HINDERNISSE FÜR ENTSCHÄDIGUNGEN IM RAHMEN VON ARTIKEL 75 DER ROM-VERORDNUNG

Yıl 2025, Cilt: 6 Sayı: 1, 69 - 88, 30.07.2025

Uche Nnawulezi , Obinna Okereke , Jacques Kabano

Öz

Die Entschädigungsregelung gemäß Artikel 75 des Römischen Statuts des IStGH unterstreicht die doppelte Rolle des Gerichtshofs als strafende und wiedergutmachende Institution. Die Einbeziehung der Opferrechte in den Entschädigungsprozess bei schweren internationalen Verbrechen schwächt nicht die Fähigkeit, die Täter zu bestrafen. In diesem Artikel wird argumentiert, dass die Entschädigungsbefugnis des IStGH einen einzigartigen institutionellen Rahmen schafft, der Opfern von Verfolgung eine Stimme und Unterstützung gibt. Außerdem wird argumentiert, dass Wiedergutmachungsmaßnahmen den Opfern über die Verurteilung der Täter hinaus palliative Maßnahmen bieten. Mechanismen wie das „Entschädigungspaket“, der „Treuhandfonds für Opfer“ und die „Verfahrensrichtlinien“ stellen fortschrittliche Entwicklungen im internationalen Strafrecht (ICL) dar. Diese Arbeit untersucht das Regime von Artikel 75 kritisch, indem sie durch eine dogmatische Analyse die Hindernisse für wirksame Wiedergutmachungsmaßnahmen identifiziert. Sie untersucht konzeptionelle und rechtliche Unstimmigkeiten, die zu einer langsamen, verwirrenden und schwierigen Umsetzung führen. Die Empfehlungen befassen sich mit Themen wie der Definition von Entschädigung, dem weiten Ermessensspielraum des Gerichtshofs bei der Festlegung von Grundsätzen, inkonsistenten Kausalitätsbewertungen und der unklaren Zuständigkeit des Treuhandfonds für Opfer. Die Studie kommt zu dem Schluss, dass die Umsetzung ihrer Empfehlungen die inhärenten Widersprüche von Artikel 75 mildern würde.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Reparationen , Behinderung , Artikel 75 , Römisches Statut , IStGH

ROMA TÜZÜĞÜ'NÜN 75. MADDESİ KAPSAMINDA TAZMİNATLARIN ÖNÜNDEKİ ENGELLER

Öz

UCM'nin Roma Statüsü'nün 75. Maddesi kapsamındaki tazminat rejimi, Mahkeme'nin hem cezalandırıcı hem de onarıcı bir kurum olarak ikili rolünü ortaya koymaktadır. Ağır uluslararası suçlarla ilgili mağdur haklarının tazminat sürecine dahil edilmesi, failleri cezalandırma kapasitesini zayıflatmaz. Bu makale, UCM'nin tazminat yetkisinin, zulüm mağdurlarına ses ve destek veren benzersiz bir kurumsal çerçeve oluşturduğunu savunmaktadır. Ayrıca, onarımların mağdurlara faillerin mahkum edilmesinin ötesinde palyatif önlemler sunduğunu iddia etmektedir. “Tazminat Paketi”, “Mağdurlar için Güven Fonu” ve “Usul Yönergeleri” gibi mekanizmalar, Uluslararası Ceza Hukukunda (ICL) ilerici gelişmeleri temsil etmektedir. Bu çalışma, doktriner analiz yoluyla etkili onarımların önündeki engelleri tespit ederek Madde 75 rejimini eleştirel bir şekilde incelemektedir. Yavaş, kafa karıştırıcı ve zorlu uygulamaya neden olan kavramsal ve yasal tutarsızlıkları araştırmaktadır. Öneriler, tazminatın tanımı, Mahkeme'nin ilkeleri belirlemedeki geniş takdir yetkisi, tutarsız nedensellik değerlendirmeleri ve Mağdurlar için Güven Fonu'nun muğlak yetkisi gibi konuları ele almaktadır. Çalışma, tavsiyelerinin uygulanmasının Madde 75'in doğasında bulunan çelişkili konuları hafifleteceği sonucuna varmaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Tazminatlar , Engelleme , Madde 75 , Roma Statüsü , UCM

BARRIERS TO REPARATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 75 OF THE ROME STATUTE

Öz

The regulatory regime for reparations provided in the Rome Statute of the ICC reveals novel characteristics of the Court as both a punitive and philanthropic institution. Including victims' rights regarding gross global crimes as part of the reparative process for redressing injuries suffered does not diminish its power to punish offenders. The paper highlights that the ICC's reparations mandate establishes a new and evolving institutional framework, providing voice and support to victims of atrocious crimes. It argues that the redress process offers victims the opportunity to receive palliative measures beyond the convictions and sentences of perpetrators. The "Reparations Package," "Trust Fund for Victims," "Parts of Crime," along with the "Procedural Guidelines and Proofs," constitute progressive tools in International Criminal Law (ICL). The paper examines the regulatory regime governing reparations as outlined in Article 75 of the Rome Statute of the ICC. It critically analyzes some of the obstacles to reparations through doctrinal research methods, investigating conceptual and legal discrepancies that make the application of reparations slow, confusing, and challenging. Recommendations are made regarding the definition of reparations, the court's indefinite powers in establishing reparations principles, inconsistencies in causation assessment, and the ambiguous mandate of the Trust Fund for Victims, among others. The paper concludes that the conflicting issues contained in Article 75 of the Rome Statute will be alleviated if the recommendations proposed in the paper are strictly implemented.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Reparations , Impediment , Article 75 , Rome Statute , ICC

Kaynakça

• Bottigliero, Ilaria, Redress for Victims of Crimes Under International Law (Leiden ; Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2004).
• Crawford, Emily & Alison Pert, International Humanitarian Law, 2d ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020).
• Dwertmann, Eva, The Reparation System of the International Criminal Court: Its Implementation, Possibilities and Limitations (Brill | Nijhoff, 2010).
• Evans, Christine, The Right to Reparation in International Law for Victims of Armed Conflict, 1st ed (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
• Greiff, Pablo de, ed, The Handbook of Reparations (Oxford University Press, 2006).
• Letschert, Rianne et al, eds, Victimological Approaches to International Crimes: Africa, 1st ed (Intersentia, 2011).
• McCarthy, Conor, Reparations and Victim Support in the International Criminal Court, 1st ed (Cambridge University Press, 2012).
• Shelton, Dinah, International Crimes, Peace, and Human Rights: The Role of the International Criminal Court (Brill | Nijhoff, 2000).
• Walker, Margaret Urban, What is reparative justice?, Aquinas lecture 2010 (Milwaukee, Wis: Marquette University Press, 2010).
• Balta, Alina, Manon Bax & Rianne Letschert, “Trial and (Potential) Error: Conflicting Visions on Reparations Within the ICC System” (2019) 29:3 International Criminal Justice Review 221–248.
• Brodney, Marissa R, “Implementing International Criminal Court-Ordered Collective Reparations: Unpacking Present Debates” (2016) 1 Journal of the Oxford Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, online: <https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2870191>.
• Dudai, Ron, “Closing the gap: symbolic reparations and armed groups” (2011) 93:883 International Review of the Red Cross 783–808.
• FRIMAN, HÅKAN, “The International Criminal Court and Participation of Victims: A Third Party to the Proceedings?” (2009) 22:3 Leiden Journal of International Law 485–500.
• Hamilton, Tomas & Goran Sluiter, “Principles of Reparations at the International Criminal Court: Assessing Alternative Approaches” (2022) SSRN Journal, online: <https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=4042098>.
• McCarthy, Conor, “Reparations under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and Reparative Justice Theory” (2009) 3:2 International Journal of Transitional Justice 250–271.
• Moffett, Luke, “REALISING JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS BEFORE THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT” (2014) International Crimes Data Base (ICD Brief 6 – Realising Justice for victims before the International Criminal Court, September 2014) .
• Muttukumaru, Christian PJ, “Reparations for victims” in Essays on the Rome Statute of the International criminal court - volume I (Ripa Fagnano Alto (L’Aquila): Il sirente, 1999).
• Navarro, Nadia Tapia, “Collective Reparations and the Limitations of International Criminal Justice to Respond to Mass Atrocity” (2018) 18:1 International Criminal Law Review 67–96.
• Rivas, Gilbert Bittiand Gabriela Gonzalez, “The Reparations Provisions for Victims Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court” in Perm Court Arbitr, ed, Redressing Injustices Through Mass Claims Processes (Oxford University PressOxford, 2006) 299.
• Stahn, Carsten, “Reparative Justice after the Lubanga Appeals Judgment: New Prospects for Expressivism and Participatory Justice or Juridified Victimhoodd by Other Means?” (2015) SSRN Journal, online: <http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=2586332>.
• Sandoval, Clara, The legal standing and sifnificance of the basic principles and guidelines on the right to a remedy and reparation (2018).
• UDHR (adopted by UNGA Res. 217 A(111) of December, 1948).
• ICCPR (adopted by the UNGA Res. 2200A(XXI) of December 1966 and entered into force 23 March, 1976).
• ICERD (adopted by UNGA Res. 2106 (XX) of 21 December 1965 and entered into force 4 January, 1969).
• UNCAT( adopted by UNGA Res. 39/46 of 10 December 1984 and entered into force 1987).
• ACHPR (adopted 27 June 1981 and entered into force 21 October 1986).
• RS of ICC (adopted by the UNDC 17 July 1998 and entered into force 1 July 200).
• The Paris Principles and Guidelines on Children Associated with Armed Forces or Armed Groups: UNICEF February, 2005.
• UN Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Rights to a Remedy and Reparations for Victims of Gross Violations of IHL and Serious Violations of IHL, UNGA Res. A/RES/60/147, 21 March 2006.