Practice Relating to Rule 151. Individual Responsibility
Section B. Individual civil liability
Quick navigation
ICC Statute
Article 75 of the 1998 ICC Statute, entitled “Reparations to victims”, provides:
1. The Court shall establish principles relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation. On this basis, in its decision the Court may, either upon request or on its own motion in exceptional circumstances, determine the scope and extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of, victims and will state the principles on which it is acting.
2. The Court may make an order directly against a convicted person specifying appropriate reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation.
Where appropriate, the Court may order that the award for reparations be made through the Trust Fund provided for in article 79. 
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 75.

The Trust Fund referred to was established for the benefit of victims of crimes within the Court’s jurisdiction and will be financed, inter alia, by money or other property collected through fines or forfeiture which the Court might order to be transferred to the fund.
Back to top
ICTY Statute
Article 24(3) of the 1993 ICTY Statute provides: “In addition to imprisonment, the Trial Chambers may order the return of any property and proceeds acquired by criminal conduct, including by means of duress, to their rightful owners.” 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, as amended by Res. 1166, 13 May 1998 and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 24(3).

ICTR Statute
Article 23(3) of the 1994 ICTR Statute provides: “In addition to imprisonment, the Trial Chambers may order the return of any property and proceeds acquired by criminal conduct, including by means of duress, to their rightful owners.” 
Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the Territory of Rwanda and Rwandan citizens responsible for genocide and other such violations committed in the territory of neighbouring States between 1 January 1994 and 31 December 1994, adopted by the UN Security Council, Res. 955, 8 November 1994, as amended by Res. 1165, 30 April 1998, and by Res. 1329, 30 November 2000, Article 23(3).

ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence
Chapter 4, Section III, Subsection 4 (Rules 94–99) of the 2000 ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence contains detailed provisions concerning reparations to be made in favour of the victim(s). Rule 94 provides that victims of violations can lodge requests for compensation directly before the Court. Rule 95 grants the Court the power to proceed with regard to the award of compensation on its own motion. Rule 97, entitled “Assessment of reparations”, provides:
1. Taking into account the scope and extent of any damage, loss or injury, the Court may award reparations on an individualized basis or, where it deems it appropriate, on a collective basis or both.
2. At the request of victims or their legal representatives, or at the request of the convicted person, or on its own motion, the Court may appoint appropriate experts to assist it in determining the scope, extent of any damage, loss and injury to, or in respect of victims and to suggest various options concerning the appropriate types and modalities of reparations. The Court shall invite, as appropriate, victims or their legal representatives, the convicted person as well as interested persons and interested States to make observations on the reports of the experts.
3. In all cases, the Court shall respect the rights of victims and the convicted person. 
Finalized draft text of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted by the 23rd Meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, New York, 30 June 2000, Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1, Addendum, Part I, 2 November 2000, as adopted by the Assembly of States Parties, First Session, 3–10 September 2002, Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3, 25 September 2002, and ICC-ASP/1/3/Corr.1, 31 October 2002, Chapter 4, Section III, Subsection 4, Rules 94–99.

ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence
Rule 105 of the 2000 ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence established procedures for the restoration of property:
(A) After a judgement of conviction containing a specific finding … the Trial Chamber shall, at the request of the Prosecutor, or may, proprio motu, hold a special hearing to determine the matter of the restitution of the property or the proceeds thereof.

(D) Should the Trial Chamber be able to determine the rightful owner on the balance of probabilities, it shall order the restitution either of the property or the proceeds or make such other order as it may deem appropriate.
(E) Should the Trial Chamber not be able to determine ownership, it shall notify the competent national authorities and request them so to determine.
(F) Upon notice from the national authorities that an affirmative determination has been made, the Trial Chamber shall order the restitution either of the property or the proceeds or make such other order as it may deem appropriate. 
Finalized draft text of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted by the 23rd Meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, New York, 30 June 2000, Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1, Addendum, Part I, 2 November 2000, as adopted by the Assembly of States Parties, First Session, 3–10 September 2002, Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3, 25 September 2002, and ICC-ASP/1/3/Corr.1, 31 October 2002, Chapter 4, Section III, Subsection 4, Rule 105.

Rule 106(B) of the 2000 ICTY Rules of Procedure and Evidence provides: “Pursuant to the relevant national legislation, a victim or persons claiming through the victim may bring an action in a national court or other competent body to obtain compensation.” 
Finalized draft text of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, adopted by the 23rd Meeting of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, New York, 30 June 2000, Report of the Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1, Addendum, Part I, 2 November 2000, as adopted by the Assembly of States Parties, First Session, 3–10 September 2002, Official Records of the Assembly of States Parties to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, UN Doc. ICC-ASP/1/3, 25 September 2002, and ICC-ASP/1/3/Corr.1, 31 October 2002, Chapter 4, Section III, Subsection 4, Rule 106(B).

Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (2000)
Paragraph 17 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law provides: “In cases where the violation is not attributable to the State, the party responsible for the violation should provide reparation to the victim or to the State if the State has already provided reparation to the victim.” 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, § 17.

Paragraph 19 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law provides:
A State shall enforce its domestic judgements for reparation against private individuals or entities responsible for the violations. States shall endeavour to enforce valid foreign judgements for reparation against private individuals or entities responsible for the violations. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, § 19.

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/30
According to Section 49(1) of the UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/30, “independent from the commencement or completion of a criminal proceeding, an alleged victim may claim compensation for damages or losses suffered or inflicted by a suspected crime by filing a civil action before a competent court”. Section 49(2) states:
As a part of its disposition of a criminal case in which the accused is convicted of an offense as to which there are victims, and notwithstanding any separate civil action which goes forward pursuant to Section 49.1 of the present regulation, the Court may include in its disposition an order that requires the accused to pay compensation or reparations to the victim in an amount determined by the Court. Any payment made by an accused to a victim in compliance with such an order shall be credited toward satisfaction of any civil judgment also rendered in the matter. 
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 49(1) and 49(2).

ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence
Rule 105 of the 2001 ICTR’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence provides:
(A) After a judgement of conviction containing a specific finding as provided in Rule 88 (B), the Trial Chamber shall, at the request of the Prosecutor, or may, at its own initiative, hold a special hearing to determine the matter of the restitution of the property or the proceeds thereof.

(D) Should the Trial Chamber be able to determine the rightful owner on the balance of probabilities, it shall order the restitution either of the property or the proceeds or make such other order as it may deem appropriate.
(E) Should the Trial Chamber not be able to determine ownership, it shall notify the competent national authorities and request them so to determine.
(F) Upon notice from the national authorities that an affirmative determination has been made, the Trial Chamber shall order the restitution either of the property or the proceeds or make such other order as it may deem appropriate. 
Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Arusha, 29 June 1995, as amended on 31 May 2001, Rule 105.

Rule 106(B) of the 2001 ICTR’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence provides: “Pursuant to the relevant national legislation, a victim or persons claiming through him may bring an action in a national court or other competent body to obtain compensation.” 
Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Arusha, 29 June 1995, as amended on 31 May 2001, Rule 106(B).

Back to top
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), under the heading “Responsibility before National Authorities”, states:
Civil action: The commander may incur civil responsibility for his acts and those of his men, but this must be qualified with regard to … a multinational force … In this case, a functional immunity may apply. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 100, § 361; see also p. 142, § 421.

Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) provides: “The nation can exact from the public servant who caused the injury the amount of the injured party’s indemnification.” 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 36.

France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000), in a part dealing with “grave breaches of the rules of the law of armed conflict”, states: “Each violation of the law of armed conflicts … gives a right to reparation at the civil level.” 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 7.

France’s LOAC Manual (2001) restates Article 1382 of the French Civil Code on civil liability and provides: “This implies that someone who has not been held criminally liable must nevertheless provide reparation for the damage caused.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 112.

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
For violations of international humanitarian law not entailing criminal liability members of the Armed Forces shall be called to account under the Disciplinary Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation and normative legal acts envisaging financial liability. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 15.

Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
Servicemen who committed violations of international humanitarian law not entailing criminal responsibility shall be held disciplinarily liable according to manuals of the Armed Forces of Ukraine and Ukrainian legislation dealing with pecuniary liability. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.8.8.

Back to top
Note. Some pieces of domestic legislation, apart from granting the victim of a criminal act the possibility of filing a claim for compensation before a civil court, provide for the possibility of the victim obtaining compensation on the occasion of the criminal proceedings against the offender. Examples include France (“partie civile”), Germany and the United States. 
France, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1994; Germany, Criminal Procedure Code as amended (1987); United States, Victim and Witness Protection Act, 1982.

Belgium
Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, provides:
Where a breach provided for in the present Act [i.e. genocide, crimes against humanity and a list of war crimes] falls under the competence of a military court, public prosecution shall be instituted through a summons issued by the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the accused to appear before the trial court or through a complaint filed by any person claiming to have suffered injury as a result of the breach and bringing a suit for damages before the president of the judicial commission at the Conseil de Guerre [Court Martial] under the conditions provided for in Article 66 of the Code of Criminal Investigation. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1993, as amended in 1999, Article 9(3).

Burundi
Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:
The persons referred to in Article 23 [i.e. the victims, their representatives, or any physical or moral person who have been injured or have a direct interest] may become a civil party [partie civile] in accordance with the provisions of the criminal procedure code. 
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 30.

Burundi’s Penal Code (2009), which includes a chapter on war crimes, states: “All criminal conviction is pronounced without prejudice to restitutions and payment of damages which might be owed to the parties”. 
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 93.

Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Judiciary Code (2002) provides:
Article 77
Action for reparation of damage caused by an offence falling under the competence of the military jurisdiction can be undertaken by the injured party by becoming a civil party at the same time and before the same judge as the public prosecution action.

Article 226:
When the military jurisdiction is seized, the party injured by the incriminated act can, by becoming civil party, seize it with the action for reparation. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Judiciary Code, 2002, Articles 77 and 226.

El Salvador
El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), as amended in 2008, and which contains a section on the violations of the laws or customs of war, states in the general section on criminal liability:
Civil Liability
Art. 114.- The execution of an act, that is described in law as an offence or a fault, gives rise to civil liability in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Civil Law Consequences
Art. 115.- The civil law consequences of an offence, which will be declared during sentencing, comprise:
1) Restitution of the object obtained as a result of the punishable act or payment of its respective value;
2) Reparation of the damage caused;
3) Compensation for the victim or his or her family for the material or moral damages caused; and,
4) The procedural costs.

[Persons] Directly Responsible
Art. 116.- Anyone criminally responsible for an offence or a fault is also subject to civil [action] if there are resulting damages, either material or moral. 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, as amended to 2008, Articles 114–116.

The Penal Code further states: “The exclusion of criminal responsibility does not lead to the exclusion of civil liability, which is governed by civil law.” 
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, as amended to 2008, Article 125.

France
France’s Law on Cooperation with the ICTY (1995), which allows French courts to try and punish individuals found in France and being accused of having committed the violations of IHL over which the ICTY has jurisdiction, provides: “Any person claiming to have been injured by one of those offences can, by filing a complaint, bring indemnification proceedings [“partie civile”] in the conditions set forth in Article 85 ff. of the Code of Penal Procedure.” 
France, Law on Cooperation with the ICTY, 1995, Article 2.

The same principle is set forth in the Law on Cooperation with the ICTR (1996). 
France, Law on Cooperation with the ICTR, 1996, Article 2.

Georgia
Georgia’s Law on the Status of Military Servicemen (1998) states: “A military serviceman is subject to … civil … liability taking into account the nature and severity of the committed offences.” 
Georgia, Law on the Status of Military Servicemen, 1998, Article 24(1).

Germany
Germany’s Criminal Procedure Code (1987), as amended, provides:
The aggrieved person or his heir may, in criminal proceedings, bring a property claim against the accused arising out of the criminal offence if the claim falls under the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts and is not yet pending before another court, in proceedings before the local court irrespective of the value of the matter in dispute. 
Germany, Criminal Procedure Code, 1987, as amended, § 403(1).

Luxembourg
Luxembourg’s Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches (1985) states that a civil action against the perpetrator of offences provided for in this law can only be undertaken before a civil court. However, it provides for the possibility for the (criminal) court to order the restitution of seized objects and exhibits to the entitled person if they are not to be confiscated. 
Luxembourg, Law on the Punishment of Grave Breaches, 1985, Article 14.

Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Law on Amnesty for Acts Committed in the Context of the Conflict in Chechnya (1997) provides: “Persons covered by the law on the declaration of amnesty are not exempted from making reparations for the injuries caused by their unlawful acts.” 
Russian Federation, Law on Amnesty for Acts Committed in the Context of the Conflict in Chechnya, 1997, § 4.

Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law on the Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity (1996) provides: “The court having jurisdiction over the civil action shall rule on damages even where the accused has died during the course of the proceedings or has benefited from an amnesty.” 
Rwanda, Law on the Prosecution of the Crime of Genocide and Crimes against Humanity, 1996, Article 31.

Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
From the phase of preliminary investigations until the day of the final judgement, the president of the competent court can, upon written request by the injured party or the public prosecution, take all protective measures necessary to safeguard the interests of the injured party as to civil liability.  
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 19.

Rwanda’s Organic Law Determining the Organization, Functioning and Jurisdiction of Courts (2004) provides:
Title 2: Jurisdiction of courts
Chapter 1: Jurisdiction of ordinary courts

Article: 90
The High Court of the Republic shall have jurisdiction to try any person including non-nationals found within the territory of the Republic of Rwanda, alleged to have committed, outside the national boundaries, any crimes falling within the category of international or cross-border crimes, especially the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, terrorism, hostage taking, drug trafficking, money laundering, theft of motor vehicles for sale abroad, human trafficking especially of young girls, slavery and other crimes of similar nature. …

Chapter 2: Competence of specialised jurisdictions
Section 1. Jurisdiction based on subject matter or competence of the court

Sub-section 2: The Military Tribunal
Article: 138
Without prejudice to the provisions of article 139 of this organic law, the Military Tribunal tries in the first instance all offences committed by all Military personnel irrespective of their rank.
It also has powers to try Military personnel accused of the crime of genocide and crimes against humanity committed in Rwanda between October 1st 1990 and December 31st 1994, which place them in the first category irrespective of their ranks.

Section 3. General provisions related to Military Courts

Article: 145
A suit for damages arising out of a criminal offence triable by the Military Courts may be filed in the same Court hearing the criminal trial in Military Court or may be filed separately in a civil court with competent jurisdiction over the suit.
Title 3: General provisions related to ordinary courts

Chapter 3: General provisions to all courts
Section 1. Civil action for damages arising from a criminal offence
Article: 161
Civil claims arising out of a criminal offence are those instituted to recover damages for loss caused by the offence. A person aggrieved by the offence or his or her beneficiaries shall have the right to file a civil suit for damages.
Article: 162
A claim for damages arising out of a criminal offence may be heard at the same time by the same court hearing the criminal case. It may also be instituted separately. In that situation its proceedings shall stay until the criminal hearing is finally determined. 
Rwanda, Organic Law Determining the Organization, Functioning and Jurisdiction of Courts, 2004, Articles 90, 138, 145 and 161–162.

Uganda
Uganda’s ICC Act (2010) states:
64. Enforcement of orders for victim reparation
(1) Where the ICC requests enforcement in accordance with article 109 of the Statute of an order requiring reparation made under article 75 of the Statute, the Minister shall give authority for the request to proceed, if he or she has reasonable grounds to believe that-
(a) neither the conviction in respect of which the order was imposed nor the order requiring reparation is subject to further appeal; and
(b) the order can be enforced in the manner provided in this section, and shall refer the request to the appropriate Ugandan agency. 
Uganda, ICC Act, 2010, § 64(1).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Regulations for the Trial of War Criminals (1945), as amended, provides: “In a case where the war crime consists wholly or partly of the taking, distribution or destruction of money or other property, the Court may as part of the sentence order the restitution of such money or other property.” 
United Kingdom, Regulations for the Trial of War Criminals as amended, 1945, Regulation 9.

United States of America
The US Victim and Witness Protection Act (1982) provides:
(a) (1)(A) The court, when sentencing a defendant convicted of an offense … may order, in addition to or, in the case of a misdemeanor, in lieu of any other penalty authorized by law, that the defendant make restitution to any victim of such offense, or if the victim is deceased, to the victim’s estate. The court may also order, if agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement, restitution to persons other than the victim of the offense …
(3) The court may also order restitution in any criminal case to the extent agreed to by the parties in a plea agreement. 
United States, Victim and Witness Protection Act, 1982, Subsection (a)(1)(A) and (3)

For cases where restitution is impossible, impractical or inadequate, especially in the case of an offence resulting in bodily injury, the Act provides for the possibility of the paying of an amount of money. 
United States, Victim and Witness Protection Act, 1982, Subsection (b).

The US Alien Tort Claims Act (1789) provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States”. 
United States, Alien Tort Claims Act, 1789.

The US Torture Victim Protection Act (1991), under a provision entitled “Establishment of civil action”, states:
(a) Liability. – An individual who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation –
(1) subjects an individual to torture shall, in a civil action, be liable for damages to that individual; or
(2) subjects an individual to extrajudicial killing shall, in a civil action, be liable for damages to the individual’s legal representative, or to any person who may be a claimant in an action for wrongful death. 
United States, Torture Victim Protection Act, 1991, Section 1350(2)(a)(1) and (2).

A provision of the California Code of Civil Procedure (1973), as amended, dealing with compensation for slave and forced labour states:
Any Second World War slave labor victim, or heir of a Second World War slave labor victim, Second World War forced labor victim, or heir of a Second World War forced labor victim, may bring an action to recover compensation for labor performed as a Second World War slave labor victim or Second World War forced labor victim from any entity or successor in interest thereof, for whom that labor was performed, either directly or through a subsidiary or affiliate. 
United States, California Code of Civil Procedure as amended, 1973, Section 354.6(b).

Yemen
Yemen’s Military Criminal Code (1998) requires individuals who have been found guilty of despoiling prisoners of war or the sick, wounded or dead to return that which they took or its equivalent. 
Yemen, Military Criminal Code, 1998, Article 20.

Back to top
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In March 2006, in the Bongi Massaba case, a case against a captain of the armed forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Military Garrison Court of Ituri at Bunia held:
Whereas, first of all, one needs to analyse the conditions of civil liability established by article 258 of the Congolese Civil Code, book II, which provides: “any act whatsoever which causes damage to another, obligates the person by whose fault that damage has occurred to repair it”.
Whereas it follows from that legal provision that three conditions must be fulfilled for that liability to be established, namely:
1. The existence of a damage or injury which can be material, physical, or immaterial;
2. The fault;
3. The causal link between the damage suffered and the fault committed …

Whereas, in the present case, the three conditions of civil liability are fulfilled, inasmuch as the defendant has committed a fault by causing, by bullet, the death of the following persons …
Whereas, therefore, the civil liability of the defendant, as perpetrator of the act, is fully engaged.
Whereas, furthermore, the conditions of article 260, paragraph 3 [of the Congolese Civil Code], according to which masters and principals are liable for the damage caused by their servants and agents in the functions for which they were employed, must equally be examined;

Therefore

The Military Garrison Tribunal of Ituri, finding on the civil action,
After proceedings in which both sides were heard, and by the majority of the votes of its members, by secret vote,

Consequently orders Mr Blaise Bongi Massaba jointly with the Democratic Republic of the Congo to pay each of the four families of the victims the equivalent in Congolese Francs of the sum of 75,000 US Dollars (seventy-five-thousand US Dollars) as damages and interest, covering all injuries, or the equivalent in Congolese Francs of the total sum of 300,000 US Dollars (three-hundred-thousand US Dollars). 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Garrison Court of Ituri, Bongi Massaba case, Judgment, 24 March 2006.

In November 2006, on the defendant’s appeal, the Military Court of the Eastern Province held:
Whereas the charges of the war crimes of pillage and violence to life and person are sufficiently established as required by the law;
Whereas these breaches caused damages and harm for which the civilian parties demand reparation and indemnification on the basis of articles 258 and 260 of the third book of the Congolese civil code;

Whereas the civil liability of the authors of breaches that have caused harm to the parties is based on article 258 of the third book of the Congolese civil code, according to which: “any act whatsoever which causes damage to another, obligates the person by whose fault that damage has occurred to repair it”.
What about the civil responsibility of the State?
Whereas that responsibility follows from the presumption of the fault the administration or the State can commit in the choice and supervision of its agents;
Whereas [as] the beneficiary of the act accomplished by its agents on its account, it is only logical and follows from the elementary principle of fairness that the State is called on to repair the wrong resulting from the service from which it profits as master; …

Whereas the State, just like the principal, must answer for the damage caused by its agents in the exercise of their functions, not because it has committed a fault, created a risk or broken the equality of burdens between citizens, but because it is obligated to guarantee the safety of individuals against damaging acts by those who exercise an activity in its name and on its account;

Whereas, in fact, when an organ of the State acts, it is the State itself that acts, and, consequently, when an agent commits a fault in the exercise of his functions, that fault engages the whole State …;
Whereas the abuse of the function is no obstacle to the responsibility of the master;

Whereas the defendant Blaise Bongi Massaba, in his capacity as soldier of the FARDC, is an agent of the Congolese State, thus that soldier engages the responsibility of the State, since it is admitted that the abuse of functions is not an obstacle to the responsibility of the principal, namely the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
Whereas the Military Court of the Eastern Province therefore judges that the responsibility of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is engaged as regards the assassination of the five pupils from Tchekele by the soldiers of the third company under the command of the defendant Blaise Bongi Massaba;
Whereas the same applies to the other acts of attacks on property in which not only the soldiers are implicated but in which also and in particular the Congolese State has failed its mission to keep individuals safe;
Whereas that responsibility for acts of third persons finds its basis in article 260 of the third book of the Congolese civil code which provides:
- one is responsible not only for the damage one causes by one’s own act, but also for that which is caused by the act of persons for whom one is responsible or things which one has under one’s care;
Whereas the Democratic Republic of the Congo in its capacity as principal described above has the civil liability for the reparation or indemnification of damages and harm caused to third persons by the act of its agents, who are the soldiers of the FARDC, of the third company of the first battalion in the sixth brigade.
Therefore

The Military Court of the Eastern Province, finding on the civil action, after proceedings in which both sides were heard, and by the majority of the votes of its members.
1. Declares admissible and founded on the merits the action for reparation and indemnification for harms introduced by Madame …
The courts orders the defendant Blaise Bongi Massaba, jointly with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to pay as compensation for damage suffered:
To Madame …
- mother of … and aunt of…
- the equivalent in Congolese Francs of 100,000 US Dollars as damages and interest,
- the equivalent in Congolese Francs of 15,000 US Dollars as the counter value of her destroyed house …,
- the restitution of the objects described above or their counter value …
2. As regards the civil party …, father of … and …,
The Military Court of the Eastern Province orders the defendant Blaise Bongi Massaba, jointly with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to pay…
- the equivalent in Congolese Francs of 100,000 US Dollars as damages and interest.
3. As regards the civil party …, father of …,
The Military Court of the Eastern Province orders the defendant Blaise Bongi Massaba, jointly with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to pay…
- the equivalent in Congolese Francs of 50,000 US Dollars as damages and interest. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Court of the Eastern Province, Bongi Massaba case, Judgment on Appeals, 4 November 2006.

Italy
In the Ercole case in 2000, Italy’s Tribunal of Livorno tried and sentenced a former paratrooper to 18 months’ suspended imprisonment for abusing his authority during his participation in a multinational peacekeeping operation in Somalia and, pending the outcome of connected civil proceedings, made him provisionally liable to the payment of 30,000,000 Italian lire to a Somali citizen who had been tortured. 
Italy, Tribunal at Livorno, Ercole case, 13 April 2000.

In 2001, the Court of Appeals at Florence confirmed the judgment in this part. 
Italy, Court of Appeals at Florence, Ercole case, 22 February 2001.

Norway
In its judgment in the Repak case in 2008, concerning crimes committed against civilian non-combatant Serbs in an internment camp in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992, resulting from which the defendant was convicted on 11 counts of the war crime of unlawfully confining a protected person, the District Court of Oslo held:
273. Many of the aggrieved persons have presented claims for compensation for non-pecuniary damage; that is, money to be paid in compensation for pain and suffering. …
274. As regards compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it is regulated by section[s] 3–5 of the Compensation Act. The said legal provision gives a legal basis for compensation for non-pecuniary damage where injury has been inflicted upon a person or reproachable behaviour has been demonstrated as further described therein. The provision does not make reference to any provisions of the 2005 Penal Code, but this District Court presumes this not to be a conscious choice by the legislators, but a failure to adapt the existing legislation when the new war crime provisions were adopted. Thus, the District Court presumes that there is a legal basis for compensation for non-pecuniary damage in the case of deprivation of liberty covered by section 223 second subsection of the Penal Code. The defendant is not convicted pursuant to any provisions concerning violent crime; however, in fixing the amount of the compensation for non-pecuniary damage awarded, the Court attaches importance to the violence exercised by the defendant, and instances of violence where he was directly responsible. The defendant shall however not be held liable for abuses committed by others in Dretelj [internment camp]. This means that the defendant shall not pay compensation for non-pecuniary damage for the rapes committed in Dretelj.

276. In addition to [the defendant's] complicity in the deprivation of her freedom, AA [a female civilian non-combatant who was held in Dretelj] was subjected to torture during an interrogation that the defendant was in charge of, she was subjected to degrading treatment by having to undress completely, and the defendant personally gave her a slap in the face. Following the above, the Court finds that the compensation for non-pecuniary damage to AA is to be in the amount of NOK [Norwegian krone] 100,000.
277. For the remaining victims, who have claimed compensation for non-pecuniary damage, it is the deprivation of liberty that is the basis for these claims. Because the defendant is not liable for the individual instances of abuse committed in Dretelj, the Court finds no reason to differentiate the amounts awarded as compensation for non-pecuniary damage, which is set to NOK 40,000 for each of them [six other victims], with the exception of DD [an eighth victim], where the amount is set to NOK 60,000 because of the use of needles he was subjected to in the interrogation headed by the defendant. 
Norway, District Court of Oslo, Repak case, Judgment, 2 December 2008, §§ 273–274 and 276–277.

United States of America
In the Karadžić case in 1995, a US Court of Appeals considered a civil action brought by Bosnian victims of atrocities and their representatives against Radovan Karadžić under, inter alia, the US Alien Tort Claims Act. This Act “creates federal court jurisdiction for suits alleging torts committed anywhere in the world against aliens in violation of the law of nations” (or US treaty). The Court, considering the responsibility of Karadžić for genocide, rape, forced prostitution, torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, summary executions and disappearances committed during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, emphasized that individuals could be held responsible, both criminally, and, as in this case, civilly, for violations of international law. It further noted: “The liability of private individuals for committing war crimes has been recognized since World War I and was confirmed at Nuremberg after World War II, and remains today an important aspect of international law.” It also stated:
The liability of private persons for certain violations of customary international law and the availability of the Alien Tort Act to remedy such violations was early recognized by the Executive Branch in an opinion of Attorney General Bradford … The Executive Branch has emphatically restated in this litigation its position that private persons may be found liable under the Alien Tort Act for acts of genocide, war crimes, and other violations of international humanitarian law. 
United States, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Karadžić case, Decision, 13 October 1995.

The FIS case before a US District Court in 1998, in which a group of Algerian women sought compensation from a high-ranking official of the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS) for his participation in crimes against humanity, war crimes and various violations of human rights committed in Algeria, successfully relied upon the US Torture Victim Protection Act and the US Alien Tort Claims Act as a basis for the jurisdiction of US courts. With regard to the claim based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the Court found that:
The alleged acts of the FIS are clearly in violation of international law as it stands today. Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions … applies to “armed conflicts not of an international character” and protects civilians not participating in the conflict by requiring that they be “treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion, faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria”. It prohibits, among other things, “murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture”, kidnapping, and summary executions. The Karadžić court held that Common Article 3 applies to all parties to a conflict, not merely to official governments. This Court concludes that the acts of the FIS alleged by Plaintiffs are proscribed by international law against other state and private actors, as evidenced by Common Article 3. Accordingly plaintiffs have properly alleged subject matter jurisdiction under the ATCA. 
United States, District Court for the District of Columbia, FIS case, Judgment, 2 February 1998.

In a class action verdict in the Karadžić case before a US District Court in 2000, Radovan Karadžić was sentenced to pay US$ 265 million in compensatory damages and US$ 480 million in punitive damages to the claimants. 
United States, District Court, Southern District of New York, Karadžić case, Judgment, 16 August 2000.

In another verdict, Radovan Karadžić was sentenced to pay US$ 407 million in compensatory damages and US$ 3.8 billion in punitive damages. As acts for which the damages were owed, the Court, in the latest verdict, listed, inter alia, rape and gang rape, forced pregnancy, sexual slavery, beating and other torture, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, assault and battery, and disappearance of relatives. 
United States, District Court, Southern District of New York, Karadžić case, Judgment, 4 October 2000.

In 2002, in the Mehinovic case, a civil lawsuit filed on behalf of four Bosnian Muslims who were tortured by a Bosnian-Serb soldier in Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1992, the District Court Northern District of Georgia found the defendant liable for: torture; cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment; arbitrary detention; war crimes; crimes against humanity; and genocide. The Court awarded the plaintiffs US$140 million in damages. In its judgment, the Court stated:
Plaintiffs have shown that defendant Vuckovic acted with the intent required to establish that his acts constituted torture. Vuckovic’s anti-Muslim statements, and the entire context in which the beatings occurred, evidence the fact that the defendant beat and threatened plaintiffs for discriminatory reasons. Plaintiffs have also established that the acts of defendant Vuckovic were carried out with the intent of intimidating or terrorizing them because of their ethnicity, pursuant to the Bosnian Serb government’s campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Finally, the beatings carried out by Vuckovic and his accomplices were clearly perpetrated, instigated, and acquiesced in, by persons acting in an official capacity as part of the police or military forces of Republika Srpska. Vuckovic himself was a soldier in a unit tied to and supported by the Bosnian Serb and Serbian governments. He often carried out beatings with other soldiers. The beatings inflicted by Vuckovic all were committed in official or designated detention facilities, guarded by Bosnian Serb or Serbian police or soldiers. Without their permission or acquiescence, and that of those in the political and military hierarchy above him, Vuckovic could not have perpetrated abuses against plaintiffs. Plaintiff Subasic described frequently hearing guards scheduling beatings in advance. The fact that the beatings carried out by Vuckovic and others were routine, daily occurrences at these facilities also indicates that the beatings were, in fact, ordered, authorized, and perpetrated as part and parcel of official policy.
For these reasons, defendant Vuckovic is liable for torture under the ATCA [Alien Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 (1988)].
The TVPA [Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991] also provides a cause of action for official torture. The TVPA provides in relevant part:
An individual who, under actual or apparent authority, or color of law, of any foreign nation – (1) subjects an individual to torture shall, in a civil action, be liable for damages to that individual.
TVPA § 2(a).
As set out in the section above, defendant Vuckovic clearly committed abuses against plaintiffs under official authority. In light of the de facto governmental authority of the Republika Srpska, under which Vuckovic served as a soldier, and the control exerted over it by the Serbian government, Vuckovic may be considered also to have been acting under the authority of a “foreign nation .” Kadic v. Karadzic, 70 F.3d at 244–46 Additionally, as the definition of torture under the TVPA closely follows the definition of torture under the Torture Convention in all relevant respects, for the same reasons as above, Vuckovic’s actions also constitute torture under the TVPA. Accordingly, defendant Vuckovic also is liable to plaintiffs for torture under the TVPA. 
United States, District Court Northern District of Georgia, Mehinovic case, Judgment, 29 April 2002.

Back to top
Belgium
At the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court in 1998, the Belgian Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Belgium was in favour of inserting in the ICC Statute provisions that would permit the Court to rule on reparation claims. 
Belgium, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 June 1998.

Chad
In 2007, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Chad stated:
384. In Chad there is no legal text categorizing torture as a distinct crime. As pointed out many times, it constitutes only an aggravating circumstance.
385. Thus a torture victim may file a criminal indemnity action by invoking the provisions of article 7 of the Chadian Code of Criminal Procedure.
386. Following the abuses committed under the regime of former President Habré, the victims brought criminal indemnity actions before the Doyen of the investigating judges appointed in what could be called the “case of Habré and his accomplices”. This procedure led to the opening of a judicial investigation.
387. This Chadian judge in charge of the file on the DDS [Documentation and Security Directorate] agents has still not been given adequate resources for fulfilling his mission and also comes up against the absence of provisions on torture in criminal law.
388. Another way of enabling a victim to obtain reparation is the exercise of the remedies provided in article 1384 of the French Civil Code, which is in force in Chad.
389. On the basis of solutions found for victims of torture in other countries and assisted by the presence of deputies who were victims, the victims had the National Assembly prepare a proposed law that aims to grant them a sum of money for reparation of the injury sustained. The proposed law estimates this reparation at CFAF 40 million per person per year. The rate is the same for both direct and indirect victims.
390. The victims propose that these amounts could come from the Treasury, from assets belonging to President Habré and his accomplices, which must be confiscated, and from external funds. 
Chad, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 22 September 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/TCD/1, submitted 4 September 2007, §§ 384–390.

In 2009, in its written replies to the issues raised by the Human Rights Committee with regard to Chad’s initial report, Chad stated:
There is no law in Chad specifically criminalizing the act of torture; torture can only be an aggravating factor. Thus the victim of a criminal act who was subjected to torture may sue for criminal damages under article 6 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Other means of redress available to the victim are the remedies provided under article 1382 of the French Civil Code in force in Chad and, on grounds of grievous bodily harm, articles 252 and 253 of the Criminal Code. 
Chad, Written replies by the Government of Chad to the Human Rights Committee concerning the list of issues to be taken up in connection with the initial report of Chad, 20 January 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/TCD/Q/1/Add.1, submitted 12 January 2009, § 31.

El Salvador
In 2009, in its written replies to the Committee against Torture concerning its second periodic report, El Salvador stated:
10. Indicate if, in accordance with the obligations of the Pact [1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights], the General Amnesty Law for Consolidation of Peace of 1993 has been amended so as to not bar the investigation and punishment of those responsible for torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment during the armed conflict.

22. …
“In this way, the lack of a criminal offence does not exclude the [existence] of an illicit civil act and even if the criminal judge declares that the first does not exist he or she cannot prejudge on the possible presence of the second … [A]s a result, even if an accused [person] is acquitted in a criminal process he or she can be sued through the civil procedure for non-compliance with the obligation to compensate for the damages caused by an illicit civil act or for the creation of a risk. The above implies that the claim for compensation due to costs and damages should be treated independently and can be raised before the competent tribunals even when the existence of another type of responsibility over the same act has been rejected from a legal point of view … ”, that is to say that “if the acts that gave rise to the civil liability of an official or public employee have not been amnestied – as they constitute offences that cannot be amnestied – or the amnesty is contrary to the Constitution, the claim for compensation is valid before the competent tribunals … ”. 
El Salvador, Written replies by the Government of El Salvador to the list of issues formulated by the Committee against Torture in connection with its consideration of the second periodic report of El Salvador, 12 October 2009, UN Doc. CAT/C/SLV/Q/2/Add.1, submitted 1 October 2009, Question 10, § 22.

France
In 1993, the Committee of French Jurists set up by the French government to study the establishment of a criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia stated:
It does not seem reasonable to admit civil actions before the [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia]. That would lead to a flood of claims, which the international court would not be in a position to process effectively. It seems preferable to proceed from the principle that it will be for the national courts to rule on claims for reparation by victims or their beneficiaries. 
France, Committee of French Jurists, Report on the setting up of a criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. S/25266, 10 February 1993, § 100.

At the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court in 1998, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs declared: “My country has also urged close cooperation with NGOs to ensure that the statute contains precise provisions concerning victim access at all stages of proceedings … and their right to reparation.” 
France, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at the Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 June 1998.

In 2008, the Minister of Defence of France, when talking about the liability of private military contractors for violations of international humanitarian law, stated:
The responsibility of private military companies could be engaged in the same way as any company under French law … These companies could thus be held civilly liable for acts committed on their behalf by their employees. Their dissolution could be pronounced in case of violation of the applicable law. 
France, Response from the Minister of Defence to parliamentary written question No. 25422, Journal officiel de la République française, 12 August 2008, p. 6934.

Morocco
In 1993, during a debate in the UN Security Council following the adoption of the 1993 ICTY Statute, Morocco stated:
The [International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia] should hand down deterrent sentences both for those who commit crimes and for their accomplices, and should not ignore appropriate compensation for victims and their families. 
Morocco, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3217, 25 May 1993, pp. 27–28.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1998, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the establishment of an international criminal court, the United Kingdom stated that it “took particular satisfaction” at two of the aspects of the 1998 ICC Statute. One of these aspects was that:
The Statute of the Court gave the Court power, under article 75, to order the payment of reparations to victims. Accordingly, the Court would serve not just the interests of society in repressing crime, but also those of the victims of crime. The provision would also bolster the Court’s role in deterrence. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/53/SR.12, 19 December 1998, § 42.

United States of America
In 1993, during a debate in the UN Security Council following the unanimous vote on Resolution 827 (1993) establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the United States stated:
With respect to Article 24 [of the 1993 ICTY Statute], it is our understanding that compensation to victims by a convicted person may be an appropriate part of decisions on sentencing, reduction of sentences, parole or commutation. 
United States, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3217 (Provisional), 25 May 1993, p. 17.

According to the Report on US Practice, it is the opinio juris of the United States that “universal jurisdiction over war crimes applies not only to penal proceedings, but also to suits for damages against individual war criminals by or on behalf of their victims”. 
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 6.12.

Back to top
UN Security Council
In Resolution 827 of May 1993 establishing the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), the UN Security Council decided that “the work of the International Tribunal shall be carried out without prejudice to the right of the victims to seek, through appropriate means, compensation for damages incurred as a result of violations of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 827, 25 May 1993, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.

UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights recommended that
steps be taken to ensure full reparation for losses suffered as a consequence of aggression and religious and ethnic cleansing … it being understood that those responsible for causing destruction and other losses shall be held personally responsible for the repayment of the losses incurred. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1993/17, 20 August 1993, § 8; see also Res. 1995/8, 18 August 1995, § 6.

UN Secretary-General
In 1998, in a report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa, the UN Secretary-General stated:
In order to make warring parties more accountable for their actions, I recommend that combatants be held financially liable to their victims under international law where civilians are made the deliberate target of aggression. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa, UN Doc. A/52/871-S/1998/318, 13 April 1998, § 50; see also Report on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. S/1999/957, 8 September 1999, § 38.

UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Representative)
In 2000, in a report on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, which dealt, inter alia, with the gacaca trials instituted in Rwanda to try genocide suspects, the Special Representative of the UN Commission on Human Rights stated: “Those convicted of crimes against property will be expected to pay restitution for the damage they caused.” 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Representative on the situation of human rights in Rwanda, Report, UN Doc. A/55/269, 4 August 2000, § 163.

Back to top
European Parliament
In a resolution adopted in 1993, the European Parliament declared that it believed that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) “should … consider acts of violence against women committed in former Yugoslavia and require those who committed them to provide economic assistance for the children born as a result of rape and pay compensation to the victims of such crimes”. 
European Parliament, Resolution on Human Rights in the world and Community human rights policy for the years 1991/1992, 12 March 1993, §§ 7 and 8.

Back to top
No data.
Back to top
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
In the Kaing case before the ECCC, the accused was charged, both individually and as a superior, with, inter alia, various crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In its judgment in 2010, the Trial Chamber considered the civil liability of the accused for the crimes of which he was found guilty, stating:
639. Once declared admissible in the early stages of the proceedings, Civil Parties must satisfy the Chamber of the existence of wrongdoing attributable to the Accused which has a direct causal connection to a demonstrable injury personally suffered by the Civil Party.
4.2.1 Existence of injury
640. Internal Rule 23(2) [of the Internal Rules of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia] provides that in order for Civil Party action to be admissible, the injury must be “physical, material or psychological”, and the “direct consequence of the offence, personal and have actually come into being”.
641. In addition to physical suffering, the injury in question may also be psychological and include mental disorders or psychiatric trauma, such as post-traumatic stress disorder, or material injury pertaining to loss of property or income. The injury suffered must be personal. The Chamber has previously ruled that a civil action may, under certain conditions, be pursued on behalf of deceased Civil Party applicants by their successors.
4.2.2 Existence of a causal link between the victim’s injury and the Accused’s offending
642. The injury suffered must result directly from the criminal conduct of the Accused. The notion of “direct consequence” is expressly mentioned in Article 13 of the 2007 Code of Criminal Procedure [of the Kingdom of Cambodia] and emphasizes the link between the crime and the injury suffered, rather than the intended target of the criminal act. Responsibility is thus not limited to persons against whom the crimes were committed, but may also be the direct cause of injury to a larger group of victims.
643. Although the immediate family members of a victim fall within the scope of Internal Rule 23(2)(b), direct harm may be more difficult to substantiate in relation to more attenuated familial relationships. The Chamber nevertheless considers that harm alleged by members of a victim’s extended family may, in exceptional circumstances, amount to a direct and demonstrable consequence of the crime where the applicants are able to prove both the alleged kinship and the existence of circumstances giving rise to special bonds of affection or dependence on the deceased. In this regard, the Chamber accepts the view of expert CHHIM Sotheara regarding the nature of familial relationships within Cambodian culture and has therefore evaluated the claims of extended family members who have sought to demonstrate a particular bond with immediate victims of S-21 and S-24.

651. Requests for reparations by Civil Parties whose harm was recognized by the Chamber to have been directly caused by the crimes committed by KAING Guek Eav shall be granted where the awards sought:
a) qualify as collective and moral reparations within the meaning of Internal Rule 23(1)(b), and
b) are sufficiently certain or ascertainable to give rise to an enforceable order against the Accused.  
ECCC, Kaing case, Judgment, 26 July 2010, §§ 639–643 and 651.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Trial Chamber then considered the right of victims to pursue a civil action for reparations before the ECCC in general, stating:
660. Civil Party participation before the ECCC includes both a right for victims to participate as parties in the criminal trial of an Accused in support of the Prosecution and to pursue a related civil action for collective and moral reparations against an Accused for harm that is directly attributable to the crimes for which the Accused is convicted.
661. Although the Internal Rules depart from Cambodian national law in significant respects, the notion of Civil Party participation before the ECCC is derived from analogous forms of participation recognized before some national jurisdictions, including in the Kingdom of Cambodia. The key features of Civil Party participation are that awards are directed against and borne exclusively [by] the Accused following a determination of responsibility for the harm established by Civil Parties as resulting from the criminal offending. The ECCC lacks the competence to enforce reparations awards. Reparations awarded by the ECCC against an Accused can therefore only be enforced, where necessary, within the ordinary Cambodian court system.
662. The Chamber acknowledges the principles expressing the right of victims of gross violations of international human rights law to redress, reflected in a number of international treaties and other instruments, declarations of United Nation[s] bodies and decisions of regional courts. The Chamber is nonetheless constrained in its task by the requests before it and type of reparations permitted under its Internal Rules. Limitations of this nature cannot be circumvented through jurisprudence but instead require Rule amendments.
663. Further, the competence of the ECCC is distinct from that of certain regional human rights courts, which are instead empowered to adjudicate questions of State responsibility and to order States to make reparation to their citizens where found responsible for gross violations of international human rights law. The Chamber has no jurisdiction over Cambodian or other national authorities or international bodies. Nor can it properly impose obligations on or grant rights to persons or entities that were not parties to the proceedings before it. At most, the Chamber can merely encourage national authorities, the international community and other potential donors to show solidarity with the victims by providing financial and other forms of support that contributes to their rehabilitation, reintegration, and restoration of dignity.
664. Where an Accused appear[s] to be indigent, there is currently no mechanism allowing the ECCC to substitute or supplement awards made against them with funds provided by national authorities or other third parties.
665. The Chamber is, additionally, unable to issue orders where the object of the claim is uncertain or unascertainable, and which are incapable of enforcement. Accordingly, a prerequisite to the grant of an award is the clear specification of the nature of the relief sought, its link to the harm caused by the Accused that it seeks to remedy, and the quantum of the indemnity or amount of reparation sought from the Accused to give effect to it. Placing the burden on the Chamber to substitute its own decision in these areas is inconsistent with a mechanism that is claimant-driven, and is also irreconcilable with the need for a fair and expeditious trial, the envisaged duration of the ECCC and the resources at its disposal.
666. In the present context, constraints also stem from the overwhelming losses suffered by the Civil Parties and the unlikelihood of recovery from KAING Guek Eav, who appears to be indigent. 
ECCC, Kaing case, Judgment, 26 July 2010, §§ 660–666.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Trial Chamber then analysed the various types of reparation sought by the civil parties, stating:
4.4.3.1 Requests pertaining to the content of the judgment
667. The Civil Parties request that their names and those of the immediate victims be included in the final judgment, including a specification as to their connection with the crimes committed at S-21. Although reparations before the ECCC are, strictly speaking, limited to measures ordered against the Accused, the Chamber alone was capable of honouring the request to include the names of Civil Parties and their relatives who died at S-21 in this judgment. It also notes that comparable, official acknowledgments of suffering before other international bodies have been characterized as reparation of considerable symbolic significance for victims.
4.4.3.2 Compilation and publication of statements of apology
668. The Civil Parties have requested the compilation and publication of all statements of apology made by KAING Guek Eav during the trial, together with comments of the Civil Parties. Numerous such statements were made during the course of trial. As the compilation of these apologies and expressions of remorse may provide some satisfaction to victims and as they are in substance the only tangible means by which KAING Guek Eav may acknowledge his responsibility and the collective suffering of the victims of his criminal conduct, the Chamber grants this request. The Chamber nevertheless rejects the request to include statements by Civil Parties within this compilation, on grounds that such statements are distinct from the apologies made by KAING Guek Eav, and as their content has not been specified.
4.4.3.3 Requests concerning publication of the judgment and outreach
669. Requests for, amongst other things, the production of documentaries and the dissemination in the broadcast media of portions of the judgement are rejected on grounds of lack of specificity. The precise nature of the measures sought and their costs are uncertain and indeterminable and accordingly not amenable to an award against KAING Guek Eav. The Chamber notes, however, that the judgement will be issued publicly, and made available on the ECCC website, where it will be accessible to all media outlets wishing to make reference to it. It further notes that public provision of information regarding the judgement will occur as a feature of the ECCC Public Affairs Section’s outreach activities, which are likely to contribute significantly to reconciliation initiatives within Cambodian society at large and public education.
4.4.3.4 Requests for individual monetary awards to Civil Parties or establishment of a fund
670. All requests which, whether directly or indirectly, seek individual monetary awards for Civil Parties, or the establishment of a trust fund for victims, are beyond the scope of available reparations before the ECCC. Accordingly, requests such as the provision of vocational training, micro-enterprise loans and business skills training are rejected.
4.4.3.5 Requests for measures by the Royal Government of Cambodia
671. Although likely to contribute to the collective and moral reparation of the harm suffered by victims, these requests fall outside the jurisdiction of the ECCC as they are not measures which can be satisfied through orders made against KAING Guek Eav. They are rejected on grounds that the institution of a national commemoration day for victims and the issuance of official statements of apology fall exclusively within national governmental prerogatives, which the ECCC has no competence to compel.
4.4.3.6 Requests for the construction of pagodas and other memorials
672. While sympathetic to these requests, the Chamber lacks sufficient specificity regarding the exact number of memorials sought and their nature, their envisaged location, or estimated cost. No information has been provided, for example, regarding the identity of the owners of all proposed sites, whether they consent to the construction of each proposed memorial, or whether additional administrative authorisations such as building permits would be necessary to give effect to each measure. As the material before it does not enable the Chamber to issue an enforceable order against KAING Guek Eav to pay a fixed or determinable amount in reparation, these requests are rejected.
4.4.3.7 Requests to preserve the S-21 archives, Vann Nath’s paintings and the S-21 and S-24 sites
673. While acknowledging the significance of preservation efforts in this area, the Chamber notes that these requests are not in the form of particularized and quantified claims that may be readily transformed into orders against KAING Guek Eav. Further, the Chamber has been provided with no particulars regarding the current legal ownership of these sites, archives or items, or whether their owners or possessors consent to proposals that they be accessed or altered, or the reallocation of revenues derived from them to Civil Parties. They are accordingly rejected.
4.4.3.8 Requests for the provision of access to free medical care and educational measures
674. Requests of this type – which by their nature are not symbolic but instead designed to benefit a large number of individual victims – are outside the scope of available reparations before the ECCC. Provision of free medical care to a large and indeterminate number of victims may purport to impose obligations upon national healthcare authorities and thus exceed the scope of the ECCC’s competence. The Chamber is similarly unable to order measures that may impact on national education policies such as teacher training, salaries, and curriculum development. Even if awards of this sort were within the scope of Internal Rule 23(1)(b), proof would be required as to the link between the measure sought by each claimant and the crimes for which KAING Guek Eav has been found responsible. No such material has been provided to the Chamber. Further, the number and identity of all intended beneficiaries of these requests, the nature of the measures sought and the cost of their provision are neither particularized nor readily quantifiable within the available resources of the Chamber.
675. Although victim needs in these areas are undisputed, they are inherently incapable of satisfaction through an order against the Accused, and the requests in their current form cannot provide the basis of enforceable orders against KAING Guek Eav. They are consequently rejected. 
ECCC, Kaing case, Judgment, 26 July 2010, §§ 667–675.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Back to top
No data.
Back to top
No data.