Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Application Process: Procedure and Players

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Victim Participation in International Criminal Justice

Part of the book series: International Criminal Justice Series ((ICJS,volume 11))

  • 804 Accesses

Abstract

When a person, having suffered harm as a result of the commission of a crime falling within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia or the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, wishes to be granted status as a victim before one of these tribunals, he or she usually has to apply to do so. This step opens the door to the so-called application process for victims, a process that may lead to the recognition of the status of victim and the granting of the rights and obligations relating to it. This chapter gives a comprehensive overview of this application process, its procedure and the players involved in it, by focusing on the major issues related to this process.

Mélissa Fardel is a Ph.D. candidate at the Law Faculty, University of Geneva (Switzerland). She has worked as a teaching and research assistant at the University of Geneva (Law Faculty - Department of Public International Law and International Organization) and at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. She has also worked as a legal intern for the Victims’ Participation Unit of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

Nuria Vehils Olarra is Associate External Relations and Cooperation Officer at the Registry of the International Criminal Court. She has also worked as a legal intern for the Victims’ Participation Unit of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. The views expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Criminal Court.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, lawyers representing victims, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (at the ICC) and the respective units entrusted with the protection of victims and witnesses.

  2. 2.

    The roles of court-appointed lawyers and of the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) usually come into play after an applicant has been granted victim status. However, at the ICC, victims can give powers of attorney to private lawyers of their own choosing up until the point when common legal representation is arranged, and these persons are sometimes involved in the application process. In some cases, the OPCV has been appointed as lawyer for unrepresented applicants (see Chap. 5). In this capacity, the OPCV may assist applicants to provide supplementary information, and, while in the field, might also assist other victims to apply for participation where this is requested.

  3. 3.

    Formerly the Public Information and Documentation Section (PIDS).

  4. 4.

    For more information on intermediaries, see Chap. 4.

  5. 5.

    For example, specific directions were given by the Chamber to (then) PIDS regarding its role and the need to coordinate with the VPRS in ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, paras 10–13.

  6. 6.

    Interview with Fiona McKay, former Head of Victims Participation and Reparations Section, ICC, 3 March 2015, (records on file with the authors).

  7. 7.

    ICC, Resolution adopted by the Assembly of States Parties, ICC-ASP/12/Res.1 2013, section H, para 3.

  8. 8.

    ICC Registry ReVision Project: Basic Outline of Proposals to Establish Defence and Victims Offices, 2014b, http://www.uianet.org/sites/default/files/Registry_ReVision_BasicOutline_Defence_Victims_Offices_0.pdf. Accessed 1 March 2015.

  9. 9.

    Ibid., p. 2.

  10. 10.

    ICC, Assembly of States Parties, Report on the review of the organizational structure of the Registry, ICC-ASP/13/26, 28 October 2014a, para 19.

  11. 11.

    Ibid.

  12. 12.

    ICC, Assembly of State Parties, Report on the review of the organizational structure of the Registry, ICC-ASP/14/18, 4 May 2015, para 6.

  13. 13.

    ICC, Comprehensive Report on the Reorganisation of the Registry of the International Criminal Court, August 2016. https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/ICC-Registry-CR.pdf. Accessed 4 November 2016, p. 12.

  14. 14.

    Rev. 9 (2015) (ECCC Internal Rules).

  15. 15.

    Written correspondence with Christoph Sperfeldt, Ph.D. Scholar, Australian National University, 20 August 2016 (records on file with the editors).

  16. 16.

    See further Chap. 11.

  17. 17.

    For more information on intermediaries, please refer to Chap. 4.

  18. 18.

    For a list of intermediary organisations, see https://www.eccc.gov.kh/en/victims-support/intermediary-organizations-ios-0. Accessed 1 March 2015.

  19. 19.

    Interview with Dr. Brianne McGonigle Leyh, former civil party lawyer, ECCC, 26 February 2015 (records on file with the authors). See further Chap. 4.

  20. 20.

    In this task, the VPU has been assisted by the Registry’s Outreach Unit that published press releases inviting victims to participate, and facilitated the broadcasting of a video on local and regional television channels with the same purpose. Written correspondence with Marie-Reine Sfeir, former associate liaison officer, Victims’ Participation Unit, STL, 2 March 2015 (records on file with the authors).

  21. 21.

    Applicants are requested to use one of these two languages if at all possible. If an applicant is unable to submit a form in English or French, and would like to submit the application form in another language, it is recommended to first contact the Court or its Field Offices, since the Court does not have translators who can work in all languages and has limited funds for this purpose (Interview with Fiona McKay, former Head of Victims Participation and Reparations Section, ICC, 3 March 2015 (records on file with the authors)).

  22. 22.

    See for example, ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS 6, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr, 17 January 2006, para 102. At the time of the first six victims to ever apply for participation in ICC proceedings, the VPRS had not yet developed an application form. The forms used by the applicants were therefore forms created by the NGO Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme (FIDH) for taking testimonies during fact-finding missions. These forms contained the information required by Regulation 86(2) of the Regulations of the Court and were, therefore, accepted by the Chamber (Interview with Mariana Pena, Legal Officer, Open Society Justice Initiative, 17 November 2014 (records on file with the authors).

  23. 23.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on Issues Related to the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/11-01/11-33, 6 February 2012. See also, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Decision on Issues Related to the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/11-01/11-86, 5 April 2012.

  24. 24.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto and Joshua Arap Sang, Trial Chamber V, Decision on Victim’s Representation and Participation, ICC-01/09-01/11-460, 3 October 2012, paras 48–55; Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura and Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Trial Chamber V, Decision on Victims’ Representation and Participation, ICC-01/09-02/11-498, 3 October 2012, paras 47–54.

  25. 25.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-01/04-02/06-67, 28 May 2013, para 21; Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, paras 14.

  26. 26.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Trial Chamber VI, Decision on Victims’ Participation in Trial Proceedings, ICC-01/04-02/06-449, 6 February 2015, paras 20–40.

  27. 27.

    For further details, see Sect. 2.4.1 below and Chap. 3.

  28. 28.

    ICC Regulations of the Court, Regulation 86(4).

  29. 29.

    Interview with Anushka Sehmi, former legal assistant/case manager for the Legal Representative of Victims in Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, ICC, 21 February 2015 (records on file with the authors). See for example, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, para 27.

  30. 30.

    Possible ways to prove identity are listed in the form: identity card (also student or employee card), voting card, letter from Local Authority, driver’s license, passport, camp registration card, card from humanitarian agency (such as United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, World Food Program).

  31. 31.

    ECCC Internal Rules, Rule 23bis(4).

  32. 32.

    Ibid.

  33. 33.

    See Article 3.6 of the ECCC Practice Direction on Victim Participation, 02/2007/Rev.1 (2008) (ECCC Practice Direction on Victim Participation); and ECCC Internal Rules, Rule 23bis(2).

  34. 34.

    ECCC Practice Direction on Victim Participation, Articles 3.4 and 3.7.

  35. 35.

    Written correspondence with Megan Hirst, former legal officer, Victims’ Participation Unit, STL, 2 March 2015 (records on file with the authors).

  36. 36.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-01/04-02/06-67, 28 May 2013, para 26.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., para 27.

  38. 38.

    Ibid. See also Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, paras 23–34. See also Chap. 4.

  39. 39.

    ECCC, Case 002, Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, Closing Order, Case No.002/19-09-2007-ECCC-OCIJ, 15 September 2010, para 11.

  40. 40.

    Interview with Silke Studzinsky, former civil party lawyer, ECCC, 24 February 2015 (records on file with the authors).

  41. 41.

    Written correspondence with Megan Hirst, former legal officer, Victims’ Participation Unit, STL, 24 January 2015 (records on file with the authors).

  42. 42.

    Written correspondence with Kinga Tibori-Szabó, former associate legal officer, Legal Representative of Victims, STL, 19 March 2015 (records on file with the authors).

  43. 43.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I, Order on the Applications by Victims to Participate and for Reparations, ICC-01/04-01/06-2838, 27 January 2012, paras 5–6; Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Appeals Chamber, Decision on a/2922/11’s Application to Participate in the Appeals proceedings, ICC-01/04-01/06-3052-Red, 3 October 2013.

  44. 44.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga et Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Trial Chamber II, Décision relative au traitement des demandes de participation, ICC-01/04-01/07-933, 26 February 2009, para 27; Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Trial Chamber III, Decision Setting a Time-Limit for the Submission of New Victims’ Applications for Participation, ICC-01/05-01/08-875, 7 September 2010, para 9; Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Trial Chamber III, Corrigendum to the Decision on 401 Applications by Victims to Participate in the Proceedings and Setting a Final Deadline for the Submission of New Victims’ Applications to the Registry, ICC-01/05-01/08-1590-Corr, 21 July 2011, para 25; Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second Decision on Issues Related to the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/11-01/11-86, 5 April 2012, para 37.

  45. 45.

    ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Appeals Chamber, Order of the Appeals Chamber on the Date of Filing of Applications for Participation and on the Time of the Filing of the Responses thereto by the OPCD and the Prosecutor, ICC-01/04-480, 29 February 2008, p. 2; ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Appeals Chamber, Order of the Appeals Chamber on the Date of Filing of Applications for Participation and on the Time of the Filing of the Responses thereto by the OPCD and the Prosecutor, ICC-01/04-481, 29 February 2008, p. 2; Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Set of Procedural Rights Attached to Procedural Status of Victim at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case, ICC-01/04-01/07-474, 13 May 2008, para 189; Prosecutor v. Jean- Pierre Bemba Gombo, Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on Victim Participation, ICC-01/05-01/08-103-tEN-Corr, 12 September 2008, p. 5; Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision Concerning the Time Limit for the Submission of New Victim Applications, ICC-01/05-01/08-305, 2 December 2008, para 1; Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga et Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Trial Chamber II, Décision relative au traitement des demandes de participation, ICC-01/04-01/07-933, 26 February 2009, para 27; Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Designation of a Single Judge on Victims’ Issues and on the Deadline for the Filing of Applications for Participation, ICC-02/05-02/09-55-RSC, 19 August 2009, p. 6; Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Order Setting a Deadline for the Transmission of Applications for Victims’ Participation, ICC-01/04-01/10-78, 15 March 2011, p. 3; Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura et al., Pre-Trial Chamber II, First Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Case, ICC-01/09-02/11-23, 30 March 2011, para 17; Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Pre-Trial Chamber II, First Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Case, ICC-01/09-01/11-17, 30 March 2011, para 17.

  46. 46.

    See for example, ICC, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Registrar, Proposal on Victim Participation in the Confirmation Hearing, ICC-01/04-01/10-213, 6 June 2011, paras 1–6; and Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the “Proposal on Victim Participation in the Confirmation Hearing”, ICC-01/04-01/10-229, 10 June 2011, especially at p. 5 where the Judge noted that ‘applicants whose Applications have not been submitted by [the deadline] will not be permitted to participate in the proceedings related to the confirmation hearing’.

  47. 47.

    See Rule 23(3) of the ECCC Internal Rules, Rev. 4 (2009).

  48. 48.

    See Rule 23(4) of the ECCC Internal Rules, Rev. 3 (2009).

  49. 49.

    ECCC, Case 001, Trial Chamber, Decision on Request to Extend Deadline for the Filing of Civil Party Applications, Case No.001/18-07-2007-ECCC/TC 10 March 2009. In this case, an application was filed two days late by a victim, for the reason that the victim was unaware of the filing deadline and acted as soon as he became aware of it. The Chamber considered this reason insufficient to grant an extension of the deadline to the victim, particularly in light of the efforts that had been made by the Court to inform the public of the deadline. The Chamber ruled, in particular, that ‘[a]lthough, pursuant to Rule 23(4) [revision 3 of the Internal Rules], the President may alter deadlines for the filing of civil party applications, the exercise of this discretion must be supported by cogent reasons. Further, it must ensure equal treatment of all victims and avoid the appearance of individual dispensation. Consequently, an extension of this deadline for one civil party applicant shall either result in an extended deadline for all applicants or, where requested only in relation to one particular applicant, may be granted only in exceptional circumstances.’ (para 9). See also ECCC Internal Rules, Rule 39(1) and (4).

  50. 50.

    Rule 86(A) of the STL RPE specifies that the Pre-Trial Judge must have confirmed an indictment under Rule 68 before a person claiming to be a victim of a crime within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction may request the status of victim participating in the proceedings.

  51. 51.

    STL, Prosecutor v. Salim Jamil Ayyash, Mustafa Amine Badreddine, Hussein Hassan Oneissi and Assad Hassan Sabra (‘Ayyash et al.’), Pre-Trial Judge, Scheduling Order Regarding the Deadline for Filing Applications to Participate in the Proceedings as a Victim, STL-11-01/I/PTJ, 8 September 2011, para 4.

  52. 52.

    Ibid., para 7.

  53. 53.

    STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Second Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 3 September 2012, para 11.

  54. 54.

    STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Fifth Decision on Victim’s Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/T/PTJ, 18 July 2014, para 11; STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Sixth Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/T/PTJ, 6 November 2014, paras 3 and 11.

  55. 55.

    Ibid. See also, STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Second Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 3 September 2012, para 11.

  56. 56.

    ICC Regulations of the Court, Regulation 86(4).

  57. 57.

    ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Requests of the Legal Representative of Applicants on Application Process for Victims’ Participation and Legal Representation, ICC-01/04-374, 17 August 2007, paras 8–11; ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Pre-Trial Chamber III, Fourth Decision on Victims’ Participation, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, 12 December 2008, para 80; ICC, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Trial Chamber II, Décision relative au traitement des demandes de participation, ICC-01/04-01/07-933, 26 February 2009, paras 26–27.

  58. 58.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Pre-Trial Chamber III, Decision on Victim Participation, ICC-01/05-01/08-103-tENG-Corr, 12 September 2008, para 8; ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Trial Chamber III, Decision Defining the Status of 54 Victims who Participated at the Pre-Trial Stage, and Inviting the Parties’ Observations on Applications for Participation by 86 Applicants, ICC-01/05-01/08-699, 22 February 2010, paras 35 and 37; ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-01/04-02/06-67, 28 May 2013, para 29.

  59. 59.

    ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Requests of the Legal Representative of Applicants on Application Process for Victims’ Participation and Legal Representation, ICC-01/04-374, 17 August 2007, para 12; ICC, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Public Redacted Version of the “Decision on the 97 Applications for Participation at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case”, ICC-01/04-01/07-579, 10 June 2008, para 44; ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Pre-Trial Chamber III, Fourth Decision on Victims’ Participation, ICC-01/05-01/08-320, 12 December 2008, para 81; ICC, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Trial Chamber II, Décision relative au traitement des demandes de participation, ICC-01/04-01/07-933, 26 February 2009, para 28; ICC, Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the 34 Applications for Participation at the Pre-Trial Stage of the Case, ICC-02/05-02/09-121, 25 September 2009, para 7; ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Trial Chamber III, Decision Defining the Status of 54 Victims who Participated at the Pre-Trial Stage, and Inviting the Parties’ Observations on Applications for Participation by 86 Applicants, ICC-01/05-01/08-699, 22 February 2010, para 35; ICC, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Pre-Trial Chamber II, First Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Case, ICC-01/09-01/11-17, 30 March 2011, para 19; ICC, Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura et al., Pre-Trial Chamber II, First Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Case, ICC-01/09-02/11-23, 30 March 2011, para 19; ICC, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, ICC-01/09-01/11-249, 5 August 2011, para 57; ICC, Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura et al., Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, ICC-01/09-02/11-267, 26 August 2011, para 71; ICC, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum to the Second Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, ICC-02/11-01/11-384-Corr, 6 February 2013, para 36; ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, ICC-01/04-02/06-211, 15 January 2014, para 60; ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, para 28.

  60. 60.

    See Chap. 3.

  61. 61.

    ICC Regulations of the Court, Regulation 86(5).

  62. 62.

    ICC, Situation in Uganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Victim’s Participation in Proceedings Related to the Situation in Uganda, ICC-02/04-191, 9 March 2012, para 27; ICC, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Pre-Trial Chamber II, First Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Case, ICC-01/09-01/11-17, 30 March 2011, para 21; ICC, Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura et al., Pre-Trial Chamber II, First Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Case, ICC-01/09-02/11-23, 30 March 2011, para 21; ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Trial Chamber VI, Decision on Victims’ Participation in Trial Proceedings, ICC-01/04-02/06-499, 6 February 2015, para 24; ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, paras 29–30.

  63. 63.

    ICC RPE, Rule 89(1). For an example, see ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, para 31.

  64. 64.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I, Decision on the implementation of the reporting system between the Registrar and the Trial Chamber in accordance with Rule 89 and Regulation of the Court 86(5), ICC-01/04-01/06-1022, 9 November 2007, paras 21–27; ICC, Situation In the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Requests of the Legal Representative of Applicants on application process for victims’ participation and legal representation, ICC-01/04-374, 17 August 2007, paras 32–38; ICC, Situation in Darfur, Sudan, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Requests of the OPCD and the Legal Representatives of the Applicants Regarding the Transmission of the Report of the Registry under rule 89 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, ICC-02/05-93, 21 August 2007.

  65. 65.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Trial Chamber VI, Decision on Victims’ Participation in Trial Proceedings, ICC-01/04-02/06-499, 6 February 2015, para 24 (iv); ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, para 31.

  66. 66.

    ECCC Practice Direction on Victim Participation, Article 3.5; ECCC Internal Rules, Rule 23bis(4).

  67. 67.

    ECCC Practice Direction on Victim Participation, Articles 3.4 and 3.7. Note that in Case 001, applications were transmitted to the Trial Chamber after the case file was submitted. However, the competence to decide on civil party admissibility is now vested only in the Co-Investigating Judges.

  68. 68.

    ECCC, Case 002, Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, Interoffice memorandum, Deadline for Supplementary Information, Case No. 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/OCIJ, 9 April 2010; ECCC, Case 002, Office of the Co-Investigating Judges, Interoffice memorandum, Deadline for Filing Supplementary Information, Case No. 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/OCIJ, 29 April 2010.

  69. 69.

    STL RPE, Rule 51(B)(iii).

  70. 70.

    STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Victims’ Participation Unit, Transmission of Applications for the Status of Victim Participating in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 9 February 2012, para 14.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., para 15.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., para 9.

  73. 73.

    In its first transmission of 9 February 2012, the VPU also submitted to the Pre-Trial Judge an overview summarising the procedures employed by the VPU in the receipt and administration of applications, as well as some features of the applicants and their applications. STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Victims’ Participation Unit, Transmission of Applications for the Status of Victim Participating in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 9 February 2012, para 9.

  74. 74.

    STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Victims’ Participation Unit, Transmission of Applications for the Status of Victim Participating in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 9 February 2012, paras 5 and 9. See also, STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Decision on Defence Motion of 17 February 2012 for an Order to the Victims’ Participation Unit to Refile its Submission Inter Partes and Inviting Submissions on Legal Issues Related to Applications for the Status of Victim Participating in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 5 April 2012.

  75. 75.

    STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Transmission of Applications for the Status of Victim Participating in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 9 February 2012; STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Sixth Transmission by the VPU pursuant to Rule 51(B)(iii), STL-11-01/T/PTJ, 27 June 2014; STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Seventh Transmission by the VPU pursuant to Rule 51(B)(iii), STL-11-01/T/PTJ, 28 October 2014.

  76. 76.

    Written correspondence with Megan Hirst, former legal officer, Victims Participation Unit, STL, 1 March 2015 (records on file with the authors).

  77. 77.

    See Sect. 2.4.3 of this chapter for details on redactions made to victim applications.

  78. 78.

    For example, in the DRC Situation, the Defence argued that FIDH (Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme) had no standing to file any document on behalf of victims. The Pre-Trial Chamber rejected that view. ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 and VPRS 6, ICC-01/04-101-tEN-Corr, 17 January 2006, para 104.

  79. 79.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence, Defence Observations on the “Fourth Transmission to the Parties and Legal Representatives of Redacted Versions of Applications for Participation in the Proceedings”, ICC‐01/05‐01/08-968, 22 October 2010, paras 5–6.

  80. 80.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Defence, Defence Response to the Legal Representatives of Victims Requests to Participate in the Appeal Proceedings, ICC-01/04-01/07-3491, 13 June 2014, para 10.

  81. 81.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence, Defence Observations on the “Fourth Transmission to the Parties and Legal Representatives of Redacted Versions of Applications for Participation in the Proceedings”, ICC‐01/05‐01/08-968, 22 October 2010, paras 25 and 28.

  82. 82.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Defence, Observations de la Défense du Président Gbagbo concernant les 57 demandes individuelles et les 6 demandes collectives de participation des victimes, ICC‐02/11‐01/11-133, 28 May 2012, para 18; ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence, Defence Observations on the “Fourth Transmission to the Parties and Legal Representatives of Redacted Versions of Applications for Participation in the Proceedings”, ICC‐01/05‐01/08-968, 22 October 2010, paras 7–12.

  83. 83.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Defence, Observations de la Défense du Président Gbagbo concernant les 57 demandes individuelles et les 6 demandes collectives de participation des victimes, ICC‐02/11‐01/11-133, 28 May 2012, paras 51–55.

  84. 84.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence, Defence Observations on the “Fourth Transmission to the Parties and Legal Representatives of Redacted Versions of Applications for Participation in the Proceedings”, ICC‐01/05‐01/08-968, 22 October 2010, para 22.

  85. 85.

    For example, in the Bemba case, the Defence requested the rejection of 176 applicants. ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence, Defence Observations on the “Fourth Transmission to the Parties and Legal Representatives of Redacted Versions of Applications for Participation in the Proceedings”, ICC‐01/05‐01/08-968, 22 October 2010, para 30.

  86. 86.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Prosecutor, Prosecution’s Observations on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of 24 Applicants, ICC‐01/05‐01/08-206-Red, 4 November 2008, para 35.

  87. 87.

    ICC, Situation in Uganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the request by the Office of Public Counsel for Victims dated 21 October 2008, ICC-02/04-162, 23 October 2008; ICC, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony, Vincent Otti, Okot Odhiambo, Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the request by the Office of Public Counsel for Victims dated 21 October 2008, ICC-02/04-01/05-322, 23 October 2008.

  88. 88.

    Indeed, the Defence have often complained that these steps entail a great amount of time and resources. See for example: ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence, Defence Response to the Third Transmission of Victims’ Applications for Participation in the Proceedings, ICC-01/05-01/08-945, 11 October 2010, para 5; ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence, Defence Observations on the “Fourth Transmission to the Parties and Legal Representatives of Redacted Versions of Applications for Participation in the Proceedings”, ICC-01/05-01/08-968, 22 October 2010, paras 5–6; ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence, Defence Observations on the “Seventh Transmission to the Parties and Legal Representatives of Redacted Versions of Applications for Participation in the Proceedings”, ICC-01/05-01/08-1053, 26 November 2010, para 5.

  89. 89.

    ICC, Report of the Court on the Review of the System for Victims to Apply to Participate in Proceedings, ICC-ASP/11/22 2012, paras 58–63.

  90. 90.

    Ibid.

  91. 91.

    Ibid.

  92. 92.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Trial Chamber VI, Decision on victims’ participation in trial proceedings, ICC-01/04-02/06-449, 6 February 2015, paras 20–40.

  93. 93.

    Ibid., para 24(v)–(viii).

  94. 94.

    Ibid., para 24(vii).

  95. 95.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, paras 29–32.

  96. 96.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision concerning the procedure for admission of victims to participate in the proceedings in the present case, ICC-02/04-01/15-299, 3 September 2015, paras 4–5.

  97. 97.

    See STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Decision on Defence Motion of 17 February 2012 for an Order to the Victims’ Participation Unit to Refile its Submission Inter Partes and Inviting Submissions on Legal Issues Related to Applications for the Status of Victim Participating in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 5 April 2012, paras 27 and 37.

  98. 98.

    STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Decision on Defence Motion of 17 February 2012 for an Order to the Victims’ Participation Unit to Refile its Submission Inter Partes and Inviting Submissions on Legal Issues Related to Applications for the Status of Victim Participating in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 5 April 2012. paras 2 and 57.

  99. 99.

    STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Prosecutor, Prosecution’s Submission in Response to the Pre-Trial Judge’s Decision of 5 April 2012, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 23 April 2012, paras 5–16.

  100. 100.

    For example, the Pre-Trial Judge deferred ruling on the application submitted by V079, stating that some required information was missing. STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Fifth Decision on Victim’s Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/T/PTJ, 18 July 2014, para 14.

  101. 101.

    See Chap. 6.

  102. 102.

    See ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I, Decision on Victims’ Participation, ICC-01/04-01/06-1119, 18 January 2008, paras 136 and 137, in which the Chamber recalled Article 43(6) of the ICC Statute and decided that the notion of ‘victims who appear before the Court’ also applies to victim applicants. Therefore, once an application to participate is received by the Court, Article 43(6) of the ICC Statute is engaged and the VWS must take appropriate protective measures.

  103. 103.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I, Decision Inviting the Parties’ Observations on Applications for Participation of a/0001/06 to a/0004/06, a/0047/06 to a/0052/06, a/0077/06, a/0078/06, a/0105/06, a/0221/06, a/0224/06 to a/0233/06, a/0236/06, a/0237/06 to a/0250/06, a/0001/07 to a/0005/07, a/0054/07 to a/0062/07, a/0064/07, a/0065/07, a/0149/07, a/0155/07, a/0156/07, a/0162/07, a/0168/07 to a/0185/07, a/0187/07 to a/0191/07, a/0251/07 to a/0253/07, a/0255/07 to a/0257/07, a/0270/07 to a/0285/07, and a/0007/08, ICC-01/04-01/06-1308, 6 May 2008, para 23.

  104. 104.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Legal Representation, Appointment of Counsel for the Defence, Protective Measures and Time-Limit for Submission of Observations on Applications for Participation a/0010/06, a/0064/06 to a/0070/06, a/0081/06 to a/0104/06 and a/0111/06 to a/0127/06, ICC-02/04-01/05-134, 1 February 2007, para 20; ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I, Decision Inviting the Parties’ Observations on Applications for Participation of a/0001/06 to a/0004/06, a/0047/06 to a/0052/06, a/0077/06, a/0078/06, a/0105/06, a/0221/06, a/0224/06 to a/0233/06, a/0236/06, a/0237/06 to a/0250/06, a/0001/07 to a/0005/07, a/0054/07 to a/0062/07, a/0064/07, a/0065/07, a/0149/07, a/0155/07, a/0156/07, a/0162/07, a/0168/07 to a/0185/07, a/0187/07 to a/0191/07, a/0251/07 to a/0253/07, a/0255/07 to a/0257/07, a/0270/07 to a/0285/07, and a/0007/08, ICC-01/04-01/06-1308, 6 May 2008, para 24.

  105. 105.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Legal Representation, Appointment of Counsel for the Defence, Protective Measures and Time-Limit for Submission of Observations on Applications for Participation of a/0010/06, a/0064/06 to a/0070/06, a/0081/06 to a/0104/06 and a/0111/06 to a/0127/06, ICC-02/04-01/05-134, 1 February 2007, para 24; ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I, Decision Inviting the Parties’ Observations on Applications for Participation of a/0001/06 to a/0004/06, a/0047/06 to a/0052/06, a/0077/06, a/0078/06, a/0105/06, a/0221/06, a/0224/06 to a/0233/06, a/0236/06, a/0237/06 to a/0250/06, a/0001/07 to a/0005/07, a/0054/07 to a/0062/07, a/0064/07, a/0065/07, a/0149/07, a/0155/07, a/0156/07, a/0162/07, a/0168/07 to a/0185/07, a/0187/07 to a/0191/07, a/0251/07 to a/0253/07, a/0255/07 to a/0257/07, a/0270/07 to a/0285/07, and a/0007/08, ICC-01/04-01/06-1308, 6 May 2008, para 25; ICC, Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Defence Requests in Relation to the Victims’ Applications for Participation in the Present Case, ICC-01/09-02/11-164, 8 July 2011, para 18; ICC, Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, ICC-01/09-02/11-267, 26 August 2011, para 39; ICC, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Corrigendum to the Second Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings, ICC-02/11-01/11-384-Corr, 6 February 2013, para 34; ICC, Prosecutor v. Charles Blé Goudé, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Pre-Trial Proceedings and Related Issues, ICC-02/11-02/11-83, 11 June 2014, para 43.

  106. 106.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Trial Chamber VI, Decision on Victims’ Participation in Trial Proceedings, ICC-01/04-02/06-499, 6 February 2015, para 28. See also: ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Defence, Defence Observations on the "Fourth Transmission to the Parties and Legal Representatives of Redacted Versions of Applications for Participation in the Proceedings", ICC‐01/05‐01/08-968, 22 October 2010, paras 7-12; ICC, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Defence, Response on Behalf of Mr. William Samoei Ruto and Mr. Joshua Arap Sang to the First Transmission to the Parties and Legal Representatives of Redacted Applications to Participate in the Proceedings, with Confidential Annex, ICC-01/09-01/11-102, 3 June 2011, paras 8–10; ICC, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Chambre préliminaire I, Observations de la Défense du Président Gbagbo concernant les 57 demandes individuelles et les 6 demandes collectives de participation des victimes, ICC‐02/11‐01/11-133, 28 May 2012, para 18; ICC, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Defence, Observations de la défense portant sur les cinquante-neuf demandes de participation de victimes transmises par le Greffe le 18 décembre 2012 en version expurgée (ICC-02/11-01/11-366), ICC-02/11-01/11-382, 5 February 2013, paras 24–26.

  107. 107.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on Legal Representation, Appointment of Counsel for the Defence, Protective Measures and Time-Limit for Submission of Observations on Applications for Participation a/0010/06, a/0064/06 to a/0070/06, a/0081/06 to a/0104/06 and a/0111/06 to a/0127/06, ICC-02/04-01/05-134, 1 February 2007, para 25; ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I, Decision Inviting the Parties’ Observations on Applications for Participation of a/0001/06 to a/0004/06, a/0047/06 to a/0052/06, a/0077/06, a/0078/06, a/0105/06, a/0221/06, a/0224/06 to a/0233/06, a/0236/06, a/0237/06 to a/0250/06, a/0001/07 to a/0005/07, a/0054/07 to a/0062/07, a/0064/07, a/0065/07, a/0149/07, a/0155/07, a/0156/07, a/0162/07, a/0168/07 to a/0185/07, a/0187/07 to a/0191/07, a/0251/07 to a/0253/07, a/0255/07 to a/0257/07, a/0270/07 to a/0285/07, and a/0007/08, ICC-01/04-01/06-1038, 6 May 2008, para 30; ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Pre-Trial Chamber III, Second Decision on the Question of Victims’ Participation Requesting Observations from the Parties, ICC-01/05-01/08-184, 23 October 2008, paras 12–14; ICC, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Trial Chamber II, Décision relative au traitement des demandes de participation ICC-01/04-01/07-933, 26 February 2009, para 53; ICC, Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Trial Chamber III, Decision Defining the Status of 54 Victims who Participated at the Pre-Trial Stage, and Inviting the Parties’ Observations on Applications for Participation by 86 Applicants, ICC-01/05-01/08-699, 22 February 2010, para 32.

  108. 108.

    Unredacted application forms had been transmitted to the Office of Public Counsel for Defence in the past, although this practice appears to be discontinued. See, for instance: ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Requests of the Legal Representative of Applicants on application process for victims’ participation and legal representation, ICC-01/04-374, 17 August 2007, p. 23.

  109. 109.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Callixte Mbarushimana, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision Requesting the Parties to Submit Observations on 14 Applications for Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, ICC-01/04-01/10-181, 24 May 2011, p. 5; ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Applications Process, ICC-01/04-02/06-67, 28 May 2013, para 44; ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, para 35.

  110. 110.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision Ordering the Parties to Submit their Observations on the 52 Applications for Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, ICC-02/05-02/09-106, 16 September 2009, p. 5; ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Applications Process, ICC-01/04-02/06-67, 28 May 2013, para 44; ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, para 35.

  111. 111.

    ICC, Prosecutor v. William Samoei Ruto, Henry Kiprono Kosgey and Joshua Arap Sang, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision on the Defence Requests in Relation to the Victims’ Applications for Participation in the Present Case, ICC-01/09-01/11-169, 8 July 2011, para 13; ICC, Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Second decision on issues related to the victims’ application process, ICC-02/11-01/11-86, 5 April 2012, para 42; ICC, Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Applications Process, ICC-01/04-02/06-67, 28 May 2013, para 44; ICC, Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Pre-Trial Chamber II, Decision Establishing Principles on the Victims’ Application Process, ICC-02/04-01/15-205, 4 March 2015, para 35.

  112. 112.

    Interview with Silke Studzinsky, former civil party lawyer, ECCC, 24 February 2015 (records on file with the authors).

  113. 113.

    Ibid., For details on protective measures regarding civil parties at the ECCC, see Chap. 6.

  114. 114.

    ECCC Practice Direction on Classification and Management of Case-Related Information, Rev. 2 (2014), Articles 2(d)(iii), 6(a) and 7.3.

  115. 115.

    Interview with Silke Studzinsky, former civil party lawyer, ECCC, 24 February 2015 (records on file with the authors).

  116. 116.

    For a comprehensive analysis of these requirements, see Chap. 3.

  117. 117.

    See Chap. 14 on the circumstances in which the status may be terminated.

  118. 118.

    ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Requests of the OPCV, ICC-01/04-418, 10 December 2007, para 17.

  119. 119.

    ECCC Practice Direction on Victim Participation, Article 3.8. The competence to decide on civil party admissibility is only vested in the Co-Investigating Judges as this power was removed from the Trial Chamber in September 2009 with Revision 4 of the ECCC Internal Rules. The Trial Chamber is therefore not competent to receive any civil party applications or to decide on their admissibility. See: ECCC, Co-Prosecutors v. Kaing Guek Eav, Supreme Court Chamber, Appeal Judgment, Case No. 001/18-07-2007-ECCC/SC, 3 February 2012, para 511.

  120. 120.

    This requirement can be deduced from Internal Rules 23bis(3) and 77bis(2).

  121. 121.

    ECCC, Case 002, Pre-Trial Chamber, Decision on Appeals against Order of the Co-Investigating Judges on the Admissibility of Civil Party Applications, Case No. 002/19-09-2007-ECCC/OCIJ (PTC76, PTC112, PTC113, PTC114, PTC115, PTC142, PTC157, PTC164, PTC165 and PTC172), 24 June 2011, paras 37–40.

  122. 122.

    STL RPE, Rule 51(B)(v) and 86(C)(i). See also, STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 8 May 2012, p. 42; STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Second Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 3 September 2012, p. 5; STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Third Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 28 November 2012, p. 5; STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Fourth Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/PT/PTJ, 2 May 2013, para 31; STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Fifth Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, 18 July 2014, STL-11-01/T/PTJ, para 15; STL, Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al., Pre-Trial Judge, Sixth Decision on Victims’ Participation in the Proceedings, STL-11-01/T/PTJ, 6 November 2014, para 14.

  123. 123.

    ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Requests of the OPCV, ICC-01/04-418, 10 December 2007, para 16.

  124. 124.

    ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for Leave to Appeal the Chamber’s Decision of 17 January 2006 on the Applications for Participation in the Proceedings of VPRS 1, VPRS 2, VPRS 3, VPRS 4, VPRS 5 AND VPRS 6, ICC-01/04-135-tEN, 31 March 2006; ICC, Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Prosecutor’s Application for Extraordinary Review of Pre-Trial Chamber I’s 31 March 2006 Decision Denying Leave to Appeal, ICC-01/04-168, 13 July 2006; ICC, Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Trial Chamber I, Decision on the Defence and Prosecution Requests for Leave to Appeal the Decision on Victims’ Participation of 18 January 2008, ICC-01/04-01/06-1191, 26 February 2008; ICC, Prosecutor v. Joseph Kony et al., Appeals Chamber, Judgment on the Appeals of the Defence against the Decisions Entitled “Decision on Victims’ Applications for Participation a/0010/06, a/0064/06 to a/0070/06, a/0081/06, a/0082/06, a/0084/06 to a/0089/06, a/0091/06 to a/0097/06, a/0099/06, a/0100/06, a/0102/06 to a/0104/06, a/0111/06, a/0113/06 to a/0117/06, a/0120/06, a/0121/06 and a/0123/06 to a/0127/06” of Pre-Trial Chamber II, ICC-02/04-01/05-371, 23 February 2009.

  125. 125.

    ECCC Internal Rules, Rule 74(4)(b).

  126. 126.

    Ibid., Rule 23bis(2).

  127. 127.

    Ibid., Rule 77bis(2).

  128. 128.

    The Office of the Co-Investigating Judges issued the orders of admissibility per province. See, for example: ECCC, Case 002, Order on Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants from Current Residents of Rattanakiri Province, 26 August 2010 (approx. 17 admissible and 16 inadmissible applications); Order on Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants from Current Residents of Mundulkiri Province, 26 August 2010 (approx. 31 admissible and 27 inadmissible applications); Order on Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants from Current Residents of Stung Treng Province, 30 August 2010 (approx. 34 admissible and 37 inadmissible applications); Order on Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants from Current Residents of Koh Kong Province, 30 August 2010 (approx. 41 admissible and 22 inadmissible applications); Order on Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants from Current Residents of Takeo Province, 31 August 2010 (approx. 60 admissible and 13 inadmissible applications); Order on Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants from Current Residents of Preah Sihanouk Province, 2 September 2010 (approx. 45 admissible and 60 inadmissible applications); Order on Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants from Current Residents of Phnom Penh, 6 September 2010 (approx. 109 admissible and 26 inadmissible applications); Order on Admissibility of Civil Party Applicants from Current Residents of Kampong Thom Province, 14 September 2010 (approx. 111 admissible and 97 inadmissible applications).

  129. 129.

    Interview with Silke Studzinsky, former civil party lawyer, ECCC, 24 February 2015 (records on file with the authors).

  130. 130.

    ECCC Internal Rules, Rule 77bis(1).

  131. 131.

    Ibid., Rule 74(2).

  132. 132.

    Ibid., Rule 74(3)(i).

  133. 133.

    Ibid., Rule 77bis(1) and (2).

  134. 134.

    STL RPE, Rule 86(C)(i).

  135. 135.

    STL Directive on Victims’ Legal Representation, STL-BD-2012-04-Rev.1-Corr.1, (2012), Article 18.

  136. 136.

    STL RPE, Rule 86(C)(i).

References

  • International Criminal Court (2012) Report of the Court on the Review of the System for Victims to Apply to Participate in Proceedings, Doc. No. ICC-ASP/11/22

    Google Scholar 

  • International Criminal Court (2013) Assembly of the State Parties, Programme Budget for 2014, the Working Capital Fund for 2014, scale of assessments for the apportionment of expenses of the International Criminal Court, financing appropriations for 2014 and the Contingency Fund, Doc. No. ICC-ASP/12/Res.1

    Google Scholar 

  • International Criminal Court (2014a) Assembly of States Parties, Report on the review of the organizational structure of the Registry, Doc. No. ICC-ASP/13/26

    Google Scholar 

  • International Criminal Court (2014b) Registry ReVision Project: Basic Outline of Proposals to Establish Defence and Victims Offices. http://www.uianet.org/sites/default/files/Registry_ReVision_BasicOutline_Defence_Victims_Offices_0.pdf. Accessed 1 Mar 2015

  • International Criminal Court (2015) Assembly of State Parties, Report on the review of the organizational structure of the Registry, Doc. No. ICC-ASP/14/18

    Google Scholar 

  • International Criminal Court (2016) Comprehensive report on the reorganisation of the registry of the International Criminal Court, August 2016. https://www.icc-cpi.int/itemsDocuments/ICC-Registry-CR.pdf. Accessed 4 Nov 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland

    Mélissa Fardel

  2. International Criminal Court, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Nuria Vehils Olarra

Authors
  1. Mélissa Fardel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nuria Vehils Olarra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mélissa Fardel .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Kosovo Specialist Chambers , The Hague, The Netherlands

    Kinga Tibori-Szabó

  2. Doughty Street Chambers , London, United Kingdom

    Megan Hirst

Appendix—Steps in the Application Process

Appendix—Steps in the Application Process

ICC

Steps

Relevant provisions

Main issues to consider

1. Submission

Rule 89 of the ICC RPE

A written application must be submitted. Standard forms are available. Applicants must satisfy the requirements of Rule 85 of the ICC RPE.

Regulation 86(3) of the ICC Regulations of the Court

Time limit: these are set case-by-case, as per decision of the relevant chamber. In some cases no deadline has been set and applications are accepted continuously.

2. Assessment

Regulation 86(4) of the ICC Regulations of the Court

The VPRS verifies the completeness of applications and prepares an individual report on each application for the chamber.

Regulation 86(5) of the ICC Regulations of the Court/Rule 89 of the ICC RPE

Applications are sent to the relevant chamber (with the VPRS reports).

3. Transmission to the parties

Rule 89 of the ICC RPE

The chamber sets a deadline for the VPRS to transmit the applications (usually with redactions) to the Prosecution and Defence, as well as a deadline for the parties’ observations.

The VPRS transmits copies of the applications to Defence and Prosecution (redacted if necessary). Until some recent decisions, the individual VPRS reports were not disclosed to the parties, but in some cases they are now provided.

4. Observations

Rule 89 of the ICC RPE

Observations can be made by the parties on questions of law and fact concerning the applications within a deadline set by the chamber.

5. Decision

Rule 89 of the ICC RPE

The chamber issues a decision on a case-by-case basis examining whether each applicant is permitted to participate in the proceedings.

Rule 85 of the ICC RPE

6. Appeal

Rule 89(2) of the ICC RPE

The applicant is not entitled to appeal the chamber’s decision. However, if the application is rejected, the applicant may submit a fresh application.

Article 82(1)(d) of the ICC Statute

The parties can request leave to appeal a decision on victims’ applications within 5 days of the notification of such a decision.

ECCC

Steps

Relevant provisions

Main issues to consider

1. Submission

Rule 23bis of the ECCC Internal Rules

Written application is to be made using the standard application form.

Rule 23bis(2) of the ECCC Internal Rules

Time limit: applications must be submitted no later than 15 days after the Co-Investigating Judges notify the parties of the conclusion of the judicial investigation.

2. Assessment

Practice Direction on Victim Participation, Article 3.5; Rule 23bis(4) of the ECCC Internal Rules

The VSS verifies the applications and sends them to the Office of the Co-Investigating Judges.

3. Observations

–

–

4. Decision

Practice Direction on Victim Participation, Article 3.8

The Co-Investigating Judges decide on the admissibility of each of the applications.

Rule 23bis(1) of the ECCC Internal Rules

5. Appeal

Rules 23bis(2) and 74(4)(b) of the ECCC Internal Rules

Civil party applicants may appeal decisions of the Co-Investigating Judges declaring their applications inadmissible. Also both Prosecution and Defence can appeal. The time limit is of 10 days after notification of the decision.

STL

Steps

Relevant provisions

Main issues to consider

1. Submission

Rule 86(A) of the STL RPE

A standard written form is used.

Rule 51(B)(iii) of the STL RPE

Time limit: deadlines may be established by the Pre-Trial Judge.

2. Assessment

Rule 51 (B) (iii) of the STL RPE

The VPU verifies the applications and then transmits them to the Pre-Trial Judge.

3. Observations

Rule 86(C)(i) of the STL RPE

Pre-Trial Judge may request submissions from the parties on legal issues.

4. Decision

Rule 86(B)(i) to (iv) of the STL RPE

The Pre-Trial Judge decides on whether to grant each application for the status of victim participating in the proceedings.

5. Appeal

Rule 86(C)(i) of the STL RPE

An unsuccessful applicant may appeal the Pre-Trial Judge’s decision. Time limit: appeals must be filed within seven days of receiving notification.

Parties may request leave to appeal the Pre-Trial Judge’s decision on an application for victim participation, but only on an error of law.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

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

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Fardel, M., Vehils Olarra, N. (2017). The Application Process: Procedure and Players. In: Tibori-Szabó, K., Hirst, M. (eds) Victim Participation in International Criminal Justice. International Criminal Justice Series, vol 11. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-177-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-177-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-176-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-177-7

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation