ICCCOURTDECISIONONREPARATIONFORVICTIMSOFTHEPOST-

ELECTIONVIOLENCE:NOREPARATIONWITHOUTCONVICTIONPROSECUT
ORV.WILLIAMSAMOEIRUTOANDJOSHUAARAPSANG,DECISIONONTHERE
QUESTREGARDINGREPARATIONS,1JULY2016JOANNAMUSIAŁ-
BUDNICKA*On1July2016,theTrialChamberV(A)
(TrialChamber)1ofthepermanentInternationalCriminalCourt(ICC)initsDecisionon
theRequestregardingReparations(DecisiononReparations)2,bymajority-
heldthattheTrialChambercannotproceedfurtheranddecideonthereparationis-
suesconnectedtothejointtrialofKenyanDeputyPresidentWilliamSamoeiRu-
toandco-accused,ex-
journalistJoshuaArapSang,bothofwhomfacedchargesofcrimesagainsthumanityf
ortheirsuspectedrolein“post-
electionviolence”thatledtothedeathsofapproximately1,000personsandover300,0
00displacedpersons.3Initsruling,twoofthethreeTrialChamberjudges,whoterminat
edtheRutoandSangcaseearlieronApril5,20164,declinedtoconsiderthemeritsofth
evictims’viewsandconcernsexpressedbytheLegalRepresentativeofVictims-
WilfredNderitu(LRV).5Therein,theLRVDOI:10.1515/wrlae-2015-
0042*MasterofArts(FacultyofLaw,AdministrationandEconomics,WroclawUniver
sity);LL.M.InternationalandEuropeanLaw(RadboudUniversityNijmegen);advo-
cate;joanna.musial@gmail.com1TheICCTrialChamberV(A)includedthreeJudge
14_Eng(14April2016).4ProsecutorvWilliamRutoandJoshuaSang(DecisiononDef
dgeEboe-
cisioncanbeseenasthelosthopeofbeingcompensatedforthesufferedharm.Thisisd
uetothefactthatthereparationprinciplesarisingfromArticle75(1)oftheRomeStatute
arebasedontheconceptofindividualcriminalresponsibility,ratherthanontheState’s
responsibility.Nevertheless,oneoftheaimsofthisarticleistoemphasisethattherepa-
rationsprovisionscontainedintheRomeStatuteandtheRulesofProcedureandEvi-
dencearevagueandthatnooverarchingguidelinesexisttoassistthedifferentTrialan-
dAppealsChamberstoconductefficientreparationsproceedings.Theadoptionof-
principlesintheRutoandSangcasecouldsimplyclarifiedtoanextenttherepara-
tionprocessinthat-
case,evenwhentheseprincipleswouldnotnecessarilyapplytofuturecases.6Prosec
utorvWilliamRutoandJoshuaSang(Victims’ViewsandConcernsontheIssueofRep
arationorAssistanceinLieuofReparationPursuanttotheTrialChamberDecisionof5
April2016ontheDefenceMotionson‘NoCasetoAnswer’plus3annexes)ICC-01/09-
01/11-
2035(15June2016),para.54(Victims’ViewsandConcerns).7DecisiononReparatio
ns(n2)para.7;seealsoDecisionVacatingtheCharges(n4),para149.8Prosecutorv
WilliamRutoandJoshuaSang(DissentingOpiniontoDecisionontheRequestsregar
dingReparations)ICC-01/09-01/11-2038-Anx(1July2016)
(DissentingOpinionofJudgeEboe-Osuji).9DecisionVacatingtheCharges(n4)-
ReasonsofJudgeEboe-Osuji57.10DissentingOpinionofJudgeEboe-
Osuji(n8),paras13-14,withreferencetotheDecisionVacatingtheCharges(n4)-
ReasonsofJudgeEboe-Osuji136