International Criminal Proceedings—An Adequate Tool for Victims’ Justice?

  • Rianne LetschertEmail author
Part of the International Criminal Justice Series book series (ICJS, volume 11)


This chapter discusses six factors, addressed throughout the book, that stand out as crucial for rendering victim participation in criminal justice meaningful: cultural awareness, accessible application mechanisms, effective communication, effective protective measures, accessible psychological assistance and reparations. The chapter also puts international criminal proceedings in the greater context of transitional justice. With a sharp lens, it highlights the shortcomings of such proceedings and advises on the way forward.


Victimological perspectives Transitional justice 


  1. Davis RC, Smith BE (1994) Victim impact statements and victim satisfaction: An unfulfilled promise. J Crim Justice 22(1):1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Doak J (2011) The therapeutic dimension of transitional justice: emotional repair and victim satisfaction in international trials and truth commissions. Int Crim Law Rev 11:263–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Groenhuijsen MS, Pemberton A (2009) The EU framework decision on victims. Does hard law make a difference? Eur J Crime, Crim Law Crim Justice 17:43–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Groenhuijsen MS, Pemberton A (2011) Genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes: a victimological perspective. In: Letschert R, De Brouwer AM, Haveman R, Pemberton A (eds) Victimological approaches to international crimes. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 7–34Google Scholar
  5. Haldemann F (2011) Drawing the line: amnesty, truth commissions and collective denial. In: Letschert R, Haveman RH, Brouwer AM, Pemberton A (eds) Victimological approaches to international crimes: Africa. Intersentia, Antwerp, pp 265–288Google Scholar
  6. Herman JL (2003) The mental health of crime victims: impact of legal intervention. J Trauma Stress 16(2):159–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Laxminarayan MS (2012) The heterogeneity of crime victims: Variations in procedural and outcome preferences. Intervict, TilburgGoogle Scholar
  8. Letschert R (2010) Protecting and empowering victims of international crimes through the human security concept—A new challenge for victimologists? Social Science Research Network (SSRN), Accessed 1 Nov 2016
  9. Orth U (2002) Secondary victimization of crime victims by criminal proceedings. Soc Justice Res 15(4):313–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Pemberton A, Letschert R (2012) Global justice and global criminal laws. The importance of Nyaya in the quest for justice after international crimes. Tilburg Law Rev: J Int Comp Law 17(2):296–303Google Scholar
  11. Pemberton A, Letschert R, De Brouwer AM, Haveman RH (2015) Coherence in international criminal justice, a victimological perspective. Int Crim Law Rev 15(2):339–368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Pena M, Carayon G (2013) Is the ICC making the most of victim participation? Int J Trans Justice 7:518–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Van den Wyngaert C (2011) Victims before international criminal courts—Some views and concerns of an ICC trial judge. Case West J Int Law 44:475–496Google Scholar
  14. Vasiliev S (2009) Article 68(3) and personal interests of victims in the emerging practice of the ICC. In: Stahn C, Sluiter G (eds) The emerging practice of the International Criminal Court. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, LeidenGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MaastrichtMaastrichtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations