues.
Speaker A
Together with Mr. Ali Muhammad Ali Abd al-Rahman present in the courtroom today, Madame Navita N, our intern, Madame Anin Khali, and Madame Marcel, Madame Eva Kalb, and Council Yen Edwards, and myself, Sir Luchi.
Speaker A
Yes, thank you, Mr. Lache, and the prosecution. Morning, Madame President, good morning, your honors. Good morning to everybody.
Speaker A
I'm here today with Haido Duke, Diana Saba, Claire Sabatini, Allison Witford, and Edward Jeremy. Thank you.
Speaker A
Yes, thank you, Mr. Nichols. Um, right. I'm not sure. Oh, well, the registry next. Yes.
Speaker A
Good morning, Madam President. Good morning, your honors. Good morning, everybody in and outside of the courtroom. I am joined today by Madame Anor Berto, head of the judicial cooperation unit in the judicial cooperation support section, Natalie Vagnner, the judicial coordinator in the office of the director in the division of judicial services. I will be joined by my colleague Olivia Orondon, associate legal officer in the victim participation and reparations section.
Speaker A
I myself am Philip Ambak, heading the victim participation reparation section on behalf of the Registrar. Good morning.
Speaker A
Thank you. Yes, thank you very much, Mr. Rab. Next, please, the Trust One for Victims.
Speaker A
Good morning, your honors. The Trust for Victims today is represented by Francisca Ecklman’s old staff members of the legal team, Vina Suresh, Nicole Star, Marcelo Martoy, Malud Alnari, and myself, Deborah Arur, the executive director. Thank you.
Speaker A
Thank you very much. Yes. Well, in no particular order, I think, except where they're sitting, can we start with those who are present for the Micas Curi? First of all, Glenn.
Speaker A
Good morning, Madame President, your honors. It's a pleasure to be here. Of course, I appear on behalf of our Sudan partners who are their com, sorry, whose identities must remain confidential. They are represented today in the public gallery, and also on behalf of the Global Legal Action Network, who are also represented in the public gallery today, and my name is Kirsty Sutherland.
Speaker A
Thank you very much indeed. No idea who's—Okay, let's just—Can we have the—Forgive me, Madam President.
Speaker A
I forgot to introduce our expert, Dr. Matt, Matthew Benson Strowmire, who is here on your invitation.
Speaker A
Thank you very much. Yes. Next, can we have the General Coordination Committee of the IDPs and refugee camps in Sudan?
Speaker A
Good morning, Madame President, your honors. My name is Abdul Basid Muhammad, and I'm here on behalf of the General Coordination Committee of the camps in Sudan.
Speaker A
Thank you very much. It's a pleasure. Then, I act. Good morning, Madame President, Arthur Traldy for IAT. We're also represented in the public gallery.
Speaker A
Thank you very much, Mr. Traldy. Been a long time. And finally, Redress, please.
Speaker A
Good morning, Madame President. My name is Mariana Girtz. I'm with Rights for Peace, but our coalition is Redress, Darfur Women Action Group, Uganda Darfur Network for Human Rights, and Queens University Belfast Human Rights Center. Thank you.
Speaker A
Yeah, thank you very much. Before I formally open this session, something I hadn't thought of came to my attention. It is likely that from time to time the court will have to go into private session to deal with information that is necessary for us to make a decision but should not, for various reasons, be made public. So that those in the public gallery understand, that means that you won't be able to hear what's being said. I emphasize there are very good reasons for doing this, and we're going to limit it as much as possible, but it is clear from the written submissions that some aspects may require private session.
Speaker A
A problem which I hadn't anticipated is this: all those who are counsel are bound by the code of conduct, not only the one that applies here but in their own jurisdictions. That means that they know full well that anything discussed in private session is confidential and may not be disclosed to anyone.
Speaker A
However, some of the organizations represented here are not represented by counsel and therefore are bound, as far as we understand it, by no code of conduct to keep the matter confidential.
Speaker A
In order to overcome the problem that otherwise would ensue, that they would have to leave court like everybody else while confidential matters are discussed, subject to any submissions that any of the parties, that is to say the legal representatives of victims or the defense, and I suppose the prosecution was not a party but nonetheless has a duty to the court.
Speaker A
What we propose to say is that we are ordering that the parties, the representatives of the parties who will remain during the parts of the hearing that are in private session, must keep that information confidential and may not discuss that information with anybody at all who has not been present in court. I'm sure it won't be necessary, but the penalty if such information is disclosed is that proceedings for contempt of a court order can be taken.
Speaker A
So unless anybody wants to make any submissions on that, that is the order that we intend to make. Does anybody want to make submissions? No.
Speaker A
Well, thank you very much. Then just before we hear the submissions, can I say a few words?
Speaker A
The hearing, this hearing, is the first in the proceedings against Ali Abd al-Rahman, also known as Ali Kushayb, to have at its forefront the interests of the victims of the crimes of which he was convicted, details of which were fully set out in the trial judgment. That change in focus is reflected by the fact that the common legal representatives of the victims are a party and the prosecution has the status of a participant.
Speaker A
This court came into existence not just to provide a forum where allegations of the commission of the most serious international crimes could be adjudicated when no other forum was available, but as importantly to provide the victims of these crimes with some hope of justice and eventual redress.
Speaker A
Many of the victims will be following these proceedings either in the public gallery or elsewhere.
Speaker A
And it's important that we make it clear that we have received extremely lengthy written documents from all parties and participants.
Speaker A
All of those documents have been carefully considered before this hearing. And indeed, as a result of that consideration, the trial chamber in advance of the hearing sent questions to the parties and participants which we trust will be answered in oral submissions.
Speaker A
The trial chamber expects those submissions to be focused and succinct, and it is not necessary nor expected that submissions that have already been submitted in writing will be repeated.
Speaker A
So, with those—
Speaker A
Um so unless anybody wants to make any submissions on that that is the order that um we intend to make. Um, does anybody want to make submissions? No.
Speaker A
Well, thank you very much. Um, then just before we hear the submissions, can I say uh a few words?
Speaker A
Uh the hearing this hearing is uh the first in the proceedings against Ali Abd al Rahman also known as Ali Kushib to have at its forefront the interests of the victims of the crimes of which he was convicted
Speaker A
uh details of which were fully set out in the trial judgment. That change in focus is reflected by the fact that the common legal representatives of the victims are a party and the prosecution has the status of a participant.
Speaker A
This court came into existence not just to provide a forum where allegations of the commission of the most serious international crimes could be adjudicated.
Speaker A
when no other forum was available, but as importantly to provide the victims of these crimes with some hope of justice and eventual redress.
Speaker A
Many of the victims will be following these proceedings either in the public gallery or elsewhere.
Speaker A
And it's important that we make it clear that we have received extremely lengthy written documents from all parties and participants.
Speaker A
All of those documents have been carefully considered before this hearing. And indeed, as a result of that consideration, the trial chamber in advance of the hearing sent questions to the parties and participants which we trust will be answered in oral submissions.
Speaker A
The trial chamber expects those submissions to be focused and succinct and it is not necessary um nor expected um that submissions that have already been submitted in writing uh will be repeated.
Speaker A
So uh with those words um we'll turn straight away um to the first of those to address us. uh which is um the legal representative of um the victims.
Speaker A
Yes, Madame President. Thank you for this introduction and for giving me the floor on behalf of the participating victims. Um before I start, just a very small housekeeping matter. We have prepared a PowerPoint presentation that accompanies what I'm saying which is
Speaker A
kind of um flowing over your screen while I'm speaking. We wanted to send it to all parties and participants last night which for technical reasons only reached the defense but no one else. It was spammed back to us or was called a
Speaker A
spam from all the other sections. Uh so this is why we couldn't uh disclose it to you before. uh but we will find a way uh that you get an electronic version after this hearing.
Speaker A
Now in our submissions of the 4th of June uh 2026 and our response of 3rd of July that you just mentioned to the parties in Namichi, I hope to have made the victims priorities and expectations with regards to repar reparations very
Speaker A
clear. They are based on first direct consultations conducted by my team and importantly by my field assistants who have accompanied these victims now for more than five years.
Speaker A
Second, two structured questionnaires administered in Arabic played a big role. So far, we received 1,14 responses to the general questionnaire, which is annex 2B of our submissions, which amounts to a response rate of 75% of all my clients, the participating
Speaker A
victims, and 148 responses to the questionnaire designed specifically for women. That's annex 3B of our submissions. the responses given by these women. They are not all participating victims, but still reflect specifically the situation of women in the IDP camps. I will submit an updated
Speaker A
version of both annexes of our written submissions this week. And your honors uh I hope may satisfy themselves that the questions weren't leading and when victims views were divided, I have said so rather than reporting a consensus that actually doesn't always exist. I
Speaker A
also hope to have made my own views on the ICC reparations procedure clear developed after and based on discussions with my clients, endless exchanges and debates with my teams, colleagues, and diligent research and observations on reparations proceedings and procedures
Speaker A
at the court and other international jurisdictions. Other than responding to the chamber's questions, which I will turn to second, I first wish to briefly recall the most important points of our written submissions. They are guided by one central principle above all. Reparations
Speaker A
must be effective. And by effective, we mean capable of being experienced by these victims in their lifetimes as a real change in the circumstances or standing. Effectiveness is not opposed to symbolic reparation. A judicial recognition of dispossession and of the
Speaker A
right to return is in itself a powerful and a much desired remedy. But symbolic and material measures alike must be designed so that they actually reach the people they are meant to repair rather than remaining a mere paper entitlement.
Speaker A
Indeed, for the participating victims, recognition of their experience and harm by the chamber in the trial judgment, which you have already done, was itself an important avenue of justice. But after more than two decades of displacement and suffering, they now
Speaker A
look to you to the court for reparations that are real, timely, and responsive to their present circumstances and needs.
Speaker A
Their message is simple, and I want to quote, "We have waited long enough, and we may not even be here to receive whatever comes.
Speaker A
This is very well encapsulated by participating victim V003 message from the English booth. Can council be requested to slow down please?
Speaker A
There are victims. You hear that? I got a nice note from from Miss Luci. I know I have so much to say that I have to speed up because I know you're watching your clock. But I hope that you will um
Speaker A
be patient with me uh for the last time. Yeah M sorry Ming hasn't I think however the point is um that um it's important obviously that it's interpreted into language that the victims can understand and if you go too fast it's not going to
Speaker A
be absolutely thank you for reminding me. I will slow down and I can already say that I will therefore need more time than I've said.
Speaker A
So V003 participating victim who appeared before your honors he says and I quote there are victims and affected individuals who submitted their files and passed away to the mercy of God. For the period from the year 2003 until today is very long and
Speaker A
whoever was 20 years old has today become 40 and whoever was 30 has become 50. If we wait for more years, we may lose more victims and the compensation funds may return to the trust fund for lack of eligible beneficiaries. End of
Speaker A
quote. So what is the consequence and what does this mean in practice? I would like to empas emphasize four propositions above all others.
Speaker A
Effectiveness rather than symbolism. Urgency because delay itself harms the victims. Flexibility because DAU circumstances are exceptional.
Speaker A
Enforce tailored repar reparations to the diverging preferences of the victims with return to ancestral land as the ultimate objective.
Speaker A
We have been very transparent with the participating victims throughout all our consultations about the limitations and uncertainties of the ICC reparation system. I have deliberately avoided making promises that cannot be fulfilled to avoid causing more harm to my
Speaker A
clients. An order that is purely theoretical risks creating further frustration and harm and this should be avoided at any cost.
Speaker A
The concern is not with the concept of reparations per se, nor with the efforts of the court's different organs working with the victims. It's a structural concern. In my view, the ICC faces fundamental tensions between the very large number of victims potentially
Speaker A
entitled to reparations, the limited resources available for implementation, the difficult and lengthy identification, eligibility assessment and notification processes, security and logistical obstacles like obviously in Dur and the absence of effective cooperation in some situations.
Speaker A
These difficulties were anticipated when the ICC reparations framework was created. Our written submissions recount that the history of the drafting of article 75 of the Rome Statute, which demonstrates that the feasibility of reparations for mass crimes was a
Speaker A
concern from the outset. The structural tensions I describe must not lead the chamber to minimize victim's right or narrow the scope of reparations. Such a logic treats scarcity and insecurity as reasons to narrow the right to reparations, namely fewer beneficiaries, thinner
Speaker A
modalities, deferred delivery. Rather, the present circumstances require the chamber to exercise judicial creativity and to design an order that is flexible, adaptable while remaining the subject of effective judicial oversight.
Speaker A
The practical difficulty of delivering a right should not be guiding for your honors and won't be accepted by my clients. To the contrary, practical difficulty is a reason to design the order carefully. It is not a reason to
Speaker A
reduce what is owed. The extent of a convicted person's liability is measured by the harm his crimes caused and not by the capacity of the institutions that must give effect to it. and my clients trust your honors that you will do
Speaker A
exactly that. Therefore, the chamber is obviously facing a challenging task given the number of potential beneficiaries and the scarce resources, not even to mention the difficulties in access to the field in the present situation.
Speaker A
Moreover, the experience of recent ICC cases demonstrates the urgency for change to the reparations process and illustrates the danger of delay, particularly in the face of large numbers of beneficiaries to reparations.
Speaker A
In the Yongun case, for instance, significant time has already elapsed after the reparations order without implementation commencing and with only a small proportion of potential beneficiaries identified. The consequence is particularly serious for victims who are elderly, vulnerable, or
Speaker A
otherwise at risk of passing before reparations reach them. This is not merely an administrative problem. Delay directly affects the substance of victim's rights.
Speaker A
For an elderly or ailing victim, a reparations process measured in years is not a slower remedy, but in substance, it's no remedy at all. Delay of this kind therefore does not merely affect the timing of reparations. It defeats
Speaker A
the harms and the rights and the right the chambers judgment recognized. That is why urgency is not a plea for administrative efficiency but a component of the victim's substantive entitlement.
Speaker A
In general, the number of potential beneficiaries in recent ICC cases has increased dramatically and you can see it in the graph that we provided. While available resources have not followed the same curve, the chamber should therefore take the implementation
Speaker A
reality into account when designing its order, not by lowering its ambition, but by ensuring that the order contains mechanisms capable of adapting to the specific circumstances of this case and producing actual benefits. The circumstances in Darur make this
Speaker A
particularly important given the exceptional implementation challenges present in the region. The chamber must anticipate among other things the ongoing armed conflict, the central importance of ancestral land to four communities and I will turn to that a bit later. The fact that victims cannot
Speaker A
presently return to their lands because those lands are occupied. inadequate infrastructure for distributing reparations, limited or absent cooperation from Sudanese authorities, the relative to significant insecurity prevailing in Dur and Chad, the limited pres presence of international assistance and the very different circumstances of
Speaker A
victims remaining in Dur, those in refugee camps in Chad and those living in the diaspora.
Speaker A
These factors mean that a uniform rigid reparations model will not adequately respond to the victim's personal situations across participating victims. The most significant form of reparation is ultimately the possibility of returning to their ancestral lands and receiving help to support their integration upon
Speaker A
their return. We therefore propose that the chamber consider a phased approach, the tension being apparent.
Speaker A
Victims need real services now. Yet they refuse anything that would signal permanence in the camps.
Speaker A
But this tension we submit can be resolved. What victims reject is not dur durability but entrenchment structured that treat displacement as settled.
Speaker A
The answer which I developed below is provision that is effective yet inherently temporary and redeployable.
Speaker A
Like for instance mobile clinics, demountable classrooms and shelters that can be dismantled and carried home when return becomes possible. Reparation can therefore be substantial now without prejudicing return later. Accordingly, reparations should provide immediate relief without prejudicing the ultimate
Speaker A
objective of return. More permanent forms of assistance can be deployed when return becomes possible.
Speaker A
Also, the consultations with victims informed us that their needs and preferences differ considerably from community to community. For victims in Daur, preferred modalities include symbolic financial compensation and collective and community-based reparations like for instance income generating activities, medical
Speaker A
assistance, targeted support for particularly vulnerable persons and educational services. These measures respond to the broad and continuing harms caused by crimes that resulted in displacement lasting more than two decades.
Speaker A
For victims in Chad, the situation is different. They remain refugees in a neighboring country, often living in precarious conditions with restricted access to employment, income, and essential services and facing discrimination.
Speaker A
However, their priorities are similar and include decent health care, education for children, food security and sustainability, income generating activities, and greater self-sufficiency.
Speaker A
Views on individual financial compensation are more divided. Some victims fear that cash could generate tensions or be stolen in insecure camp environments. Others urgently need money for medicine, education, and other immediate necess necessities. The chamber should therefore avoid assuming that one
Speaker A
modality of reparations will suit all victims and will have to adopt a flexible and actively supervised order.
Speaker A
It would be wrong to suggest that any reparations order can remedy all of the harm suffered by these victims. Rather, the chamber should issue an order that is meaningful, of course, because it responds to actual harms it needs,
Speaker A
practical because implementation realities are taken seriously, flexible and adaptable because the security and polit political situation and therefore may change and we have to keep this in mind.
Speaker A
Victim centered because the modality should reflect victim's own views and circumstances. And we've given you plenty of material of what this means and act actively supervised by this chamber so that implementations remain transparent and timely.
Speaker A
The chamber should not allow the difficulties inherent in the ICC reparation system to become a reason for limiting the rights of victims. Instead, those difficulties should be seen as a challenge and inform the design of the order and the mechanism for its
Speaker A
implementation. Ultimately, I request the chamber to confront the reality that a reparations order has value only if it can translate the court's recognition of the victim's harms into something they can actually experience during their lifetime.
Speaker A
The victims now asked the chamber to ensure that reparations are not merely a legal conclusion, but a concrete and achievable form of justice adapted to their realities of Darur and Chad in the diaspora and to the diff the different
Speaker A
circumstances of the communities concerned. turning to the harm suffered and regarding the harm suffered by my clients. Although it's at the heart of every step we take, we won't focus on it during today's submissions. It is recognized and reflected in the trial
Speaker A
chamber judgment and absolutely no doubt was left behind. In our written submissions, we have demonstrated in Extenzo and at every opportunity given to us that harm suffered by the participating victims operates at three compounding levels. Individual, family, and community with long-term and
Speaker A
intergenerational consequences perpetuating cycles of poverty, marginalization vulnerability. All I can do at this stage is to pay my deepest respect to my clients and the entire full community and to reiterate the immense suffering caused as a result of the crimes committed by Mr. Rahman at
Speaker A
every imaginable level of their lives since 22 years and until this very day. Your honors must be satisfied that the harm resulted from these crimes and they were approximate cause of the harm.
Speaker A
This is not a test of soul s sole causation. Concurrent causes do not break the chain and the fact that others also caused harm does not reduce the harm the crimes committed by the accused caused. This is why I ask the chamber to reaffirm that
Speaker A
the displacement caused by Mr. Rahman's crimes is a continuing harm subsisting to the date of the order.
Speaker A
Turning to modalities for reparations, the court's reparations framework envisages individual or collective awards. And following consultations and the outcome of the questionnaires I've mentioned, it became clear that a majority of victims or those we've been able to consult with, which are the
Speaker A
participating victims, are favoring both operating together with some distinction by location. This doesn't come as a surprise given the diversity of individuals and their stories in fate. Our submissions have sought to accurately capture the variety of requested modalities and its
Speaker A
feasibility between locations because you also have to make the difference between the four locations we are talking about bindi kudu mukjar and delish you can't all put it in one basket but more than anything other return to the land has been the preeminent focus
Speaker A
of my clients And I would like to play a video of one of our main interlocutors. I can't say more about him, but I would like you to hear his words on this topic.
Speaker A
My message concerns subtitles in English. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. Foreign speech. for for he has some for GBS.
Speaker A
It is against this backdrop that I'm turning to the chamber's question concerning its powers to order restitution of the land and what practical ways it can address restitution.
Speaker A
And I would like to respond as follows. To make my position very clear, the participating victims do not necessarily seek a strict order for the restitution of land to be made by this court. This is not because they do not seek the
Speaker A
return of their land. Make no mistake, this is the absolute priority. Rather, they understand that the court would be unable to enforce the practical delivery of those lands.
Speaker A
This is something that will ultimately be required to be implemented by Sudin authorities in a time of peace.
Speaker A
Instead, the participating victims seek a reparations order that provides a strong foundation to safeguard the eventual return to the ancestral lands when it is safe and possible to do so.
Speaker A
As such, they have expressed a desire for a meaningful judicial decision that recognizes their dispossession and right to return while also expressing the need for the chamber to order practical steps that may help pave the way toward full
Speaker A
restitution in the future. The chamber recognized that the primary livelihood of the four people of the Wadisali and Mukja localities was farming and that land ownership made up the fabric of their lives. You say it in your trial
Speaker A
judgment. The sentencing judgment held that the displacement suffered as a result of the crimes and I quote impacted the social fabric and cultural practices of the Fur as those displaced could no longer hold traditional celebrations and were deprived of land
Speaker A
ownership. Indeed, the judgment found that the displacement caused by the crimes severed the ties that victims have with their land. Accordingly, this chamber has found that the participating victim's connection with their land is directly linked with their identity
Speaker A
and also their subsistence. This connection is rooted in intergenerational possession and cultivation of the land. It is a place of belonging and attachment to culture, identity, and community. And you heard it firsthand in the video. The jurist prudence of the human rights courts and
Speaker A
other human rights resolutions further provide we submit a basis for the court to recognize the dispossession of the land by the participating victims as traditional owners of the land and a right to their return.
Speaker A
Both the Interamerican Court for Human Rights and the African Court of Human and People's Rights have interpreted the right to property to be both individual and collective in nature in nature.
Speaker A
I will provide the trial chamber with the authorities for everything I'm saying. As such, both courts have found that communities and the members of that community with established traditional and ancestral connections to the land have enforcable rights to occupy and
Speaker A
enjoy those lands. This right is not extinguished by a lack of possession. The Interamerican Court has held that and I quote, "The members of ind indigenous people's peoples who have unwillingly left their traditional lands or lost possession thereof maintain
Speaker A
property rights thereto even though they lack legal title unless the lands have been lawfully transferred to third parties in good faith." End of quote.
Speaker A
Once land rights are proven to remain current, actions to return the land to the members of the community must be taken.
Speaker A
In the present case, the chamber has already recognized that the participating victim's community have strong traditional connections to the land and as such their right to such property must be respected by a right to return.
Speaker A
The declaration on the rights of peasants and other people working in rural areas issued by the UN General Assembly in 2018 would also be applicable to the participating victims and the community meeting the definition of any person who engages or seeks to
Speaker A
engage alone or in association with others or as a community in smallcale agricultural production for subsistence.
Speaker A
and who has a special dependency on and attachment to the land. This is article one.
Speaker A
You will understand where I'm going. That declaration explicitly recognizes that those persons have a right to return to their land of which they were arbitrarily or unlawfully deprived, including in cases of natural disasters and or armed conflict. As such, the chamber can
Speaker A
recognize the rights of participating victims to return as a fulfillment of their human right to such land.
Speaker A
Recognize not to be mistaken for order. In answer to the chamber's questions regarding the ability and power to make orders of restitution, article 71 provides explicitly that the court may establish principles relating to reparations in respect of victims
Speaker A
which includes restitution. The court's juristprudence has considered that restitution may include and I quote returning lost or stolen property.
Speaker A
There has been no distinction so far either in the Jewish prudence or the drafting history of the wrong statute regarding whether such property refers to personal property or real property held by individuals or by a collective.
Speaker A
At the heart of the participating victim's request for practical measures is to ensure the future rest the future restitution of the land and this includes participatory land village and livelihood mapping program to document the predisplacement space and I will
Speaker A
explain further and to preserve that information as a basis for future restitution voluntary return reconstruction livelihood hood restoration and other appropriate reparative measures are taken. This will ensure the community and its members that the community and its members are
Speaker A
able to prove their relationship to the land when it is necessary to do so. It will assist the victims to formalize entitlements and ownership to land which can then be enforced and recognized later on. So what is the significance of
Speaker A
all of this in practical terms? First, the victims do not conceptualize return merely as like receiving a house.
Speaker A
Participating victim Ibrahim from Deles, for instance, explains expressly that livelihood is tied to the farms left behind. The displaced currently must rent farmland or surrender part of their harvest whereas their original areas contain the agricultural assets on which
Speaker A
their livelihoods depended. Victims consequently link rehabilitation return housing and agricultural land together and clearly distinguish between temporary assistance in camps and durable reconstruction in the original villages. For them, permanent housing in camp camps risk entrenching displacement, whereas the reconstruction
Speaker A
in the original areas would reconnect housing with farmland and livelihood. Second, there is already an important social and documentary infrastructure that is capable of supporting such mapping. Participating victims repeatedly describe Shikh lever records that still exist, village and household
Speaker A
registers, native administration knowledge, and historic victim databases. These already exist. Sheriff records reportedly identify households and individual family members and are consolidated through IDP leadership structures. Participating victims say records have been maintained over many years and that comparable records exist
Speaker A
for bindi kodum mugdar and deles and they are continuously updated for death birth and movements.
Speaker A
Can can I just interrupt for one moment exist where in the villages? Absolutely. Yes.
Speaker A
Which at the moment is impossible for anybody to get to. No, in in where the participating victims are now, right?
Speaker A
In they holding in Dur. In Dau. Yes, of course. I see. Third, the community structure has survived displacement. Participating victims describe village communities remaining socially identifiable and capable of collectively determining whether a person belonged to a particular village. They also recognize
Speaker A
the danger that an individual sheh for instance could favor relatives and propose cross and therefore propose cross-checking with the surrounding community that is extremely useful for designing an evidentary meth methodology. So I'm not saying your honors not to cause misunderstanding
Speaker A
that everything is there but there is still documentation and actually a lot of memory and the assistance the court could provide is to accompany a more solid um mapping and documentary exercise.
Speaker A
The geographic displacement problem is manageable conceptually even though it is operationally of course difficult.
Speaker A
The consultations refer to an existing demograph demographic map showing where people dispersed and their principal current locations are and earlier databases can supplement that picture.
Speaker A
Finally, the evidence shows why land mapping must preede physical return rather than depend upon it. Villages have been abandoned for approximately two decades. And of course, vegetation has changed. Worlds and infrastructures have been destroyed. And security remains the principal impediment to
Speaker A
return. So the participating victims consistently condition permanent reconstruction and return upon sufficient security. as to how to operationalize the program. I will explain the different operational levels and phasing of the reparatory program. And I apologize for being so detailed, but I
Speaker A
don't think it assists you when I don't explain to you how we heard from our clients it could potentially materialize.
Speaker A
The first layer would be to reconstruct the affected pre-displacement community geography for each relevant location of Bindi, Kadum, Dele and Mchar and where relevant their associated villages.
Speaker A
The exercise would identify the villages existing before the attacks, approximate village boundaries, neighborhoods or share jurisdictions, roads and traditional access routes, water points and wells, schools, health centers, markets and other communal facilities, cemeteries, places of worship and culturally significant locations.
Speaker A
Agricultural areas surrounding the villages, grazing areas and other communal resource areas were relevant. Rivers, waddis, trees, hills and other enduring physical landmarks used locally to orient land boundaries. This is particularly important because the victims indicate that the physical
Speaker A
environment has changed considerably and where small trees have grown, wells and infrastructure have disappeared and villages have remained abandoned for years.
Speaker A
Within the village map, a second layer could record the relationship between households and land. The map should record use and relationship to land, not impose an outside conception of registered individual ownership. For participating households, the mapping form could record could record
Speaker A
residential property being the family or the household associated with this residence. the approximate location of the home, neighboring households, significant physical landmarks, the approximate dimensions were remembered and the construction type and principal structures.
Speaker A
And regarding the agricultural land, it could demonstrate the approximate location, the household that is cultivating or uh or controlling this land before displacement, the local name of the agricultural area, neighboring cultivators, the approximate size or locally understood extent, the crops
Speaker A
normally cultivated, wells, trees, irrigation or other improvements and where the land was individually family or commun communally used. Other livelihood assets connected with the land like livestock areas, water sources, storage areas, shops, workshops and other productive assets could also
Speaker A
be um identified. The third layer would connect each mapped feature I've described to establish this household's relationship to this specific location before the displacement.
Speaker A
The court could use for this existing CLRV or VPRS information, historic sheh household registers that exist, IDP administration records that exist, native administration records that exist, humanitarian or displacement records that exist, documentary evidence possessed by the victims, testimony of
Speaker A
the relevant sheh or unda neighboring household confirmation, testimony of the village elders, family witnesses photographs historic satellite imagery and other geographic material were available and identifiable physical landmarks.
Speaker A
The sheh and community-based verification has historically been used because village communities remain identifiable. But the suggestions we make could be safeguard to not have a single sheh have explicit explicit authority over a particular area.
Speaker A
Timewise we suggest the chamber does not need to wait for a peace agreement safe access or actual return before ordering or supporting for this type of preparatory work. Such database might help record the pre-displacement status such as occupied or used by victim
Speaker A
households as well as the present status such as unknown abandoned destroyed cultivated by others, occupied or inaccessible. All of this needs to be identified. Such order would be meaningful to the victims. Now, this is what they tell us. Without pretending
Speaker A
that the ICC or the trust fund for victims can presently guarantee safe return, the pro program could therefore be divided into a phase one a remote and displacementbased mapping. Now, victims can reconstruct their villages and other locations using historic maps,
Speaker A
community knowledge, existing records. as I have mentioned and a phase two which would be the physical verification when condition permits once safe access becomes possible community-based technical teams could visit the map locations record GPS coordinates inspect surviving wells
Speaker A
trees and structures compare community maps with the current landscape assess destruction document present land use etc It cannot be overstated that the participating victims want to ensure active community oversight throughout the reparations process. This includes being involved in implementing the
Speaker A
measures. These restitution enabling measures draw upon the jurist prudence of human rights courts and I've mentioned it when faced with restoring the rights of recognized traditional owners to land.
Speaker A
The Interamerican Court of Human Rights has repeatedly articulated clear and simple procedures to pave the way to restore the collective right to property and this has included ordering for instance the delimitation, demarcation and titling of the property of those
Speaker A
communities. Of course, in those instances that court may also make orders directly against the state to implement the transfer of the land in question and this is not possible in our case. But the government of Sudan can be called upon and
Speaker A
encouraged to cooperate with enabling the restitution of the land. And however, the court can draw on the experience, I would suggest, of the Interamerican Court as a useful foundation, and it's nothing more than a foundation for its approach in
Speaker A
determining applicable restitution measures. It's better than doing nothing. in relation to 824 of the statute which provides uh that bonafide don't how you pronounce it in fid in English bonafid owner of property adversely affected by a reparations order may appeal against the order um to
Speaker A
be very honest I respectfully do not believe that this is a relevant consideration for the chamber's current purpose the chamber is tasked with considering what are the appropriate reparations to repair the harms caused by Mr. Rahman for the crimes he's been
Speaker A
convicted of and who may or may not appeal the eventual reparations order is not necessarily a matter that should influence the chamber's decision decision making at this juncture.
Speaker A
Finally, and to sum up on this point, the court's juristprudence has otherwise considered that restitution aims to the extent possible at restoring the victims to their circumstances before the crime was committed, even if full restitution will often be unachievable for victims
Speaker A
of the crimes. In this case, the UN basic principles on the right to a remedy and reparations for victims I hadn't heard of it probably like you before we worked on on this topic but it's you know it's it's worth reading and
Speaker A
mentioning it. It also considers restitution in broad terms. Namely, it can include, and I quote, restoration of liberty, enjoyment of human rights, identity, family life, and citizenship, return to one's place of residence, restoration of employment, and return of
Speaker A
property. It's article 19. It's not possible for the court to fully restore the participating victim's circumstances as they were before the crimes in 2003 and 2004. However, restitution can encompass a wide ranging wide ranging set of orders and I hope we
Speaker A
have um made this a bit clearer. The chamber can make orders with a view of placing victims in the best position it can for the future including their ability to fully return to the land.
Speaker A
This is what the participating victims have requested and it is also reflected in the submissions of other parties and participants uh who will address you later today.
Speaker A
A few remarks regarding the permanence of structures because uh this is also one of the questions you pose. As the return to land is the ultimate goal of the participating victims, they seek no measures which could perpetuate their
Speaker A
displacement. They've made this very clear, at least the participating victims that we've been consulting. In this respect, I turn to the chamber's question concerning the permanence of structures in refugee camps.
Speaker A
Participating victims made it very clear consistently across the consultations that they do not wish to see new permanent structures erected in the camps where they currently reside. They expressed concern that such structures would further entrench their displacement and create a sense of
Speaker A
permanence in circumstances they regard as temporary even today. Participants also emphasized their preference for the limited resources available to be invested in flexible and reusable solutions such as mobile homes or mobile clinics that could serve their immediate needs while remaining
Speaker A
adaptable for future use as well, including upon their eventual return to their ancestral land.
Speaker A
I would like to illustrate this issue. Um at the time of the of our response to the written submissions of the parties uh and participants, we provided an annex one, I don't know if you remember that, which was a table with an estimate
Speaker A
of the cost of constructing a 4x4 meter house. This was one example. We just wanted you to have an idea of what things cost on the ground. In Chad, the construction is approximately €2,300 while in Dur is approximately €2,100.
Speaker A
This is all. Um, so we conducted research into the cost of constructing demountable shelters and found that these can be provided at a comparable cost or even cheaper.
Speaker A
For instance, just give you an example. Better shelter is a Swedish project developed in partnership with IKEA. All of us know IKEA I think the IKEA foundation and also working with the UNHCR or the refugee housing unit. They
Speaker A
launched about fi 15 years ago a shelter initiative for displaced persons. The shelters are designed to be rapidly assembled and can last for up to 10 years.
Speaker A
The initial emergency shelter is provided in a box and the walls are made of plastic panels, but the frame can afterwards be upgraded and reinforced using locally available materials for the walls. This is good in the circumstances in the sense that it might
Speaker A
reduce the dependency on international aid. Once displaced persons are allowed to return home, the shelters can be dismantled, reused, and repurposed.
Speaker A
Depending on the needs, the shelter can consist of different configurations, including a roof and walls.
Speaker A
The components are designed to be easy to assemble and can be installed using local skills without the need for specialized tools.
Speaker A
The shelters are powered by solar energy. They measure approximately 3x 5 mters which is about 17 square meters.
Speaker A
It can be used not only as accommodation for families and I'm personally not looking that much at accommodation for families but also for essential community purposes such as medical clinics. I know clinic is a big word, but a medical station, classrooms for
Speaker A
instance, or a space for communal therapy sessions. In Iraq, these shelters were installed and they resisted overheating in the summer and flooding during the rainy season, which is comparable with the needs of Chad and Dur. I don't want to
Speaker A
make any advertisement for any of this in particular. I just want to give you a concrete example of what exists and what it costs.
Speaker A
Such shelters therefore offer a practical temporary solution that can enhance the dignity, security and comfort of victims while providing at the same time a relatively affordable and adaptable form of accommodation.
Speaker A
Another example I want to give is a rainwater harvesting and retention tank is also used by UNHCR in refugee camps.
Speaker A
This allows for collecting and storing rain rainwater in bases or systems system placed on roofs or buried underground. The collected water can be used for irrigation, firefighting, toilets, sinks, showers or laundry making. It could also be located near
Speaker A
cultivating areas and be used for irrigating irrigation purposes. This could contribute to food security and the conservation of local water resources.
Speaker A
Moreover, depending on how the stored water is treated, it may also be possible to chlorinated and use it as drinkable water. Such a system can be installed in less than a month, requires relatively little investment and specialized expertise, and can last for
Speaker A
approximately 10 years. It reduces the need to construct a permanent well or a major water management system while providing an efficient and practical solution for supplying water to both agricultural fields and households.
Speaker A
These are only two examples of what can be done to improve the victim's life while respecting their wish not to have permanent structure built. And I suggest that this is not merely wishful thinking. It is possible.
Speaker A
Moving to the difficult question of who should be considered as a victim for the benefit of reparations. There's one aspect that the trust fund and the registry submissions has raised that I would like to address more in particular because it has an
Speaker A
impact on the eligibility process. On the one hand, I want to make it very clear that I welcome the proposal put forward by the trust fund for victims and the registry in their final observations to recognize the existence
Speaker A
of a group of victims meeting the definition set out in rule 85 of the rule. This means the F community is recognized as a victim. We don't speak about the members of the Fur community.
Speaker A
There is no doubt that the Fur community as a whole has been impacted by the crimes for which Mr. Abd Rahman was convicted.
Speaker A
And we do indeed urge the trial chamber to acknowledge this victimhood of the entire Fur community in Darur in the form of a symbolic recognition, a declaration.
Speaker A
The suffering inflicted upon the full community by Mr. Abdal Rahman was and remains immense.
Speaker A
But at the same time, any suggestion we make on the assessment of the potential beneficiaries of reparations, must remain within the legal framework of the court, at least as we interpret it, and within the geographical, temporal, and material scope of the present case.
Speaker A
I strongly believe that there is an important legal distinction to be maintained between the recognition of a community as a collective group of victims for symbolic purposes on the one hand and the identification of potential beneficiaries for the
Speaker A
purpose of reparations linked to the liability of an individual in a criminal trial. On the other hand, in a criminal trial, on the other hand, that is the point, isn't it? Reparations can only be ordered as a result of the
Speaker A
crimes of which the um uh defendant was found guilty. This is certainly my position, your honor. It is I know there are other views on this. It it is debatable, but I'm, you know, I'm trying to convince you by what we consider is legally
Speaker A
correct. Um, Judge Iban Karanta, your colleague, she delivered a separate opinion in the Lubanga uh, case where she considered that and I would like to quote from what she said. A community becomes a collective victim whenever the collective rights that such community
Speaker A
enjoys are harmed because of the commission of the atro atrocious crime. Such harm may affect the social fabric of communities to the extent that it violates their collective rights.
Speaker A
Fine. Further research into the Jewish prudence of the Interamerican and African regional human rights tribunals also provides for this question insightful Jewish prudence concerning the recognition of a community collectively as a victim and um have developed our position and we have
Speaker A
developed our position in light of this research. In our view while the full community as a whole has to be recognized as having been impacted by the policy enacted by interalia Mr. Abd Rahman and his group this does not
Speaker A
necessarily mean that every member of the F community in Dur would automatically qualify as an individual potential beneficiary of reparations.
Speaker A
The approach we take is that the potential beneficiaries for reparations in this case are from the communities of the four affected locations bindi kudum mkjar and delej as a result of the crime of persecution and displacement and I submit that this approach is more
Speaker A
likely to ensure the effective and inclusive realization of the victim's rights to reparation. In other words, the recognition of a group of victims is intended to ensure inclusivity and to acknowledge the individual experience of members of these communities in relation to the
Speaker A
crimes committed by Mr. Abdal Rahman and the community harm suffered. It is not meant to give rise to additional collective material reparations.
Speaker A
Rather, its primary purpose is to address the issues relating to the recognition of victim status in the context of mass crimes before this court.
Speaker A
this approach and again apologies for you know um going a bit into more details with this question because I think it's it's an important debate to have but this approach also reflects the factors that has been expressed by other
Speaker A
courts like the Supreme Court chamber of the extraordinary chambers in the courts of Cambodia.
Speaker A
Um the chamber there observed that aside from those victims who participated in the proceedings, thousands of victims, and I quote, would likely never be identified. It therefore emphasized the need to design reparation measures in the most inclusive manner possible while
Speaker A
avoiding unrealistic or utopian expectations. And I think this is where it would lead to if we took the other route. Also, it is well established in international jurist prudence that a judicial determination constitutes in itself a form of reparation. The formal
Speaker A
recognition of victims uh and of the harm they have suffered as you have done is therefore an essential component also of the reparative process. Not only the trial judgment but also the reparations uh process which will also respect the cope scope of the
Speaker A
reparations proceedings. envisaged by the drafter of the statute. The findings of your trial judgment clearly established the enduring economic, social and cultural consequences of the destruction of the villages of Bindi and Kudum as well as the killing of the
Speaker A
community leaders in Mtar and Deles and it is clear that each of those communities suffered in a different way as a result of Mr. Abdal Rahman's crimes. So the crimes affected not only the direct victims who lived in those
Speaker A
locations but also the F, the Zagawa and the Masalite communities of the affected communities who were targeted as ethnic groups collectively uh as they were identified as rebellious non-Arab tribes and indeed Hannon acknowledged that the conflict had an ethnic dimension as you
Speaker A
call it due to communities of the Fagawa and Masarid being targeted and attacked. as enemy forces. Most, if not all, members of the non-Arabic Arab communities have since been displaced.
Speaker A
This harm suffered by each community also undermines their recognized collective human rights in addition to the specific types of harms suffered by each locality.
Speaker A
We think that our submissions with regards to this question is consistent with this court's juristprudence. The appeals chamber in the Lubanga reparations order recognized that and I quote certain crimes may have an effect on a community as a whole understood as
Speaker A
a group of victims. The Almadi case equally supports this approach, even though it's not 100% clear. The Almadi Chamber identified the population of Mali and the international community as affected groups by the destruction of the protected buildings when assessing the relevant victims of
Speaker A
the crime and recognized and granted them a symbolic form of compensation. At the same time, however, the chamber found that the beneficiaries of reparations were to be identified within the community of Timbuktu, given that its members were the most directly and
Speaker A
severely affected by the crimes. So while broader groups may be affected by the crimes for which an accused has been convicted and may in appropriate circumstances be recognized as such and receive a symbolic form of compensation or redress, the potential beneficiaries of
Speaker A
reparations may none of the nonetheless be identified within the group that was most directly and severely affected by the crimes. for us being those who lived in the four affected localities which would then be within the geographical and temporal and material scope of the
Speaker A
case and the trial judgment. Lastly, in the Alhassan case, the chamber found that the entire population of Timbuktu could potentially benefit from apparitions as a result of the harm caused by the crime of persecution on religious grounds as direct victims.
Speaker A
However, the Alasan Chamber also remained within the geographical and temporal scope of the case by limiting the potential beneficiaries of reparations to people who were present in the city at the time of the events.
Speaker A
This supports our position that potential beneficiaries of reparations should likewise be confined to those most closely affected by the crimes within the parameters of the present case. And for these reasons, I consider that the recognition of the members of
Speaker A
the four communities accurately captures the pool of eligible victims for reparations. In this case, I want to be very clear because it's it's important for us, but certainly for the participating victims. This position adopted should not be understood at all
Speaker A
as disregarding the impact that the acts for which Mr. Abdul Rahman was convicted undoubtedly head on the full community of Dur as a whole but rather is is anchored in the framework of the court and at the same time drawing on the
Speaker A
approach adopted by the court in Almadi. I consider that addressing the collective harm suffered by the F community in the four affected locations as groups will also contribute meaningfully to addressing the broader harm experienced by the F population
Speaker A
throughout Dhur. And such an approach, we submit, is nothing but centered on the interests of the victims while remaining consistent with the court's mandate and the practical limitations of reparations proceedings in addressing mass victimization in the context of
Speaker A
international crimes and by nature and that's a difficulty macro criminality. Miss Vonas, I'm sorry. And you are obviously representing the victims, but we have a lot to get through today. Um although we said we could sit into tomorrow, I'm told
Speaker A
there's a transport strike. So um that's going to have a knock-on effect. Um there is one matter um which um we would like an answer to. I mean, you've had way over your allotted time and even the time you asked for. Um so um and and
Speaker A
we've got your written submissions, but we would like you to deal with the question four.
Speaker A
Question four. Yeah. Uh which I think is going to require private session. Oh, that's the private session.
Speaker A
I'm just waiting to see. I mean, if if if you you want to I'm I'm I'm afraid the break comes at 11 o'clock. Um and and we will give you a cut off point at the break, I'm afraid.
Speaker A
Well, um I know I'm asking for a lot, but my clients have waited for 22 years, and I would suggest that half an hour more or less can't really make a difference.
Speaker A
Um um my suggestion would be because uh my colleague uh met was going to address the question of elig eligibility um which is also important and we try to condense it as much as possible but I think uh she will
Speaker A
I mean on the point of eligibility I think nearly everybody agrees um on on on well you've asked us if we suggesting to depart from from the court's jurist prudence.
Speaker A
Yeah. So we are saying yes but we want to explain why. Um um and so if if you would allow she would elaborate on that until the break and uh I would um address the part that needs to be held in a private session.
Speaker A
All right. After the break and see during the break uh what else I can cut.
Speaker A
But don't forget, as I I made clear at the beginning, you've got a lot of this in writing which we've read. Um uh all right. Um then we'll give um I'm sorry, who was it? Uh your colleague um
Speaker A
Yeah. Um until 11:00, then we'll take the break. Uh then we'll go into private session for it should take no more than five minutes to deal with that question.
Speaker A
Um we asked you Yes. Ever ever hopeful. All right. Um very well. Um yes, we'll hear from um your colleague.
Speaker A
Um thank you honor. I will I will stick to your uh your instructions. Um so the CLV wishes to provide some remarks in relation to the eligibility process and what would be the approach that is the most suited to the case at hand. uh you
Speaker A
asked us if we should depart from uh the existing Jewish prudence of Alasan, Taganda and Anguen and the answer is simple. It is yes. Uh we asked the chamber to apply the principle the appeals chamber as a firm that
Speaker A
reparation are inherently case by case and that the process must be tailored to the circumstances um of the case.
Speaker A
In our view, it is the best interest of victims that the chamber uh frames its order with regards to the specificity of the case and the circumstances of the victims rather than to stick to a jurist prudence that has not proven uh to lead
Speaker A
in reasonable frame reasonable time frame to effective reparations. This timeline are contained in slide uh in slides 14 and 15 and they speak for themselves. We have seen for example how much time and resources it took in Taganda in the Kan Taganda case to
Speaker A
identify potential beneficiaries. People in Italy moved as a result of the ongoing conflict while communication problems have made it particularly difficult to VPRS to reach out to part to potential beneficiaries.
Speaker A
Moreover, the trust fund itself has reported to the Taganda Chamber that establishing contact with victims found eligible by VPRS has been particularly challenging and timeconsuming process.
Speaker A
Months have passed since the completion of the identification and eligibility process by VPRS was finished and some of those victims are no longer reachable.
Speaker A
Which means that ultimately the resources invested in the process at the first place is potentially wasted. Not to mention the the unfulfilled expectation of victims.
Speaker A
More than five years have passed since the reparations was uh issues in Taganda and victims of the attacks have not truly yet started to integrate programs.
Speaker A
In the context of Darur, we face many of the same challenges as you well know your honors. Therefore, the situation calls for a more streamlined approach to eligibility and implementation because if we follow the path that was followed in the other cases, there is a
Speaker A
real risk that we will face the same delays in delivering uh reparation to victims and eventually causing potentially more harm. So when the CLRV asks the chamber to depart from the existing jur prudence, this is not without reason. We seek to avoid a
Speaker A
lengthy and resource inensive three-step process that could take years to complete and delaying the meaningful uh delivery of reparations to victims. And this is where the Almadi uh model can be useful as as uh it it is suggested by
Speaker A
our colleagues of the trust fund in the written submissions there. the there the reparations were predominantly collective and community- based with a verification or screening mechanism integrated into programs and based on participatory mechanism and community based structures. This mean that the
Speaker A
verification and the identification of the eligibility was done simultaneously with the intake in the programs.
Speaker A
A similar approach could be well suited to DARU where a community-led process based on trusted local leadership structure could respond more effectively and more quickly to the needs of the um of the affected communities as explained in our submissions at paragraph uh se 72
Speaker A
to 77 and represented in the PowerPoint. And from from public filing in Almadi, we can understand for instance that for an income generating project in the community of Timbuktu once the program was ready to take in victims um individual could apply for financial
Speaker A
support and related advisory services tailored to their their needs and capacities. The verific the verification process was then triggered by their application and this is very similar to what the participating have requested here in this present case. For certain
Speaker A
measures, eligibility could take the form of a verification mechanism triggered by individual or group um applications with the support of uh trusted local organization and community leaders. programs could be developed and then identity and eligibility of applicants could be easily verified once
Speaker A
a project is ready to be implemented. And should the chamber also adopt individual compensation, the CLRV supports integrating the eligibility process into the implementation as well from the outset. So the administrative um eligibility and the implementation should proceed concurrently uh rather
Speaker A
than in a separate and sequential uh stages and this is consistent also with the position advanced by uh the trust fund in their submissions. The CLRV also notes that the implementation of some collective measures aimed at repairing collect community harm may not require a
Speaker A
strict individual um eligibility process. for example, training and reminerating uh teachers or rehabilitating uh health clinics. The children benefiting from those services would of course not have to go through an individual eligibility process processes.
Speaker A
It is also inevitable that certain collective reparations will not only benefit bene eligible beneficiaries such as the restoration of schools and community uh service centers. The participating victims themselves recognize this. They understand that members of the host communities may also benefit
Speaker A
particularly where services are provided to both um refuge and host communities. The side benefit of this is that it reduces the security risk that could arise from publicly identifying beneficiaries and it helps avoid tensions between the refugee and the
Speaker A
host communities. As explained in our written submissions, refugee camps are often very located very closely to uh those villages.
Speaker A
Um the CLRV there therefore respectfully submits that the particular circumstances of Dur require the chamber to adopt a pragmatic and efficient approach capable of adapting to realities on the ground and making use of local knowledge rather than replicating procedures that have
Speaker A
provided that have proven apologies ineffective or unnecessarily burdensome and potentially even more harmful harmful to the victims.
Speaker A
And very quickly I'm turning to the specific uh eligibility of beneficiaries in Mujar and deleg and the CLV wishes to respond to certain arguments advanced um by the defense in their response at paragraph uh 10 and 24. The CLV disagree
Speaker A
with uh the defense arguments respectfully that not every witness of the crimes committed in Mugjar and Deles can be considered as victims on the basis that such an interpretation would extend beyond the definition of um rule 85.
Speaker A
The CLRV also disagrees with the um with the defense submissions that the communities of Mughjah and Deles did not suffer as a whole because the villages were not attacked or destroyed.
Speaker A
The CLRV has already addressed a reason why um the communities of Mjar and Deles as a whole qualify as victims. And to quickly answer this specific defense argument, the CLRV submits that the mere fact that the two villages were not
Speaker A
destroyed does not preclude a finding that the community as a whole as a whole uh suffered harm. On the contrary, it happens that the the whole communities of these villages suffered as a result of the crime of persecution and the
Speaker A
subsequent displacement. And the judgment was uh very clear uh very clear on this. Turning specifically to the status of individuals who witnessed a crime as indirect victim. It is clear that rule 85 does not preclude such an interpretation. The rule defines a
Speaker A
victim as a natural person who has suffered harm as a result of the commission of a crime within the court's jurisdiction.
Speaker A
Accordingly, a witness to a crime being a natural person may fall within the scope of rule 85 provided that this witness substantiate having personally suffered harm as a result of the crime to the requisite standard of proof. This
Speaker A
interpretation is in fact in any event supported by the court's true prudence which is contained uh in our table of authority that you will receive um eventually today. uh now but this does not mean that the victim status is
Speaker A
presumed for every witness um of crimes. The defense appears to conflate the two distinct uh concept of identifying a harm and the ademption of presumption.
Speaker A
In this case, there is sufficient evidence on the record for the chamber to recognize in a reparations order that harm was suffered by individuals who witnessed the commission of crimes in Mujah and Deles. Indeed, for instance, uh the trial chamber in its own judgment
Speaker A
noted the impact that witnessing the torture of detainees at the police station in Delege uh had on uh P94 P94, my apologies, who described it uh as a painful date that he would remember until the day of judgment. And likewise,
Speaker A
V4 testified in front of the court about the profound impact of witnessing those events had on him, explaining that it took him some time before he was able to uh speak about what he has seen and what they have heard. The CRV hopes that this
Speaker A
clarifies um the questions raised by the chamber and I will allow everyone to take the break at 11 sharp.
Speaker A
Uh thank you very much indeed. Um very well. We will um take the break um at the stage which is um necessary obviously for the interpreters as well as um those writing um and when we return at 11:30
Speaker A
um we'll go straight into um private session. Uh roughly Mr. everything has them. How long do you think you will need to It's simply the question of of question for which I would have thought could be answered fairly shortly.
Speaker A
I think um I would need something like 10 minutes uh to address the question.
Speaker A
uh but maybe uh we can discuss with the other parties and participants if it makes sense that if they have if they also have submissions to make on the same topic uh it would be good good to group it
Speaker A
yes I would suggest I have a feeling so we don't have to go in and out yes m on behalf of your organization um that comes up in your uh or something like it comes up in your in your
Speaker A
submissions um we're prepared prepared to um address that. Yes. All right. Thank you. Well, in that case um uh we'll say 15 minutes um and I think we'll discuss the the further timing of all of this um after
Speaker A
the break. Yes. Very well. Break until 11:30. All right. We love it.
Topics:International Criminal CourtAbd Al RahmanDarfurSudanreparations hearingvictims’ rightsmass crimesRome Statuteconfidentialityhuman rights
![[FLOOR] Abd Al Rahman Case: Reparations Hearing, 8 Sept… — Transcript](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/PyO_KAAIm0I/maxresdefault.jpg)
