Czech Yearbook Vol. 4 2013

237 / 350

THE ISSUE OF REPARATIONS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT
TFV the discretion to design a particular approach, but would at the same time
require it to report back on its implementation. Finally, by virtue of Rule 98(5), the
TFV is authorized to implement initiatives for the benefit of the victims. The Rule
does not specify whether this must be related to a specific order of the Court.17
PART II
Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo
Procedural history
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) ratified the Rome Statute on
11 April 2002, consequently allowing the ICC to exercise its jurisdiction over crimes
committed on the territory of the DRC or by its nationals. The former Prosecutor of
the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, started the investigation
concerning the crimes committed in the DRC in June 2004. A warrant for the arrest
of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was issued in January 2006 in relation to Mr. Lubanga’s
alleged responsibility for the war crime of conscripting, enlisting, and using child
soldiers under the age of 15 to further the war in the DRC’s Ituri district during 2002
and 2003. The trial of the former Congolese militia leader, Mr. Lubanga, began on
26 January 2009.
The judgment and its assessment
On 14March 2012Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court delivered
the first judgment in the case against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, who was found guilty
of co-perpetrating the crimes of enlisting and conscripting child soldiers and using
them to participate actively in hostilities under Article 8(2)(e)(vii) of the Rome
Statute.18 The judgment was quickly proclaimed a ‘milestone’ or a ‘breakthrough’
for international criminal law.19 It cannot be deprived of its significance, as it is the
first and the only conviction issued by the Court so far; moreover it also sets out the
principles relating to the issue of reparations and clearly states that it is up to the
Trust Fund for Victims to implement them. It still is necessary to examine, however,
whether the issues of reparations and victim’s participation have been given enough
attention to support the enthusiasm shared by the international community in
relation to this judgment.
At the outset it needs to be noted that, by issuing this decision, the ICC has
noticeably stressed the priority of reparations as an instrument of justice for victims.
Unlike the ad hoc tribunals for Rwanda or former Yugoslavia, which did not have any
17 International Criminal Court, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, U.N. Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1
(2000) Rule 95.
18 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Trial Chamber I,
ICC-01/04-01/06, 2012 (hereinafter ‘Judgment’), para. 1358.
19 < > last accessed 19 December 2012, 1747