18TH SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES TO THE ROME STATUTE
Day 4 (5 December 2019)
Name of the Event: Seizing Illicit Assets for Reparations: Challenges and Opportunities (Side Event co-hosted by France, Uruguay, and REDRESS)
Overview by: Erez Roman, Junior Research Associate PILPG-NL
Main Highlights:
All Panelists underlined the importance of cooperation between the States Parties in regard to seizing assets for reparations.
New instruments and techniques are being brought forward by states to improve the manner and ways in which reparations are done.
Summary of the Event:
Moderator Rupert Skilbeck, director of REDRESS, started this event on seizing illicit assets for reparations by introducing the panelists briefly and then giving them the floor to speak.
The first to speak was H.E. María Teresa Infante Caffi, the Chilean Ambassador to the Netherlands. H.E. reiterated the importance of the topic and shared a few words about the situation in Chile. Furthermore, she urged the participants to remain active in the mission at hand. The second speaker was the legal advisor of the French Mission to the Netherlands. Similarly to the Chilean Ambassador, she emphasized the importance of the topic at hand. She also mentioned that some investigations relating to seizure of assets for reparation have been successful although difficulties remain.
The third panelist, Cristina Ribeiro, Investigations Coordinator, ICC OTP, was asked by the moderator to briefly explain the process of seizing assets for reparations. She talked about the difference between this task on the national and international level and emphasized that it is very important to be able to link a certain asset to a certain suspect. She added that that’s where the States Parties come into play since the ICC cannot act in their jurisdiction and requires their assistance. She continued by suggesting that seized assets are important and fill a range of objectives. First of all, as reparations, second, as a form of penalty, and third, using the assets to fund the Court’s activity.
Following this, Anna-Aurore Bertrand, the External Relations and Cooperation Advisor, ICC Registry, took the floor to speak about some practical issues. She spoke about the Registry’s role in the process of seizing assets and said a few words on what it is like to act within a certain member state. She reiterated the fact that the legal systems of the ICC and the States Parties are different. She also noted that the Registry works on educating domestic prosecutors since it is not all about sending the request to seize someone’s assets, a prosecutor also needs to know how to do it.
The Fifth Speaker was Luke Moffett, Senior Lecturer at Queen’s University Belfast. He provided an academic perspective on the issue and shared some information from a recent report he published. He aimed to answer why seizing assets is important for reparation and mentioned similarly to Ms. Bertrand that it is important for the financing of the legal procedures at the ICC. Furthermore, seizing someone’s assets is symbolic as it sends a message to the victims that it is possible to get certain reparation for wrongdoing experienced. However, Dr. Moffett also emphasized that seizing assets has a problematic side to it as it can hurt the integration process of those already convicted and served time for society. In addition, it is harder to seize assets as a response to some crimes than others.
The sixth person, Haylea Campbell, Pro Bono Team Member, Hogan Lovells UK explained how the firm she works for deals with seizing assets for reparations. She mentioned an Australian case that, according to her, led to a better understanding that there is great discrepancy between application of measures to seize assets on the national and international levels. She surfaced another issue relating to whether an asset that has been seized actually makes its way to the hands of the victim or elsewhere, for example to the hands of the state.
The last panelist to speak was Fransico Jimenez Villarejo, National Member for Spain at Eurojust. Mr. Jimenez Villarejo spoke about Eurojust and the European mechanisms for reparation. He mentioned how Eurojust supports cooperation between the EU member states, particularly in areas such as arrest and surrender of fugitives but also in the area of asset recovery in which, he reiterated the importance of cooperation due to differences in the legal systems.
Following the presentations by the panelists the moderator gave time for questions from the audience. One of them related to the cooperation between the ICC and civil societies in relation to the topic at hand. The panelists answered that there is indeed a certain lack of cooperation but that this has practical reasons such as confidentiality of on-going investigations and other processes.