A New Chance for Europe?

Author: Dr. Igor Lukšić, Former Prime Minister of Montenegro, PILPG Senior Peace Fellow

​​Always On the Run
As the consequences of the war in Ukraine continue to be revealed, Europe finds itself grappling with a cluster of crises. Soaring electricity, gas and oil prices, as a consequence of economic sanctions on Russia, was the most evident early consequence of the war. Elsewhere the impact of the weaponization of food and fertilizers has been tremendous. This energy crisis compounds with already rising inflation, a lingering consequence of pandemic efforts to inject money into domestic economies and keep sinking economies afloat. As the war drags on, state security and foreign policy, especially that of the European states, continues to be tested. This insecurity has reignited an ongoing debate about the future of the European Union (EU), a debate that predates the Russian-Ukrainian war but is heavily linked to the long-established preference of Ukraine to have close ties to the EU. As a result of this debate, there have been various calls for reforms in order for the European Union to become more resilient, more competitive, and more globally relevant.

In this piece, however, I would like to focus on the future of the European Union as it relates to the relationship between its neighbors. The policy of enlargement, frequently dubbed as the EU’s most successful policy, has become stagnant. There are a number of countries, referred to as candidate countries, many of which in the Western Balkans, that aspire to become full-fledged member states but have yet to be accepted. The EU, however, has not expanded in almost 10 years since Croatia joined as a member state in 2013. The EU must embark on new methods of integration with urgency and must prioritize discussions surrounding EU enlargement policy. Though the EU’s strength and security has been challenged within recent years, steps have already been taken to strengthen Europe’s development and security, such as French President Emmanuel Macron’s initiative for a new European political community, a political community with hopes of facilitating more efficient coordination and integration between European states.

In my view the Ukrainian war is the most obvious symptom of the various challenges that the EU faces in the political domain, but other challenges such as structural socio-economic issues, and the overwhelming crisis of climate change, require refreshed approaches by the EU. From, for example, speeding up the green transition, to doing more when it comes to the political consolidation of the EU with Western Balkans countries; these refreshed approaches will take courage, vision, and strong leadership.  

A New Vision 

Regional cooperation in the Balkans was given a new boost with the WB6 framework which I had the pleasure of initiating in the form of a non-paper in 2013 and later shaped with colleagues from the region and the European Commission in 2013 and 2014. The WB6 framework’s goal was to solidify regional cooperation in the Western Balkans in the areas of rule of law, infrastructure development, and trade facilitation, with the aim of improving each individual country's preparations for their eventual EU accession. The framework contributed to existing wider coordination platforms such as the Process of Cooperation in South East Europe. The WB6 framework also became the integral component of the Berlin Process in 2014, a process which aimed to improve cooperation between the EU and Western Balkans potential candidate states. Some strides have been made due to the WB6 Initiative and Berlin Process but momentum towards EU membership of these states have largely faltered, despite new agreements signed in late 2022. The enthusiasm and optimism that existed ten years ago feels all but evaporated.

Therefore, I firmly believe it is time for change, particularly as it relates to EU membership. It is my recommendation that the EU restructures its membership policy and includes a new category of associate members. The EU should grant associate member status to qualified applicant states by January 2027 and should specify the necessary regulatory tasks that need to be completed by the applicant states well before. Such a membership formula would, for example, enable Western Balkans countries to participate fully in the work of the European Parliament and add around 50 Members of the European Parliament (MEP’s). These new associate member states would be able to take part in most steps of the legislative process as full-fledged members, but for the time being would not be able to nominate commissioners or block European Council decisions. The ability for associate members to take part in the legislative process but not in the final decision making would give additional time to the EU to implement the necessary internal reforms without slowing down the enlargement process.

The associate member states would have to adhere entirely to the security and foreign policy of the EU, helping pacify some of the existing political tensions. The new associate members would not be able to join the Schengen system until all the requirements are met, but would be required to install free movement of people, goods, services and capital like elsewhere in the European common market (which is the current case for countries like Romania and Bulgaria). This would reduce even the most acute, although politically relevant problems in the region, to a mere squabble.

By becoming associate members and gaining full access to the EU development funds, the Western Balkans countries could finally break their own obstacles to economic development too. The region is inhabited by approximately 17.5 million people, similar to the population of Romania of around 19 million people. According to the current EU policy, the candidate countries of the region (including Turkey) are entitled to about $12-14 billion euros of the pre-accession support instrument. According to the World Bank’s data book, the 2001 GDP per capita in Romania, a EU member state since 2007, was roughly the same as in Montenegro, Serbia, and North Macedonia, although considerably higher than in Albania and Bosnia and Herzegovina due to previous conflict in these countries. In 2001, the GDP per capita in Romania was $1,800 USD and the GDP per capita average for the WB5 was $1,600 USD. However, in 2021, the Romanian GDP per capita was $15,000 whereas the WB6 average was about $7,500, a drastic loss of economic power for the Western Balkans countries, especially if one takes into account that the large gap exists between Romania and countries that two decades ago were at nearly the same level. In 2023, the Western Balkans countries are small and the regional market remains weak.

On the other hand, Romania has been an EU member state for 15 years, enjoying numerous benefits such as a net $4 billion euros in economic assistance in 2021. Romania could receive $30 billion euros of net inflows from the EU 2021-2027 budget framework and previously received about $40 billion euros of net inflows from the 2014-2020 budget framework. It is thus reasonable to expect that the Western Balkans countries, if associate members, would benefit similar amounts in economic assistance given the wider gap with the average EU GDP per capita. What a boost it could be! Meanwhile, the EU would need to ensure that during this time critical reforms are executed in line with the rule of law mechanism in order to pursue lasting economic development, security, and integration for Europe and its states.

Such a formula could also be used for other countries that are unable to continue the EU enlargement process because of disputed territories.

Don’t forget about climate change!

 A new and courageous approach to the consolidation of the EU would not only promote economic and political security, but would also be important in ensuring climate change resilience in the Western Balkans. The more resilient the Western Balkans is to climate change, the more resilient the EU can be.

Historically, technological change has been more or less a spontaneous matter. It was a gradual process in which economic and technological developments overlapped without a pre-determined or clear course. However, the decarbonization agenda, or the UN Sustainable Development Goals of 2030, has imposed a cap on greenhouse gas emissions, meaning that for the first time ever a common direction of economic, social and technological change has been imposed globally. Although legitimate from the planet’s inhabitability point of view, we do not know the unintended consequences of such a course and whether the international community will be able to successfully maneuver the colliding economic, social, and technological change. 

For all the reasons mentioned above, and others not elaborated here, this new approach is a needed long-term investment. Tough times require out of the box approaches and solutions, and expanding the EU membership policy to include associate states is one such needed approach.

ASP21 Side Event: To Catch a Dictator: the Pursuit and Trial of Hissène Habré

21st SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

9 December 2022

Name of the Event: To Catch a Dictator: the Pursuit and Trial of Hissène Habré 

Report by: Kelly van Eeten, Senior Research Associate PILPG-NL

Highlights: 

• Mr. Brody launched the book named To Catch a Dictator: The Pursuit and Trial of Hissène Habré. The book is an insider’s account of how an international team of investigators, legal experts and victims worked together to bring to trial a dictator who terrorized, tortured and killed on a horrific scale over his eight years in power. 

• The role of the victims was central in the Habré trial and the panelists urge that in other trials the victims should be given a more prominent role as well. 

Speakers: 

• Reed Brody 

• Janet Anderson 

• Stephen Rapp 

Summary of the Event: 

The Belgian ambassador started by reading a section of the book, summarizing the timeline of the Habré trial. Hissène Habré was the president of Chad from 1982 until 1990. In 2016, the EAC filed its verdict, sentencing Habré to life imprisonment. Habré died four years ago due to covid infection. The panelist pointed specific attention to the analysis of admissability which was very crucial in this case since the court recognized the right of any state under the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment could call on another party to the convention when they did not prosecute or extradite a person on its territory. 

Next, Reed Brody signaled out his friends Souleymane Gengen and Jacqueline Moudeïna who played a crucial role in the case. Jacqueline barely survived a grenade attack but never stopped to fight for justice. Brody also mentioned the important role of the women who broke their silence to testify in court that they were raped in prison or victims of sexual slavery in Habré’s camps. 

Brody and his team spent sixteen years putting the case against Habré together and collected more than 100 victim statements, documents on murder and torture with Habré’s own handwriting on it, and lists of people who died in detention. He also signaled a weak point of the case, namely Habré’s refusal to participate in the proceedings. 

An important line of work, in this case, was advocacy and politics. The team worked to build political support over the years. At one point, you knock at the right door, and finding justice becomes a lot easier. 

Janet Anderson pointed out that Reed was often critical of the ICC as an institution, giving him the nickname ‘Reed anything but the ICC’. Reed pointed out in response that they could not do their work without the ICC since the ICC is the expression of an international commitment against impunity. The Rome Statute has been incorporated into many national laws. However, he noted that the ICC should focus more on the involvement of victims in their cases. 

In Habré’s trial, the voices of the victims were central since they were part of the team. The inhabitants of Chad saw their past dictator being at trial, not because their new ruler wanted him there, but because the victims of his crimes got him there. This makes an entirely different account of justice. 

The panel was also asked about the current case in Ukraine. Brody was content with the international response to Ukraine but advocated for the same response to other conflicts and countries. The panelists delved deeper into the options for a special tribunal for the crime of aggression in the case of Ukraine. The panel emphasized that we should prosecute this case of aggression and make a commitment to prosecute every case of aggression in the future as well. This case should be done in a way that strengthens every future case about aggression. 

The case of Gambia was also discussed by the panel, with specific attention to the Truth Commission that was set up there, where the victims could watch the Commission. 

One of the questions from the audience focused on the expectations of victims and how to support them in the justice process. A member of the audience asked what Brody would recommend to people supporting victims in other parts of the world who are at the beginning of their process of seeking justice. 

Brody recommended watching footage of trials on other cases with the victims to give them an idea of how the proceedings will take place. Furthermore, he stressed the importance of having open conversations with the victims on how long the case might take and if they are willing to spend so many years working on it. 

The panel closed with a statement from Stephen Rapp on the book. 

Rapp noted that what we see in this book is how international justice can work even in places where there are no court or justice options available. It provides the essential ingredients for bringing a dictator to justice, with a key point being the need for a team that gets up every day and figures out what needs to be done to move the case forward. Another relevant point is the need for documentation, especially linkage documentation. These crimes are not organic, they happen because someone makes them happen. It is crucial to find evidence that links the higher-level perpetrator to the crimes.

ASP21 Side Event: Shocking the Conscience of Humanity: From Gravity Theory to Practice

21st SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

5 December 2022

Name of the Event: Shocking the Conscience of Humanity: From Gravity Theory to Practice (Book Launch for Judge Professor Margaret deGuzman Co-hosted by The Gambia and PILPG). 

Report by: Paul Weber, Henry Smith, and Emma Bakkum

Speakers:

• Professor Milena Sterio, Managing Director, PILPG and The Charles R. Emrick Jr. - Calfee Halter & Griswold Professor of Law, Cleveland State University College of Law  

• Margaret deGuzman, Judge, International Residual Mechanism for Criminal Tribunals and James E. Beasley Professor of Law, Temple University Beasley School of Law 

• Dr. Marieke de Hoon, Senior Counsel, PILPG and Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Amsterdam

• Dr. Rod Rastan, Officer of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court

• Marie O’Leary, Counsel/Legal Adviser, Office of Public Counsel for the Defence, International Criminal Court

Summary of the Event: 

PILPG and The Gambia co-hosted a side event on the first day of the 21st ASP to launch Judge Professor Margaret deGuzman’s recently published book “Shocking the Conscience of Humanity: From Gravity Theory to Practice”. 

Judge Professor Margaret deGuzman introduced her newly published book by outlining and framing the main themes. DeGuzman first explained the book’s descriptive claims, which center around the concept of gravity and its use to justify decisions in international criminal law. The ambiguity of the concept of gravity has been constructive to international criminal law. For instance, it helped create the International Criminal Court (ICC) - the aim of providing justice for the ‘gravest’ crimes, without defining what exactly gravity meant, brought states together. However, the undertheorized agreement is becoming more destructive of the ICC’s authority. DeGuzman described the current need to build the international justice community, and how not giving meaning to the concept of gravity delegitimizes these efforts. Opponents of the community find it easy to undermine these efforts by questioning the legitimacy of a system based on a term that is left largely undefined. 

The book’s prescriptive claims center around ideas on how we might give additional meaning to the concept of gravity in a way that may be constructive to the ICC’s regime. DeGuzman argues there should be further exploration of the actual goals of affected communities and the underlying values that underpin the gravity criteria. DeGuzman’s book shows that the concept of gravity does not necessarily have to play the central role that it currently does. It’s not integral that it should be about the “most serious crimes of concern to humanity”, however, historically, gravity has become a central concept to international criminal law. 

DeGuzman then framed several themes and concepts as covered in her book: 

• The concept of legitimacy, which is also an undertheorized term. It regards both legal and moral authority, and should not be considered as a strict threshold: either there is legitimacy or not. Rather, legitimacy should be used as a scale. 

• The concept of gravity, which is defined as the idea that certain crimes are so horrible that they deserve to be investigated and prosecuted. These crimes of gravity are sometimes absolute or relative, also considered as a threshold or even in a comparative manner. These uses of the gravity concept are sometimes conflated in ways that undermine the legitimacy of international criminal law.

• Framing: while there is a global community that justifies the existence of international criminal law, it is a thin community that only agrees on a small set of norms. Thus, part of the work of global organizations is to build that community by making decisions that reflect the ideas of the community and then articulating them through dialogues. Dialogue must be created to build common ground, and, for instance, the Assembly of States Parties is an essential platform for such dialogues.

Turning to adjudicative authority first, deGuzman used the Office of the Prosecutor’s (OTP) practice as an example. While the OTP has faced criticism, she noted that the OTP has moved in the right direction, particularly regarding case selection. According to deGuzman, the OTP has historically done well in relying on gravity to select cases for prosecution. Concretely, the OTP relied on specific norms, like the ban on child soldiers and Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, to underline the global interest in justice for violations. However, with regard to the selection of situations, the OTP for a long time took the view that it did not have any discretion. This led to some decision related to gravity that did not support the legitimacy of the institution ultimately. DeGuzman argues that the gravity threshold in Article 16 of the Rome Statute should therefore be minimal, but decisions to investigate situations should include explicit explanations of a compelling global interest and argumentation on why it outweighs national and regional interests. In this vein, the question of how to balance the global and national interest in order to promote legitimacy is a difficult one.

Continuing on adjudicative authority, Dr. Rod Rastan underlined the struggle for any prosecution related to giving effect to an explanation or criteria when decisions apply to a relatively small number of cases, with disparity between those cases. Criteria might be guiding, but there is an endpoint to explaining every aspect of a decision. It is a continuous process to identify what discretion is. Dr. Rastan expressed specific appreciation for the focus on dialogue in deGuzman’s book. DeGuzman’s book solicits engagement and input in trying to identify the rationale for decision making.

Dr. Marieke de Hoon then spoke from the perspective of those most affected. She particularly appreciated the concept of building a thin global justice community. While it is a very slow process to build international consensus, the international community will be going in a particular direction. For instance, the Al-Mahdi case is an example of the processes described in deGuzman’s book; a rationale for punishment regardless of the number of victims. Dr. de Hoon continued by noting that justice should be for the affected communities, referring to the struggle of the ICC to translate its decision making and explanations to the specific needs of affected communities. For instance, the need to make clear what the OTP is doing and why. She referred to the MH17 case in the Netherlands as an example. Two and a half weeks ago a Dutch district court published its judgment, which is now final as no appeal was submitted. The interactive process was appreciated by the next of kin, in particular because the Dutch public prosecution closely included them in the process and managed expectations. Some of the next of kin expressed that “justice is done, whatever the decision is.” This, however, relates to the larger challenge of identifying what affected communities want specifically. The ICC is often unable to provide the type of justice similar to MH17 to affected communities.

Focusing on defendant’s rights, Marie O’Leary noted the importance of deGuzman’s book by centralizing gravity. As the ICC is working with a public with a wide understanding of cases and gravity, the discussions in the book encourage a common understanding and open dialogue. The gravity discussion may guide and help in evaluating the purpose of what it is we’re doing. Panelists specifically referred to the issues surrounding early release: gravity is at times used as a foil for having conversations that need to be had.

The panelists and participants agreed on the importance of deGuzman’s book and its theoretical exploration of gravity and the call for dialogue and engagement in identifying rationales for decision making. 

ASP21 Side Event: Climate change as a crime against humanity: Article 15 submission

21st SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

7 December 2022

Name of the Event: Climate change as a crime against humanity: Article 15 submission (co-hosted by Vanuatu, UK Youth Climate Coalition and the New Zealand Students for Climate Solutions) 

Report by: Lilian Waldock, Program Manager, and Kelly van Eeten, Senior Research Associate, PILPG

Highlights: 

• The panel argues that contributing to climate change can qualify as a crime against humanity and that senior executives of British Petroleum plc (BP) committed it. 

• New Zealand Students for Climate Solutions and UK Youth Climate Coalition filed a submission to the International Criminal Court under Article 15 of the Rome Statute.  They have also launched the campaign, Climate Crime, to accompany the submission.  

• The panelists presented key behavior by BP executives that shows that they willingly contributed to climate change and strategically spread misinformation about climate change. 

Speakers: 

• Phoebe Nikolaou (Guest Lawyer, invited by SFCS)

• Rilke Comer (SFCS)

• Lauren Craig (SFCS)

• George Carew-Jones (UKYCC)

• Joshua Bloodworth (UKYCC)

Summary of the Event: 

The session focused on contributing to climate change as a crime against humanity. And specifically, an Article 15 submission made today by the New Zealand Students for Climate Solutions and UK Youth Climate Coalition against the senior executives of British Petroleum (BP).  BP is a multinational oil and gas company. 

The first speaker, Phoebe, explained the legal implications of their submission. She argues that the preconditions towards jurisdiction have been met in their submission. These are set out under Article 12 of the Rome Statute and contain temporal and personal and/or territorial jurisdiction. Climate change is a crime that occurs across multiple countries, some may not be member states. Recent jurisdiction established that this is not problematic for the jurisdiction of the court as long as a component of the crime happened on the territory of a member state. The speaker argues that this broadens the scope of jurisdiction of the ICC regarding the crime of climate change since it has a global impact. In the case of BP senior executives, preconditions to jurisdiction are met since BP is located in the UK, which has been a member state since 2002. The temporal jurisdiction is also met, since the crime of climate change is argued by the panelist as a continuous crime, like forced marriage or displacement. The preconditions of complementarity and gravity are also met according to the panel. This is especially the case for gravity since climate change is causing extreme harm across the globe. 

Speaker Rilke presented five key behaviors by BP and their executives showing their knowledge of their negative impact on climate change and their deliberate acting to avoid that they had to change their business behavior. 

1. They established doubt about climate change

2. They deliberately created dependency on fossil fuels 

3. They fostered as much delay as possible within climate change solutions

4. They advanced their common purpose through deceit, for example by underreporting their own emissions 

5. They used everything at their disposal and wealth to influence political decision making 

The panel underlined their difference from other panels at the ASP side events.  The panel consisted of students who felt the urge to act against climate change.  They did not have the luxury to have lived in a world without climate change.  They noted that acts that have a negative impact on the environment and climate change are long seen as non criminal and not against the law.  The panel urges the world to condemn these acts as criminal and unlawful. 

In recognising their own lack of diversity, the panel was also keen to amplify the voices of those most impacted by the effects of climate change.  Reading out a quote from a young Malawian on the tropical storms that impact a million people and kill several with each year that passes.  And reading also a quote from a young Filipino who focused on the impact of frequent typhoons on the Philippines and highlighted that theirs is a “generation at the forefront of change”. 

Environmental crimes have been historically overlooked in the debates around international crimes.  The panel claimed that the ICC could bring an end to environmental impunity, as the court of last resort.  The speakers argued that their case is not political and does not include a widening of the mandate of the ICC.  One of the speakers said, “we are not here as revolutionaries, we are here to work within the institution of the ICC”, illustrating that the Court’s apparatus is the appropriate institution to persecute gross criminal behaviour leading to environmental damage through abuse of fossil fuels and end criminal impunity for climate change.  The panel recognised that the ICC does not exist in isolation and highlighted the 2021 New Zealand lawsuit brought by the New Zealand Students for Climate Solutions stating that this action has resulted in a contribution to a loss and damage fund to pay compensation for losses inflicted on the world's poorest people by climate change. 

Finally, the panel also noted the appropriateness of reparations in the case of this submission to the Court, stating that between 2005 and 2021, BP made 162 billion USD in net profit. Despite this, BP has invested very little in green energy at the same time as capitalizing on rebranding itself as a green energy company.   

ASP21 Side Event: Making Reparative Justice a Reality: Monitoring Visit to Northern Uganda and the Future of the Trust Fund for Victims

21st SESSION OF THE ASSEMBLY OF STATES PARTIES

6 December 2022

Name of the Event: Making Reparative Justice a Reality: Monitoring Visit to Northern Uganda and the Future of the Trust Fund for Victims (co-hosted by Belgium, Estonia, Ireland, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Uganda, and the Trust Fund for Victims)

Report by: Lilian Waldock, Program Manager, and Emma Bakkum, Assistant Counsel, PILPG

Highlights: 

• The September 2022 joint monitoring visit to Northern Uganda was key to understanding high-level decisions of the court and what is happening on the ground. It presented a great opportunity to understand what more can be done to support the victims, uniting justice in the courtroom with justice in the field. 

• “It is a characteristic of all the victims - stubborn optimism.” This was apparent during the monitoring visit to Northern Uganda. The takeaways of the delegates were clear: the work done by the TFV has been impactful and transformative, but more work needs to be done. The TFV needs increased funding to accommodate the commitments that have been made by the Court.

• The side event highlighted some of the key recommendations for ‘the way forward’ for the Trust Fund for Victims. Firstly, increasing awareness of the work of the TFV and its connection to the work of the ICC. Secondly, the importance of soliciting funding from States Parties.

Speakers: 

• Ms. Silvia Fernández de Gurmendi, ASP President

• Mr. Jackson Karugaba Kafuuzi, Deputy Attorney General of Uganda

• Ms. Minou Josefina Tavárez Mirabal, Chair of the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims 

• H.E. Ambassador Brendan Rogers, Ambassador of Ireland to the Netherlands, Permanent Representative of Ireland to the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW)

Summary of the Event: 

PILPG-ers Yvonne Dutton, Lilian Waldock, and Emma Bakkum attended this side event co-hosted by Belgium, Estonia, Ireland, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Uganda, and the Trust Fund for Victims, which reported on a monitoring visit to Northern Uganda organized by the Embassy of Ireland and the Trust Fund for Victims. 

Mr. Andres Parmas, a member of the Board of Directors of the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV), opened the event by highlighting the value of the TFV - unique in bringing victims’ voices to the center. He went on to say that the establishment of the TFV marks a crucial change in the thinking patterns of the international community, with its victim-centered mandate of reparations and assistance. While the TFV’s work has been impactful, importance should be placed to raise the visibility of its work. 

Video

A short video (available soon) showed images of the recent monitoring visit to Northern Uganda. Fourteen states (comprising thirteen countries and the EU, 64 delegates in total) met with victims from Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo in Northern Uganda from 13-17 September 2022. The monitoring visit provided delegates with the opportunity to witness first-hand the transformative work of the TFV.

The TFV has operated in Uganda since 2008 and has reached 60,000 direct beneficiaries and 350,000 indirect victims. The TFV spent 12.5 million across 22 districts to provide services to victims with injuries as a result of the conflict between the Government of Uganda and the LRA. Stories of LRA war victims are recounted including accounts of the killing of family members, maiming and purposeful disfigurement, landmine victims, victims of gun violence, abduction, and SGBV. What is highlighted by these voices is a need to extend the services of the TFV to the wider population. The effects of the war in Uganda are still felt. The power of the TFV is to ensure the involvement of victims, and the humanization of the criminal justice process, through services such as medical support, trauma counseling, livelihood empowerment initiative, and psychosocial support. One beneficiary summarized this with a practical quote: “I am now able to do some work and earn a living”. 

Theirs are stories of rehabilitation and redemption. As a quote from the Report (“the silence of the gun does not mean the war is over”) on the visit states: 

The silence of the gun does not mean the war is over. The effects of the war are still on - we have people who are physically not okay. We have seen people testifying that they were living with bullets in their flesh for over twenty years and bomb splints in their bodies. But with the coming of [these programs], through the support of the TFV, they have come back and they are different. 

They have hope.

~ Okumu Robert, Chairperson of Laguri Sub Country Pader District 

The monitoring visit was key to understanding high-level decisions of the court and what is happening on the ground. It presents a great opportunity to understand what more can be done to support the victims, uniting justice in the courtroom with justice in the field. 

Panel Discussion 

Sylvia Fernández de Gurmendi, ASP President, spoke about her earlier visit to Northern Uganda in 2017 when she was president of the ICC and how she sees the progression of these visits. She emphasized the importance of linking the two pillars of the court and the TFV. “In order to support, in order to understand, you really need to know.” These visits have generated some understanding of what the court is really about. Ms. Fernandez de Gurmendi highlighted the progress that she was able to see on projects implemented between 2017-2022. 

Mr. Jackson Karugaba Kafuuzi, Deputy Attorney General of Uganda continued by expressing his gratitude for the work of the TFV and its supporters. He spoke specifically about the involvement of the Ugandan Government with the TFV. The war lasted for a long time and split the country in two: while one area was prospering, another was terrorized. The TFV has offered a form of reassurance that there is life after the conflict and that it is possible to re-skill and return to society. However, there is a lot to be done still in Uganda, he noted. The Government is in a conversation process (apart from TFV) on a “cattle corridor”, to give families support where the government is able to. 

Ms. Minou Tavárez Mirabal reflected on the recent monitoring visit, in particular from the perspective of the Board of Directors of the TFV. She described the monitoring visit as unforgettable work. The mission achieved its overall objectives: 

1. Reviewing the implementation of programs;

2. Gaining insight;

3. Raising awareness of the TFV’s work.

She furthermore saw it as a successful mission due to the commitment of the delegation and its excellent organization. It formed an opportunity to confirm that: “This is a characteristic of all the victims - stubborn optimism”.

H.E. Ambassador Brendan Rogers, Ambassador of Ireland to The Netherlands touched upon steps States Parties should be taking in support of the TFV. He underlined the need to bring the work of the TFV into the building beside us. To do so, States Parties need to raise awareness and bring that knowledge back. He noted the success of the last couple of days, to see and hear the work of the TFV being raised. The next step is “extra money”. The TFV has had 14 states who were transformed through the monitoring visit and who have brought that message back. It is now “up to us to talk to the State Parties”. We need to get the message across and show the power of the ICC - rehabilitation and reparation. “What impressed me was that the TFV was working with the communities, the parishes, and the districts”. He concluded by noting that the TFV should now think about how it can be effective, agile, and energetic, to get the funding to do what the TFV needs to be doing. 

The Q&A part of the event covered several issues relevant to the TFV. The first question focused on the challenges the TFV faces. Ms. Mirabal referred to fundraising as the main challenge. The TFV requires large amounts of funding to do what it needs to be doing. The TFV solicits for it in both the public and private sectors. Another challenge is the visibility of the TFV. In particular, increasing funding, visibility, and communication of the TFV’s work and mission is important. A final challenge for the TFV is to learn from what it is doing in Uganda to strengthen its work in other places. The TFV is a very young institution and inevitably there is a lot to learn and a lot to implement. A challenge related to this is managing the expectations of victims. Ms. Fernández de Gurmendi added the challenge of sufficiently linking the soft power to the hard power of the Rome Statute System. Still, it is not always clear to communities that the Court is not just about retribution, but also about reparation and assistance. These two components need to be seen together. It is also important to clarify that the TFV’s assistance program does not relate to a conviction. H.E. Ambassador Rogers noted the importance of extra funding to scale up the TFV’s programs. Additionally, he underlined the need for continued “software” that builds the coalition of supporters for the TFV. As positions change, similar commitment from States Parties delegates engaged in and with the TFV is needed. 

Building on the challenge of funding, Dr. Yvonne Dutton inquired into the specific and concrete amounts of funding the TFV may need to implement its programs. Ms. Mirabal responded to this difficult question by noting the TFV raises 2.5-2.7 million euros per year. This is not a significant amount, especially considering that the Court may order reparations for an amount that is much more. Thus, whatever is raised will not be sufficient. TFV representatives, including Acting Executive Director Ms. Franziska Eckelmans, further clarified the two streams of funding the TFV receives. The TFV’s functioning is funded through the ICC’s budget, amounting to 3.2. million currently. The TFV hopes this will be increased to 3.8 million during this ASP. The TFV’s funding for implementing programs comes from voluntary contributions only. Kevin Kelly added that every payment of the TFV’s admin budget goes to delivering programs on the ground. The core budget from the ICC covers program delivery costs. The TFV operates in a slim operation. Every penny of donated money goes to projects directly. Ms. Eckelmans added that a minimum number for funding would be 2-4 million for next year, but that the TFV can easily scale up to 7 million - all programs are running at a minimal level. Finally, TFV Board member Ibrahim Yillah raised two issues regarding the TFV’s capacity and resources. First, he offered some thoughts on considering secondments to support the work of the TFV. Second, he raised the idea of collaborating with universities. 

Ms. Eckelmans closed the event by speaking to the transformative impact of the TFV’s work: “victims deal with their harm generations that come after, they are aggressive and they don’t know what love is. We are trying to mitigate these really negative transgenerational impacts.”