II. Categories of Beneficiaries and the TFV

Article 75(1) provides that “the Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation.”9 However, the Statute is vague as to who exactly constitutes a “victim.”10 One possible interpretation is that “victim” includes direct and indirect victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC.11

Furthermore, Article 79 provides for the establishment of a Trust Fund for Victims (the “ TFV”). The TFV is a depository under Article 79(2) in that the Court can order money and other property collected through fines or forfeitures to be transferred to the TFV, which gathers these funds and distributes them for the benefit of victims. Thus TFV funds can be used for anything deemed beneficial to victims. On the other hand, the TFV is an intermediary under Article 75(2) such that the ICC can directly order a convicted individual to pay reparations to victims and can specify that this award must be made through the TFV. In other words, the TFV is bound to disburse funds only for victims of particular convicted defendants and in the form decided by the court.12 Article 79(2) specifies the distribution of power to determine how funds from finds and forfeitures should be allocated. First, it should be determined by the Court, then by the Trust Fund. The Rome Statute omits any reference to voluntary contributions as one of the TFV’s means of funding. Thus, nothing prohibits the Assembly of States Parties (the “ASP”) from allowing voluntary contributions.13

The TFV fulfills two mandates for victims of crimes under jurisdiction of the ICC: (1) Reparations: implementing Court-ordered reparations awards against a convicted person when directed by the Court to do so, and (2) General Assistance: using voluntary contributions from donors to support victims and their families in situations where the Court is active with physical rehabilitation, material support, and/or psychological rehabilitation. This second role of the TFV is specified in Rule 98(5) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,, where “other resources of the Trust Fund may be used for the benefits of victims.” The second mandate is implemented in accordance with Regulation 48, to benefit “victims of crimes as defined in rule 85 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and, where, natural persons are concerned, their families, who have suffered physical, psychological and/or material harm as a result of these crimes.”14

The Rome Statute does not specify the structure of the TFV. Instead, it leaves the details to the ASP.15 The TFV is independent from the Court and is headed by the Executive Director of the Secretariat, Andre Laperriere, and a five member Board of Directors.16 The TFV receives voluntary contributions from states, inter-government organizations, individuals, and corporations. These funds can be awarded at the Fund’s discretion, independent of Court orders.17 Again, it is in the discretion of the ASP to decide when, from whom, the form, and how the funds are used.

Before any contemporary society can be functional, the individuals that compose the society must be healthy enough to work, to obtain education, and to live productive lives on a daily basis. Not all of the victims of genocide, rape, and other crimes against humanity and war crimes will be in a position to identify their perpetrator. Not all identified perpetrators will be prosecuted before the ICC. Perhaps evidentiary concerns may prohibit merited conviction. Because of these various concerns, there are individual victims in dire need of assistance who nonetheless have no recourse since their perpetrators will never be defendants before the ICC. In these common situations, there must be a mechanism to help alleviate the dire circumstances in which these victims find themselves. This is where the TFV’s “other resources” mechanism comes in. According to the Executive Director of the Secretariat of the Trust Fund, Pieter de Baan, “The main objective of the Trust Fund for Victims is to achieve ‘justice and rehabilitation’ for the most vulnerable victims of international crimes and to safeguard their dignity and hopes.”18

III. Needs of Beneficiaries

A. Need is an important factor to consider when allocating TFV funds

The TFV funds must be allocated with the goal of making individuals as healthy as possible so that they can then work and operate productively in a functional society. The term “functional” refers to a baseline of living whereby individuals can be self-supporting and live painlessly from day to day in order to be capable of working and being educated. With the aid of the TFV, we must provide emergency relief before we can look forward to long-term economic development. Priority should be given to the “rehabilitation” component of Article 75(1).19 This includes, for example, reparations aimed at decreasing disease transmission, treating psychological disorders from alienation and loss of family, and caring for orphans, survivors, victims of rape and sexual violence, and those left in poverty. Other allocations of reparations can be very difficult. For example, restitution in the form of property, employment, and non-monetary losses may counterproductively return the victim back to the discrimination previously suffered due to oppression and harassment from the aggressor group.

Individual need should be considered when allocating TFV funds. The problem with neglecting to do so is that those deemed “unworthy victims” tend to receive inappropriately limited resources.20 One scholar has proposed potential theoretical foundations of the TFV.21 One rationale for the TFV is that it is a “public charity.” This provides for moral obligation to suffering victims whereby need is the determining variable in considering reparation. Need and urgency of the victim is emphasized under this rationale in an effort to halt pain, suffering, and re-victimization.22 Because the TFV accepts resources and voluntary contributions from generous donors and private individuals, this suggests that need should matter.23

Again, the primary focus should be on the rehabilitation of victims by focusing on psychological, physical and emotional needs. As I mentioned before, certain types of reparations are more relevant to this class of victims than others.24 For example, restitution in the form of property, liberty, and employment may not be sustainable at the humanitarian aid and post-conflict stabilization stages of repair and may actually turn out to be more discriminatory to the victim. Similarly, satisfaction in the form of truth-telling, official recognition and apology, though often less costly, may not be genuine and may be difficult to force upon an ethnic population that experiences intense hatred, as was the case with Bosnians and Serbs. The same goes for guarantees of non-repetition.

Thus, the most urgent and plausible form of reparation at this stage is rehabilitation in the form of medical and psychological care, as well as legal and social services. For example, although all genocide victims reparation, the effective distribution of reparations is arguably more urgent for victims of rape than for other victims. Using Rwanda as an illustration, females are frequently five times more likely than male victims to be widowed or rendered head of household and yet have fewer adequate resources.25 “Women suffer not just from the mental and physical harm that was inflicted upon them, but from increasing poverty and dependency on their communities.”26 Thus, they are more vulnerable and more in need of financial support.27 The United Nations DDR framework re-emphasizes this point, stating that women, in becoming heads of households, and dealing with alternative coping strategies, are “more vulnerable to sexual and gender-based violence and poverty.”28

Furthermore, many of these women become infected with HIV and suffer from AIDS. In the Rwanda example, for instance, seventy percent of the raped women are HIV positive, and a majority of these women will eventually die from AIDS.29 Although the ICC does not have jurisdiction over the Rwandan genocide and cannot give reparations to Rwandan rape victims, this example illustrates the types of people we need to be compensating from the TFV. Similarly, Paolina Massidda, Principal Counsel of the Office of the Public Counsel for Victims of the ICC, stated that it is imperative to recognize the real needs of victims. This depends on the type of victim; for example, victims of gender crimes or victims of economic crimes. She explained that some national courts consider the moral harm that gender crime victims suffer and/or give priority to certain types of victims, such as the elderly or those affected by HIV/AIDS.30 Indeed, the TFV has done a wonderful job focusing on this very area in its recent programme launched in the Central African Republic. Despite the TFV’s limited resources, this campaign focused on victims of sexual violence and the fight against AIDS, which followed a need assessment that the TFV carried out in 2009.31 The TFV has targeted vulnerable groups thus far, such as victims of rape, the disfigured, children and the elderly.32 This suggests that reparations are being awarded to victims on the basis of humanitarian needs, as I argue they should be.

Moreover, the language of the Procedures of Rules and Evidence allow such an interpretation of reparations being allocated to individuals in urgent need. The language of Rule 97 specifies how reparations are to be assessed. Rule 97(1) provides: “Taking into account the scope and extent of any damage, loss or injury, the Court may award reparations on an individualized basis or, where it deems it appropriate, on a collective basis or both.” This language makes room to contemplate taking need into account, such as scope or extent of damage, loss or injury. Furthermore, experts can be appointed, under Rule 97(2), to facilitate the process of determining the scope of damage and injury to certain victims.

Furthermore, there are no practical impediments to assigning individual reparations to those with the most urgent need. The method of individual application to get access to the TFV is readily available to applicants on the ICC’s website.33 The ASP agreed during its fourth meeting that the TFV Board was empowered to “provide physical or psychological rehabilitation or material support for the benefit of victims and their families.” The board must inform the relevant Chamber of the Court of its conclusion to undertake specified activities, and the intended activities may not pre-determine any issue to be determined by the Court, violate the presumption of innocence, or be prejudicial to or inconsistent with the rights of the accused and affair and impartial trial.34 Claims need to be evaluated objectively, with the help of experts, and quickly. The speed to access the TFV is key.

For example, victims from Uganda, Darfur, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) may seek voluntary contributions from the fund, or the Board may decide to provide rehabilitation and compensation for victims during the early stages of a case, subject to the veto of the Court.35 In reaction to Libyan leader Gaddafi’s death, Ravina Shamdasani, spokeswoman for the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, said, “This is not a time for revenge, but for healing and rebuilding.”36 If the aim is healing and rebuilding, then the victims must be given the care and attention necessary for basic needs.

B. Objections to providing individual reparations to beneficiaries in need

Some may argue that first, the process of identifying who constitutes a true victim and deserves individual reparation may be difficult, complex, and time-intensive. They may also point out that resources are so limited that collective reparation may be more appropriate. Furthermore, these individuals may posit that individual reparation is divisive and unfair to those who do not receive what they lost, and in cases where some receive more than others. The thinking goes that symbolic reparations therefore alleviate these two concerns due to increased speed, efficiency, and fairness inherent in collective reparation awards.

C. Shortcomings of objections and reasons why individual reparations provide a better allocation of resources

First of all, the process is not so taxing. The current method for victims to recover from the TFV is quite simplified and easy to retrieve on the website. Victims can apply for reparations by filing a written application with the Registry, which must contain the information laid down in Rule 94 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,. The Victims Participation and Reparation Section has prepared standard forms to make this easier for victims. When submitting an application using the standard form, victims may request participation, reparations, or both.37 The standard form provides a compilation of basic and simplified questions regarding the crime and identity of the victim, posed in an easy-to-read manner that greatly facilitates recovery for the individual.

A lower standard of proof for victims also facilitates recovery. In reparation proceedings, the standard of proof is lower than the proof beyond a reasonable doubt standard. A claim of redress is similar to a civil claim whereby the relevant standard is usually preponderance of the evidence, balance of probabilities, or “conviction intime.” It is unjust to apply a high standard of proof given that victims may be struggling with refugee status, homelessness, and lacking medical care.38 Paolina Massidda has stated that the United Nations Claims Commission, for example, established a different standard of proof for individuals to address the concern that some individuals will not be able to prove ownership or provide evidence of loss. Furthermore, due to cultural concerns and associated social stigma, lower evidentiary standards for rape and torture are permitted.39

As Massidda has suggested, an objective test must be developed to determine who is a victim eligible to receive reparations, and it ought to take into account not only the law, but also the experiences and real needs of victims.40 Sampling methods, representation and other innovative mechanisms can assist in achieving at least some redress in every case when the number of claimants is too large to allow individualized hearings and determinations of reparations.41 Moreover, expert assistance can be fully utilized. Rule 97(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, gives authority to allow experts to determine the scope of reparation and injury of victims.42 Victims are allowed to observe expert reports. Thus, the drafters clearly intended to make this process as individualized as possible, to serve the needs of individuals, and to see that justice is served.

The ASP has created a process to oversee the TFV that is quite operational. It established a Board of Directors whose duties include consulting with victims, their families, and experts about potential projects to pursue. Also, the Board determines the activities and projects of the TFV and how to allocate its property and money. Further, it approves voluntary contributions to match the goals of the TFV. In 2004, the ASP formed a Secretariat for the TFV, which carries out administrative functions. This greatly facilitated the process and improved efficiency in approving contributions, identifying victims, distributing awards, and overseeing awards administered by organizations. The Secretariat also aids the Board in managing the TFV.43 Thus, the process of administering individual awards to victims in need is really not so taxing and also not currently as complex as it used to be.

Moreover, resources are not so limited. As of 2007, voluntary contributions received by the TFV were €2,370,000. Governments and organizations have provided most of the contributions. Initially, contributions came almost exclusively from celebrities like Janeane Garofalo and Susan Sarandon’s charitable foundation. While only Namibia contributed in the early years, Belgium, Finland, and France contributed at least €100,000 as of 2007.44 Furthermore, the budget for the first TFV campaign in the Central African Republic focusing on the fight against AIDS is 600,000 euros. The official website of the Trust Fund for Victims has recently announced a steady increase in the Fund’s income. For instance, the United Kingdom donated half a million British pounds in March 2011. Over 80,000 beneficiaries in northern Uganda and the DRC receive assistance from the TFV. Earmarked voluntary contributions by Norway, Finland and Germany also benefit victims of sexual and gender based violence.45 In 2010, the Netherlands contributed 57,000 US Dollars to the TFV, earmarked for child victims. In August 2011, the Netherlands announced another voluntary contribution of €250,000 to the TFV. This contribution will be devoted to the TFV’s rehabilitation mandate.46 Moreover, the resources available to the TFV significantly increased recently when the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) announced a voluntary contribution of 10 million Swedish crowns to the TFV, which is approximately 1.1 million Euros. This donation by the Swedish government is the largest single contribution in the history of the Fund. The contribution is not earmarked or restricted, allowing flexibility, and it sets a new precedent for future donors.47 Furthermore, victims’ expectations must be managed so as to make clear that the TFV does not have unlimited funds that will reach all needs.

Following up on this managing expectations point, to address the divisiveness concern, in its operations and campaigns, the TFV must make a clear disclaimer to applications and NGOs that the purpose of the TFV is not to make victims in war-ravished societies one hundred percent whole again. The goal, instead, is to save as many lives as possible, to restore society, and to put individuals in a position to carry on functional lives from day-to-day. Only in this way can the society start building itself. Again, victim’s expectations must somehow be managed in this respect.

Finally, collective reparations would not be adequate to address many of the concerns that individual reparations to victims in urgent need would. For instance, collective reparations would not be effective in certain conflicts where hostility and ongoing violence result in the bombing of monuments or museums that represent or commemorate the suffering party. More specifically, certain types of collective reparations would not effectively allocate resources. For example, at the humanitarian relief stage or post-conflict stabilization stage of repair, a museum in post-conflict Bosnia would likely have been bombed by the Serbs due to ongoing ethnic conflict and inability to reconcile. Other types of collective reparations, on the other hand, could be more effective in a post-conflict society, such as providing for hospitals and health care, because this would likely contribute to the functionality of victims suffering from PTSD and other physical trauma. Other effective reparations might include education, orphan centers, and medical training programs depending on the conflict case.

Individual reparations are preferable to collective reparations in this context because justice must first be achieved before peace can be championed. Reparations must first be given to individuals in order to create some basis for reconciliation.48 Human nature makes it likely that victims will not feel vindicated without individual awards. Apologies and reconciliation must be heartfelt and sincere rather than forced. These individualistic types of reparations are essential for social harmony and peace. According to Mia Swart, Assistant Professor of public international law at Leiden University, who also recommends individual reparations, collective reparations may create a feeling among victims that governments are escaping the real issue of reparation.49 For example, collective reparations such as services or infrastructure are not really dedicated to the victimized segment of society and may instead even provide benefit to perpetrators. Thus, as was the case in South Africa, limiting reparations to those distributed in a collective way may give victims the unfortunate feeling that the real issue of providing reparations to individuals in dire need is being avoided.50

Although Keller asserts that the “ TFV should consider favoring collective awards to a broader class of victims,”51 in order to reach more victims, I argue that not putting resources in the most effective places may result in an inefficient allocation and waste. It is victims who are sick, depressed, and consequently unable to work and provide for themselves that are in most dire need. Hospitals and schools could help them, but who would run, maintain and support them when the individuals composing the society are in such bad shape and victims are on the streets suffering? We need individuals to be as physically and as emotionally healthy as possible before they can work and effectively support the operations of institutions such as hospitals and schools and therefore adequately absorb knowledge. I am not arguing that symbolic reparations should never be used. However, as I mentioned before, the beneficiaries and method of allocation should depend on the timing and context of each particular conflict. At the two early stages of repair I discuss, individual reparations will often be more optimal.

Furthermore, symbolic reparations will eventually be inevitable and will result from other sources outside of the TFV. For example. NGOs, governments, and private donors, when the time is right, will provide contributions for the purpose of building commemorative museums. When society and individuals can contribute funds and support the operations, individuals will be in a position to pursue occupations such as doctors and teachers within the education and medical forums. However, when lives are in shambles and society’s morale is shattered, the TFV must contribute to building lives so that they can then contribute to the economy. The TFV should not be used to fix the economy of a region. Instead, the TFV is a unique opportunity and mechanism to attempt to make individuals more functional on a personal level.

IV. Why should the ICC be an institution administering this aid?

Some may argue that the functions of social services should be carried out by the United Nations and other organizations, not the ICC. First of all, TFV funds can be distributed independent of Court orders. Thus, it is not actually the Court making these awards, particularly if we are taking about TFV funds through its “other resources” mechanism from voluntary contributions under Rule 98(5). Second, I am not arguing that the social services role should be primarily given to the ICC as opposed to other organizations. Obviously, some of these services such as treating PTSD are quite costly, and it is impossible for the TFV to carry this burden on its own. The TFV must work in conjunction with other organizations and the United Nations to administer relief. More partnerships lead to more effective aid and care.

Furthermore, it is plausible for the ICC to be involved in emergency relief and humanitarian aid because it is not an ordinary court. It is an extremely unique international tribunal, quite different from domestic courts, whose mandate differs from local courts and whose boundaries are still opening doors to interpretation, for the first time in history, as the first cases before the ICC draw to a close. This is a unique opportunity for interpreters to capitalize on, recognize the areas of need where resources require efficient allocation, and shape the ICC and the TFV in the most appropriate way. The ICC should expand its relief base to millions of victims who have never seen help or promise before and whose perpetrators will never be prosecuted, because they may never benefit from any other recourse. A small number of total defendants are undergoing prosecution but yet they damaged thousands of lives, tearing apart families, and conducting mass killings and rapes. Thus, it is implausible to function as a domestic court would and rely on a defendant’s resources to provide recourse to this mass amount of victims.

Moreover, the ICC reparations scheme can be analogized to the damages scheme that is currently in place in many national courts. Awarding damages are an essential function of courts. Reparations are comparable to damages in the sense that victims are being compensated or given restitution in an effort to be made whole again. In a domestic tort claim trial, for example, a victim may be awarded damages for physical injury. This is deemed to be recovery of human capital. What the ICC is doing here in regards to emergency relief or medical and psychological care parallels this recovery of human capital. Victims are being awarded for the trauma suffered or loss of consortium, in the domestic context, due to criminal actions. Thus, although the ICC reparations scheme expands the term “damages” as it is known in the national court context, it is not such an exotic idea to expand it in the unique venue of the ICC so as to be implausible.

The TFV’s purpose is to compensate a large range of victims. As noted on the TFV’s website and mission, “Solutions cannot be imported; peace has to be built by the people themselves. Countries emerging from long-term violent conflict are troubled societies that may develop destructive social and political patterns. In such cases, fundamental psychological adjustments in individual and group identity—aided by reconstruction processes—are essential to reconciliation. If we do not get it right through justice, reparations and rehabilitation initiatives, we will not be able to secure peace, security and development for future generations.”52 The TFV operates under this purpose and exists, accepting voluntary contributions, so it can provide to a broader class of victims.

In conclusion, we can see from the TFV’s efforts to date that resources have been allocated, as I argue, to communities and conflict-affected areas that need emergency and health relief. For example, the TFV has committed 600,000 Euros to combat AIDS in the Central African Republic this year.

The TFV currently has 34 approved projects. These projects embody three approaches to general assistance: physical rehabilitation, psychological rehabilitation, and material support.53 For example, the TFV has provided medical treatment for victims with disfiguring injuries to reduce the stigma they face and to facilitate their reintegration, rehabilitated and reintegrated child soldiers, including girl combatants and abductees, through education, family reunification, foster placement, and vocational training. Further the TFV has improved access to reproductive health services, counseling, and psychosocial support for survivors of rape. It provides assistance to improve quality of life through agricultural and micro-credit initiatives, promoting radio for justice, and acknowledging atrocities and promoting reconciliation through projects that bring community members together to express their trauma and build solutions.54 To date, the TFV has provided physical and psycho-social rehabilitation services to over 80,000 victims in northern Uganda and the DRC.55 Thus, we can see that the Board of Directors and Secretariat of the TFV has indeed deemed such allocations appropriate and necessary.

V. Conclusion

Due in part to the ICC’s unique mandate, the Court has an exceptional opportunity to shape victim relief in an effective and meaningful way. Although it may not be conventional for a court to play such a role, the sheer volume of victims suggests that a different approach must be taken. It must be accepted that all victims cannot be compensated adequately. Collective reparations, although sometimes helpful, cannot be solely relied upon. Instead, the ICC and TFV must innovatively seek to allocate resources to direct and indirect victims in most urgent need. Physical and psychological conditions resulting from war must be treated with priority in the humanitarian relief and post-conflict stabilization stages. By contributing to a foundation by combating an individual’s vulnerability to pain and suffering, the TFV can be more effective in slowly enabling a society to move forward through transition and recovery and then through the peace and development stages. Concerns about individual evaluation of victims with the help of experts and concerns of time and complex processes can and have been overcome, as seen by the TFV’s current campaigns and projects. Therefore, the TFV’s “other resources” mechanism can indeed and must be used to contribute to functionality.

Endnotes — (click the footnote reference number, or ↩ symbol, to return to location in text).

1. 1.

   Dinah L. Shelton & Thordis Ingadottir, The ICC Reparations to Victims of Crimes and the Trust Fund, Recommendations for the Court Rules of Procedure and Evidence (prepared for the Center on International Cooperation at NYU) (1999), available online. ↩

2. 2.

   Reparations at the International Criminal Court: Issues and Challenges, Redress Conference Report (The Hague, 12 May 2011), available online at 5. ↩

3. 3.

   Rule 98 of the Code of Procedures refers to awards to victims made directly against the convicted person, while Rules 98(2)-(4) provide for ways to allocate or distribute TFV funds for reparations awards by the ICC to victims. Rule 98(5) refers to awards to victims who suffered crimes that are not directly linked to a defendant. See Carla Ferstman, The Reparation Regime of the International Criminal Court: Practical Considerations, 17 Leiden J. Int’l L. 667, 675-76 (2002). ↩

4. 4.

   Rule 98(5) provides that the “other resources of the TFV may be used for the benefit of victims subject to the provisions of Article 79.” See Ferstman at 676. See also Linda M. Keller, Seeking Justice at the International Criminal Court: Victims’ Reparations, 29 T. Jefferson L. Rev. 189, 198 (2006-2007), footnote 45, “Rule 98 of Rules of Procedure and Evidence, provides that TFV can use ‘other resources’ for the benefit of victims.” ↩

5. 5.

   Keller, supra note 4, at 198. ↩

6. 6.

   Id. at 203. ↩

7. 7.

   Id. at 190. ↩

8. 8.

   Post Conflict Stabilization, Peace-building and Recovery Frameworks, United Nations Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration Resource Center, at IDDRS Framework Section 4, available online. ↩

9. 9.

   Ferstman, supra note 3, at 669. ↩

10. 10.

    Id. at 674. ↩

11. 11.

    Shelton, supra note 1, at Part III: Conclusions. ↩

12. 12.

    Ingadottir, supra note 1, at Part II: The Trust Fund. ↩

13. 13.

    Id. at Part II: Voluntary Contributions. ↩

14. 14.

    The Two Roles of the TFV, available online. ↩

15. 15.

    Shelton, supra note 1, at Prologue; See also Ferstman, supra note 3, at 676, footnote 31, which indicates that Article 79(3) gives ASP the responsibility for developing the criteria for management of the TFV. ↩

16. 16.

    Frédéric Mégret, Justifying Compensation by the International Criminal Court’s Victims Trust Fund: Lessons from Domestic Compensation Schemes, 36 Brook. J. Int’l L. 123, 125 (2010). ↩

17. 17.

    Id. at 126. ↩

18. 18.

    Trust Fund for Victims Launches Programme in the Central African Republic, June 1, 2011, at News, available online. ↩

19. 19.

    Reparations at the International Criminal Court, supra note 2, at 5. ↩

20. 20.

    Keller, supra note 4, at 209-10 (Keller defines “unworthy victims” as victims seen as undeserving of reparations, or at least certain types of reparation. For example, a wealthy landowner who lost some land may receive the limited resources, even though he maintains a higher standard of living than other victims). ↩

21. 21.

    Mégret, supra note 16, at 29-31. ↩

22. 22.

    Id. ↩

23. 23.

    Id. ↩

24. 24.

    Keller, supra note 4, at 194, (lists the different types of reparations I discuss here). ↩

25. 25.

    Yael Weitz, Rwandan Genocide: Taking Notes from the Holocaust Reparations Movement, 15 Cardozo J.L. & Gender 357, 369-70 (2009). ↩

26. 26.

    Id. ↩

27. 27.

    Id. ↩

28. 28.

    Post-Conflict Stabilization, supra note 8, at Section 3.2. ↩

29. 29.

    Weitz, supra note 25, at 370. ↩

30. 30.

    Reparations at the International Criminal Court, supra note 2, at 6. ↩

31. 31.

    Trust Fund for Victims Launches Programme, supra note 18. ↩

32. 32.

    Mégret, supra note 16, at 31. ↩

33. 33.

    Forms, available online. ↩

34. 34.

    Coalition for the International Criminal Court: Trust Fund for Victims, available online. ↩

35. 35.

    Keller, supra note 4, at 202-03. ↩

36. 36.

    Libya’s NTC Orders Probe into Gaddafi’s Killing, Al Jazeera, Oct. 24, 2001, available online. ↩

37. 37.

    Reparation for Victims, available online. ↩

38. 38.

    Shelton, supra note 1, at Part II: Recommendations for the Processing of Claims under the Rome Statute. ↩

39. 39.

    Reparations at the International Criminal Court, supra note 2, at 6. ↩

40. 40.

    Id. ↩

41. 41.

    Shelton, supra note 1, at Part I: Conclusions. ↩

42. 42.

    Ferstman, supra note 3, at 675. ↩

43. 43.

    Keller, supra note 4, at 198-99. ↩

44. 44.

    Id. at 200. ↩

45. 45.

    Pieter de Baan, TFV Sixth Programme Progress Report Summer 2011, Aug. 22, 2011, at News, available online. ↩

46. 46.

    The Netherlands Contributes €250,000 to the Trust Fund for Victims, Aug. 24, 2011, at News, available online. ↩

47. 47.

    Swedish Donation is Significant Boost to Resources Trust Fund for Victims, Dec. 19, 2011, at News, available online. ↩

48. 48.

    Keller, supra note 4, at 190 footnote 7; see also Pablo de Greiff and Marieke Wierda, “The Trust Fund for Victims of the International Criminal Court: Between Possibilities and Constraints” in Out of the Ashes: Reparation for Victims of Gross and Systematic Human Rights Violations by Marc Bossuyt, Paul Lemmens, Koen de Feyter, and Stephan Parmentier (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2006) (footnote 7), asserting that the TFV “reflects a growing international consensus that reparations play an important role in achieving justice for victims.” ↩

49. 49.

    Mia Swart, Reparations at the International Criminal Court, supra note 2, at 8. ↩

50. 50.

    Id. ↩

51. 51.

    Keller, supra note 4, at 191. ↩

52. 52.

    The Two Roles of the TFV, supra note 14. ↩

53. 53.

    Id. ↩

54. 54.

    Id. ↩

55. 55.

    Swedish Donation is Significant Boost, supra note 47. ↩