Czech Yearbook Vol. 4 2013

238 / 350

AGATA FOKSA CYIL 4 ȍ2013Ȏ
significant achievements in providing reparations, the ICC has proven to be much
more effective. Moreover, by ordering reparations, establishing a clear framework
and applying the theory of restorative justice in practice one can argue that the ICC
has established its authority as a decision-making body of real influence. Restorative
justice, despite its rather elusive definition, is used here as ‘a process where all the parties
with a stake in a particular offence come together to resolve collectively how to deal
with the aftermath of the offence and its implication for the future’.20 Furthermore,
the Lubanga judgment constitutes a departure from common practice where it was
typically the responsibility of the states to devise, fund and implement reparations.
This can be considered a positive development, due to the fact that, as the practice
has shown in the cases of East Timor, Rwanda, or South Africa, domestic courts
are usually lacking capacity and/or political will to afford appropriate reparations.21
Irrespective of the fact that the decision is claimed to be a ‘cornerstone of transitional
justice’, it needs to be remembered that it should not be celebrated as a success until
the victims get compensated and the process is completed. As Mr. Ruben Carranza,
director of ICTJ’s Reparative Justice program stated, ‘the recognition of the right to
reparations is one thing’, and ’how that is fulfilled, is another’.
As regards the way the ordered reparations are to be implemented, the Chamber
supports the TFV’s Five Step Plan,22 based on the establishment of the appropriate
localities which are to be involved in the reparation process, carrying on consultations
with them, appropriate assessment of the harm by experts, conducting public debates
in the region, and gathering proposals for collective reparations. There was heated
discussion on whether the reparations should be individual or, rather, collective.23
Since Mr. Lubanga was found to be indigent, meaning that he does not have enough
means to contribute financially to the reparation process, it will be financed through
the Trust Fund for Victims, which tends towards a rather collective approach. There is
another issue which needs to be stressed owing to thematerial situation ofMr. Lubanga
and his inability to contribute financially; his mere conviction is arguably a form of
justice for the victims. The Trial Chamber has decided that Mr. Lubanga may issue
an apology either to individuals or to group of victims, private or public, but only on
a voluntary basis.24 This was decided despite the suggestions made by, inter alia, the
OPCV that Mr. Lubanga should be ordered to provide a public apology, including
an acknowledgment of the material facts and an acceptance of responsibility. 25 The
same approach was supported by the prosecution, which claimed that reparations
20 R. Marshall,’The Evolution of Restorative Justice in Britain’, European Journal on Criminal Policy
Research 4 (1996): pp. 21-43; p. 37.
21 Peter G. Fischer, The Victims’ Trust Fund Of the International Criminal Court- Formation of a Functional
Reparations Scheme, Emory International Law Review, Spring 2003, p. 191.
22 < > last
accessed 28 January 2013, 1214.
23 ibid.
24 ICC-01/04-01/06-2904 para. 241.
25 ICC-01/04-01/06-2863, para. 128, accessible at < >.