Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T21:20:31.952Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender and judging at the International Criminal Court: Lessons from ‘feminist judgment projects’

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 December 2020

Rosemary Grey ,
Kcasey McLoughlin  and
Louise Chappell
Rosemary Grey
Affiliation:
Law Building, University of Sydney, NSW2042, Australia Email: [email protected]
Kcasey McLoughlin
Affiliation:
Newcastle Law School, Nu Space, The University of Newcastle, Corner Hunter St &, Auckland St, Newcastle 2300, NSW, Australia Email: [email protected]
Louise Chappell
Affiliation:
Australian Human Rights Institute, UNSW Law School, Kensington, NSW2052, Australia Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

To date, analyses of gender justice at the International Criminal Court (ICC) have focused primarily on critiques of, and shifts within, the Office of the Prosecutor. This article takes a different approach by focusing on the ICC’s judiciary. We being by arguing that state parties can and should do more than electing a balance of male and female judges – they can also ensure gender-sensitivity on the Bench by supporting candidates with expertise in gender analysis, and by backing judges who bring a feminist approach to their work once elected. Next, we explain the concept of the ‘feminist judgment-writing’ and suggest that this method offers a useful framework for embedding gender-sensitive judging at the ICC. To illustrate this argument, we highlight opportunities for ICC judges to engage in gender-sensitive judging in relation to interpreting the law, making findings of fact, and deciding procedural questions. The final section of the article discusses how best to institutionalize the practice of gender-sensitive judging at the ICC.

Keywords

feminismgenderInternational Criminal Courtinternational criminal lawjudges
Type
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , March 2021 , pp. 247 - 264
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We thank the journal editors and the anonymous reviewers for their thoughtful feedback. We also acknowledge institutional support from Sydney Law School, Sydney Southeast Asia Centre. The article represents our personal views.

i

University of Sydney Postdoctoral Fellow, Sydney Law School & Sydney Southeast Asia Centre.

ii

Senior Lecturer, Newcastle Law School, University of Newcastle.

iii

Director, Australian Human Rights Institute, UNSW Sydney.

References

1 E.g., ICC Assembly of States Parties, ‘Informal guide and commentary to the procedure for the nomination and election of judges of the International Criminal Court’, ICC-ASP/16/INF.2, 2 May 2020; Coalition for the International Criminal Court, ‘ICC Judicial Elections 2020’, available at www.coalitionfortheicc.org/icc-judicial-elections-2020.

2 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 2187 UNTS 90 (Rome Statute), Art. 36(8)(a)(iii).

3 As of June 2020, the ICC has seven female judges and 20 male judges (two of whom have continued in office after the completion of their term in order to complete proceedings in the Ongwen trial). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) currently has 13 male judges and three female judges, the UN-backed Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia has 21 male judges and three female judges, and in the residual mechanism for the international criminal tribunals for Rwanda and former Yugoslavia, just six of the 25 judges are women.

4 For a deeper analysis of the importance of women’s representation in the judiciary of the ICC and other international courts see L. Chappell, The Politics of Gender Justice at the International Criminal Court: Legacies and Legitimacy (2016), 51–86.

5 E.g., C. Niarchos, ‘Women, War, and Rape: Challenges Facing the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, (1995) 17 Human Rights Quarterly 649; R. Copelon, ‘Gender Crimes as War Crimes: Integrating Crimes against Women into International Criminal Law’, (2000) 46 McGill Law Journal 217; K. D. Askin, War Crimes against Women: Prosecution in International War Crimes Tribunals (1997); K. D. Askin, ‘Prosecuting Wartime Rape and Other Gender Related Crimes: Extraordinary Advances, Enduring Obstacles’, (2003) 21 Berkeley Journal of International Law 288; D. Buss, ‘The Curious Visibility of Wartime Rape: Gender and Ethnicity in International Criminal Law’, (2007) 25 Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice 3; N. Jain, ‘Forced Marriage as a Crime against Humanity: Problems of Definition and Prosecution’, (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice 1013; N. Hayes, ‘Sisyphus Wept: Prosecuting Sexual Violence at the International Criminal Court’, in W. Schabas, Y. McDermott and N. Hayes (eds.), The Ashgate Research Companion to International Criminal Law: Critical Perspectives (2013), 7; C. S. Mibenge, Sex and International Tribunals: The Erasure of Gender from the War Narrative (2013); V. Oosterveld, ‘Evaluating the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s Gender Jurisprudence’, in C. Jalloh (ed.), The Sierra Leone Special Court and its Legacy (2014), 234; N. Hayes, ‘La Lutte Continue: Investigating and Prosecuting Sexual Violence at the ICC’, in C. Stahn (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (2015), 801; S. Williams and E. Palmer, ‘The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: Developing the Law on Sexual Violence?’, (2015) 15 International Criminal Law Review 452; V. Oosterveld and P. V. Sellers, ‘Issues of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence at the ECCC’, in S. M. Meisenberg and I. Stegmiller (eds.), The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia: Assessing Their Contribution to International Criminal Law (2016), 321; R. Grey, Prosecuting Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes in the International Criminal Court (2019).

6 E.g., V. Oosterveld, ‘The Definition of Gender in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Step Forward or Back for International Criminal Justice?’, (2005) 18 Harvard Human Rights Journal 55; R. Grey et al., ‘Gender-based Persecution as a Crime Against Humanity: The Road Ahead’, (2019) 17 Journal of International Criminal Justice 957.

7 E.g., D. Terris, C. P. R. Romano and L. Swigart, The International Judge: An Introduction To The Men and Women Who Decide the World’s Cases (2007), at 18–19; N. Grossman, ‘Sex on the Bench: Do Women Judges Matter to the Legitimacy of International Courts?’, (2012) 12 Chicago Journal of International Law 647; N. Grossman, ‘Achieving Sex-Representative International Court Benches’, (2016) 110 American Journal of International Law 82; P. Pillay, ‘Women in International Law: A Vanishing Act?’, Opinio Juris, 3 December 2018, available at opiniojuris.org/2018/12/03/women-in-international-law-a-vanishing-act/; J. Powderly, Judges and the Making of International Criminal Law (2020), 56–74.

8 For example, former ICTY judge Gabriel Kirk McDonald has opined: ‘[a]s a woman, I can feel the act of rape. I can empathize with it. Men look at it differently … It is almost as though they see themselves in the shoes of the perpetrator’. Judge Navanethem Pillay, now at the ICJ and previously President of the ICTR and a judge at the ICC, has stated that although she does not generally think that male and female judges think differently, ‘women come with a particular sensitivity and understanding about what happens to people who are raped’. Taking a contrasting position, Christine Van den Wyngaert, now a judge at the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and before that, at the ICC and ICTY, has remarked: ‘In relation to being a woman and a judge, I personally don’t believe that there is really any gendered dimension to the profession.’ See S. Sharratt and G. Kirk McDonald, ‘Interview with Gabrielle Kirk McDonald, President of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, (1999) 22 Women & Therapy 23, at 33; Terris, Romano and Swigart, supra note 7, at 47–8; R. Racasan, ‘ATLAS Profile: Christine van den Wyngaert’, ATLAS, 23 October 2019, available at www.atlaswomen.org/profiles/2019/10/23/christine-van-den-wyngaert.

9 Chappell, supra note 4, at 51–86; K. Hessler, ‘Women Judges or Feminist Judges?: Gender Representation and Feminist Values in International Courts’ (Conference Paper, Gender on the International Bench conference, Pluricourts, 23–24 March 2017); R. Grey and L. Chappell, ‘“Gender just judging” in international criminal courts: New directions for research’, in S. Harris Rimmer and K. Ogg (eds.), Research Handbook on Feminist Engagement with International Law (2019), 213.

10 Rome Statute, Art. 5.

11 See Grey, supra note 5, at 49–66.

12 S. Brownmiller, Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape (1975); R. Copelon, ‘Surfacing Gender: Re-Engraving Crimes Against Women in Humanitarian Law’, (1994) 5 Hastings Women’s Law Journal 243.

13 S. Sivakumaran, ‘Sexual Violence Against Men in Armed Conflict’, (2007) 18 European Journal of International Law 253; C. Dolan, ‘Victims Who Are Men’, in F. Ní Aoláin et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict (2018), 86.

14 Chappell, supra note 4; B. Bedont and K. Hall-Martinez, ‘Ending Impunity for Gender Crimes under the International Criminal Court’, (1999) 6 Brown Journal of World Affairs 65; Oosterveld, supra note 6.

15 M. Glasius, The International Criminal Court: A Global Civil Society Achievement (2006), 77–93; L. Chappell, ‘Women’s Rights and Religious Opposition: The Politics of Gender at the International Criminal Court’, in Y. Abu-Laban (ed.), Gendering the Nation-State: Canadian and Comparative Perspectives (2008), 139.

16 C. Steains, ‘Gender Issues’, in R. S. Lee (ed.), The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute (1999), 357.

17 Rome Statute, Arts 7(1)(g), 7(1)(h), 8(2)(b)(xxii), 8(2)(e)(vi).

18 Ibid., Arts 54(1)(b), 68(1), 68(2).

19 Ibid., Art. 21(3).

20 Ibid., Art. 36(8)(a)(iii).

21 Ibid., Art. 36(8)(b).

22 Ibid., Art. 42(9).

23 Ibid., Art. 43(6).

24 J. Halley, ‘Rape at Rome: Feminist Interventions in the Criminalization of Sex-Related Violence in Positive International Criminal Law’, (2008) 30 Michigan Journal of International Law 1, at 123.

25 H. Charlesworth and C. Chinkin, The Boundaries of International Law: A Feminist Analysis (2000), at 335.

26 Steains, supra note 16, at 379–80.

27 Ibid., at 376–9.

28 Copelon, supra note 5, at 238 (emphasis added).

29 Ibid., at 381 (fn 80).

30 Ibid., at 380, 382.

31 Rome Statute, Art. 42(9).

32 Chappell, supra note 4.

33 E.g., Coalition for the ICC, Judicial Elections 2017 Questionnaire - Kimberly Prost, Canada, 16 August 2017, available at www.coalitionfortheicc.org/document/judicial-elections-2017-questionnaire-kimberly-prost-canada.

34 Open Society Justice Initiative, Raising the Bar: Improving the Nomination and Election of Judges to the International Criminal Court, 2019, at 7, available at www.justiceinitiative.org/uploads/a43771ed-8c93-424f-ac83-b0317feb23b7/raising-the-bar-20191112.pdf.

35 Coalition for the ICC, ‘Questionnaire for candidates to the 2020 ICC Judicial Election’, available at www.coalitionfortheicc.org/sites/default/files/cicc_documents/ICC%20Judicial%20elections%20questionnaire%202020.pdf.

36 ICC Office of the Prosecutor, Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes (June 2014).

37 Grey, supra note 5, at 253.

38 In the practice manuals, the only reference to ‘gender’ is a direction that, if witnesses who claim to have experienced sexual or gender-based crimes have not disclosed that experience to their family, then participants in the ICC proceedings should take particular caution in investigating these alleged crimes. See Chambers Practice Manual, February 2016, 30; Chambers Practice Manual, May 2017, 34; Chambers Practice Manual, 2019, 4.

39 A detailed examination of the ICC’s practice in prosecuting sexual and gender-based crimes can be found in Grey (2019), supra note 5.

40 Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III’s “Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute”, ICC-01/05-01/08-3636-Red, A.Ch. 8 June 2018.

41 Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, T.Ch. VI, 8 June 2019.

42 Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Decision on the Prosecutor’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, ICC-01/05-01/08-14-tENG, P.T.Ch. III, 10 June 2008, paras. 39–40.

43 Prosecutor v. Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta and Mohammed Hussein Ali, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, ICC-01/09-02/11-382-Red, P.T.Ch. II, 23 January 2012, paras. 260–266.

44 Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07-3436-tENG, T.Ch. II, 7 March 2014, paras. 1663–1664. See also B. Inder, ‘A Critique of the Katanga Judgment’, ICC Women, 11 June 2014, available at www.iccwomen.org/documents/Global-Summit-Speech.pdf; K. D. Askin, ‘Katanga Judgment Underlines Need for Stronger ICC Focus on Sexual Violence’, IJMonitor, 11 March 2014, available at www.ijmonitor.org/2014/03/katanga-judgment-underlines-need-for-stronger-icc-focus-on-sexual-violence/; Grey, supra note 5, at 270–2; Chappell, supra note 4, 119–21.

45 R. Grey, J. O’Donohue and L. Krasny, ‘Evidence of sexual violence against men and boys rejected in the Ongwen case’, Amnesty International, 10 April 2018, available at hrij.amnesty.nl/evidence-sexual-violence-men-boys-rejected-ongwen.

46 Open Society Justice Initiative, supra note 34, at 16–23.

47 Ibid., Art. 36(3).

48 Ibid., Art. 36(8).

49 Resolution ICC-ASP/3/Res.6, 10 September 2004, para. 20. See also Open Society Justice Initiative, supra note 34, at 19.

50 See C. Backhouse, ‘The chilly climate for women judges: reflections on the backlash from the Ewanchuk case’, (2003) 15 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 167; K. McLoughlin, ‘“Collegiality is not Compromise”: Farewell Justice Crennan, The Consensus Woman’, (2016) 42 Australian Feminist Law Journal 241.

51 K. D. Askin, ‘Prosecuting Wartime Rape and Other Gender Related Crimes: Extraordinary Advances, Enduring Obstacles’, (2003) 21 Berkeley Journal of International Law 288, at 331–2.

52 Chappell, supra note 4, at 116.

53 Their evidence included experience adjudicating, prosecuting or defending in sexual violence cases, publishing or giving presentations about women’s rights, preparing submissions to the Committee on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, and lobbying for law reform around women’s access to justice. See, e.g., Aitala (see 2–5), Akane (15–16), Alapini Gansou (22–3, 24), Bossa (32, 35), Đurđević (37, 39), Ibañez Carranza (47, 60) Khosbayar (64–5) Majara (69–70, 73–5), Mensa-Bonsu (78–9), Peralta Distéfano (89, 92–3): ICC ASP, Sixth election of judges of the International Criminal Court: Annex I Alphabetical list of candidates (with statements of qualifications), ICC-ASP/16/3/Add.1, 11 September 2017, available at asp.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/asp_docs/ASP16/ICC-ASP-16-3-Add1-ENG.pdf.

54 Chappell, supra note 4, at 19–20.

55 For a leading article on the concepts of ‘normative legitimacy’ and ‘sociological legitimacy’ see A. Buchanan and R. O. Keohane, ‘The Legitimacy of Global Governance Institutions’, (2006) 20 Ethics & International Affairs 405.

56 R. Graycar and J. Morgan, The Hidden Gender of Law (1990).

57 E.g., S. J. Kenney, Gender & Justice: Why Women in the Judiciary Really Matter (2013), 181.

58 R. Hunter, C. McGlynn and E. Rackley (eds.), Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (2010); K. McLoughlin, ‘“A Particular Disappointment”?: Judging Women and the High Court of Australia’, (2015) 23 Feminist Legal Studies 273; K. McLoughlin, ‘Judicial fictions and the fictive feminists: Re-imagination as feminist critique in PGA v The Queen’, (2015) 24 Griffith Law Review 592; K. McLoughlin, ‘Situating Women Judges on the High Court of Australia: Not Just Men in Skirts?’ (PhD Thesis, University of Newcastle, 2016).

59 R. Hunter, C. McGlynn and E. Rackley, ‘Feminist Judgments: An Introduction’, in R. Hunter, C. McGlynn and E. Rackley (eds.), Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (2010), 3.

60 H. Charlesworth, ‘Prefiguring Feminist Judgment in International Law’, in L. Hodson and T. Lavers (eds.), Feminist Judgments in International Law (2019), 479, at 492.

61 M. Matsuda, ‘When the First Quail Calls: Multiple Consciousness as Jurisprudential Method’, (1989) 11(1) Women’s Rights Law Reporter 7, at 8.

62 D. Majury, ‘Introducing the Women’s Court of Canada’, (2006) 18 Canadian Journal of Women and the Law 1.

63 H. Douglas et al. (eds.), Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law (2014).

64 M. Enright, J. McCandless and A. O’Donoghue (eds.), Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments: Judges’ Troubles and the Gendered Politics of Identity (2017); K. McLoughlin, ‘Northern/Irish Feminist Judgments: Judges’ Troubles and the Gendered Politics of Identity Mairead Enright, Julie McCandless and Aoife O’Donoghue (eds); Hart Publishing, 2017; 643 pages; $90 (paperback), Feminist Judgments of Aotearoa New Zealand: Te Rino: A Two-Stranded Rope Elisabeth McDonald, Rhonda Powell, Māmari Stephens and Rosemary Hunter (eds); Hart Publishing, 2017; 549 pages; $160 (hardback)’, (2018) 43 Alternative Law Journal 146, at 147

65 S. Cowan, C. Kennedy and V. Munro (eds.), Scottish Feminist Judgments: (Re)Creating Law from the Outside In (2019).

66 K. Stanchi, L. Berger and B. Crawford (eds.), Feminist Judgments: Rewritten Opinions of the United States Supreme Court (2016).

67 E. McDonald et al. (eds.), Feminist Judgments of Aotearoa New Zealand – Te Rino: A Two-Stranded Rope (2017).

68 M. Mukherjee, ‘Judging in the Presence of Women as Legal Persons – Feminist alternative to the Indian Supreme Court Judgment in Sakshi v. Union of India’, (2011) 1(2) Feminists at Law, doi.org/10.22024/UniKent/03/fal.25. See also The Feminist Judgment Project India, available at fjpindia.wixsite.com/fjpi/cases.

69 ‘African Feminist Judgments Project Launched by Cardiff Law and Global Justice’, Cardiff Law and Global Justice, 11 October 2018, available at www.lawandglobaljustice.com/news/2018/10/11/african-feminist-judgments-project-launched-by-cardiff-law-and-global-justice.

70 E.g., C. Moraga and G. Anzaldúa (eds.), This Bridge Called My Back: Writings by Radical Women of Color (2015); R. Kapur and B. Cossman, ‘Subversive Sites 20 Years Later: Rethinking Feminist Engagements with Law’, (2018) 44 Australian Feminist Law Journal 265.

71 E.g., D. E. Roberts, ‘The Future of Reproductive Choice for Poor Women and Women of Color’, (1992) 14 Women’s Rights Law Reporter 305; L. J. Ross, ‘Reproductive Justice as Intersectional Feminist Activism’, (2017) 19 Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society 286; K. Mutcherson, ‘Things That Money Can Buy: Reproductive Justice and the International Market for Gestational Surrogacy’, (2018) 43(4) North Carolina Journal of International Law 150; K. Mutcherson (ed.) Feminist Judgments: Reproductive Justice Rewritten (2020).

72 R. Hunter, ‘An Account of Feminist Judging’, in R. Hunter, C. McGlynn and E. Rackley (eds.), Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (2010), 30, at 35.

73 L. Hodson and T. Lavers (eds.), Feminist Judgments in International Law (2019).

74 S.S. Lotus case (France v. Turkey), PCIJ Rep Series A No 10.

75 Reservations to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Advisory Opinion of 28 May 1951, [1951] ICJ Rep. 15.

76 Prosecutor v. Radovan Karadžić, Trial Judgement, T. Ch., Case No. IT-95-5/18-T, 24 March 2016.

77 Prosecutor v. Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu, Trial Judgment, Case No. SCSL-04-16-T, T. Ch. II, 20 June 2007.

78 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, T.Ch. I, 14 March 2012.

79 See R. Grey, ‘Interpreting international crimes from a “female perspective”: opportunities and challenges for the International Criminal Court’, (2017) 17 International Criminal Law Review 325.

80 Y. Brunger, E. Irving and D. Sankey, ‘The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo’, in L. Hodson and T. Lavers (eds.), Feminist Judgments in International Law (2019), 409.

81 E.g., Public Redacted Version of Confidential Letter to ICC Prosecutor, Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, 16 August 2006, available at www.iccwomen.org/news/docs/Prosecutor_Letter_August_2006_Redacted.pdf.

82 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on the confirmation of charges, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN, P.T.Ch. I, 29 January 2007.

83 E.g., Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Prosecution’s Closing Brief, ICC-01/04-01/06-2748-Red, T.Ch. I, 1 June 2011, paras. 143, 227–34.

84 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, T.Ch. I, 14 March 2012, para. 628.

85 Chappell supra note 4, at 111–14; Grey, supra note 5, at 130–3; Hayes (2013), supra note 5, at 10–25.

86 Brunger et al., supra note 80, para. 49.

87 Ibid., para. 50.

88 Ibid., paras. 73–4.

89 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Odio Benito), ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, T.Ch. I, 14 March 2012, paras. 16 and 21 (emphasis added).

90 Ibid., paras. 6–7.

91 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against his conviction, ICC-01/04-01/06-3121-Red, A.Ch., 1 December 2014, para. 335.

92 See Grey, supra note 5, at 315–17.

93 Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Judgment, ICC-01/04-02/06-2359, T. Ch. VI, 8 July 2019, paras. 1125–1132.

94 Ibid., paras. 404, 1130. See also Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Public Redacted Version of Prosecution’s Closing Brief, ICC-01/04-02/06-2277-Anx1-Corr-Red, T.Ch. VI, 7 November 2018, para. 657.

95 Rome Statute, Art. 8(2)(b)(ix); 8(2)(e)(iv).

96 Ibid., Art. 8(2)(b)(iv). At the 2019 ASP, states agreed to amend the Rome Statute to include an equivalent war crime in the context of non-international armed conflicts.

97 Ibid., Art. 8(2)(b)(xxv).

98 Ibid., Art. 8bis.

99 Ibid., Art. 22.

100 L. Chappell, R. Grey and E. Waller, ‘The gender justice shadow of complementarity: Lessons from the International Criminal Court’s preliminary examinations in Guinea and Colombia’, (2013) 7 International Journal of Transitional Justice 455; D. De Vos, Complementarity’s Gender Justice Prospects and Limitations: Examining Normative Interactions between the Rome Statute and National Accountability Processes for Sexual Violence Crimes in Colombia and the Democratic Republic of Congo (PhD Thesis, European University Institute, 2017); A. Kapur, ‘Complementarity as a Catalyst for Gender Justice in National Prosecutions’, in F. Ní Aoláin et al. (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Conflict (2018), 225.

101 Rome Statute, Art. 17.

102 ICC Office of the Prosecutor, supra note 36, para. 41.

103 Rome Statute, Art. 69(3).

104 E. Rackley, ‘The Art and Craft of Writing Judgments: Notes on the Feminist Judgments Project’, in R. Hunter, C. McGlynn and E. Rackley (eds.), Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (2010), 44.

105 P. Crofts and I. Alexander, ‘Taikato v R’, in H. Douglas et al. (eds.), Australian Feminist Judgments: Righting and Rewriting Law (2014), 250.

106 See Grey and Chappell, supra note 9, at 235–6; Grey supra note 5, at 269–70.

107 Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-422-Red, P. T. Ch. II, 23 March 2016, para. 118.

108 Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Transcript, ICC-02/04-01/15-T-11-Red-ENG, P.T.Ch. II, 19 September 2015, at 22–4.

109 Ibid., at 43–5.

110 Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Decision on the confirmation of charges against Dominic Ongwen, ICC-02/04-01/15-422-Red, P. T. Ch. II, 23 March 2016, para. 118.

111 See D. Luping, ‘Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes before the International Criminal Court’, (2009) 17 American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law 431, at 493; M. Jarvis and N. Nabti, ‘Policies and Institutional Strategies for Successful Sexual Violence Prosecutions’, in S. Brammertz and M. Jarvis (eds.), Prosecuting Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes at the ICTY (2016), 73, at 83; Human Rights Watch and Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme, Shattered Lives: Sexual Violence during the Rwandan Genocide and its Aftermath, September 1996, 55.

112 C. Chinkin et al., ‘Bozkurt case, aka the Lotus case (France v Turkey)’, in L. Hodson and T. Lavers (eds.), Feminist Judgments in International Law (2019), 27, at 35, 46.

113 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Annex A to Judgment on the appeals against the “Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations” of 7 August 2012 order for reparations (amended), ICC-01/04-01/06-3129-AnxA, A.Ch., 3 March 2015, para. 6.

114 Prosecutor v. Germaine Katanga, Judgment on the appeals against the order of Trial Chamber II of 24 March 2017 entitled “Order for Reparations pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute”, ICC-01/04-01/07-3778-Red, A.Ch., 8 March 2018, paras. 93–127.

115 Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Public Redacted Version of the “Submissions by the Common Legal Representative of the Victims of the Attacks on Reparations”, ICC-01/04-02/06-2477-Red, T.Ch. VI, 28 February 2020, para. 38.

116 Brunger et al., supra note 80, para. 77.

117 E.g., S. Rigney, ‘“The Words Don’t Fit You”: Recharacterisation of the Charges, Trial Fairness, and Katanga’, (2014) 15 Melbourne Journal of International Law 515; K. Heller, ‘“A Stick to Hit the Accused With”: The Legal Recharacterization of Facts under Regulation 55’, in C. Stahn (ed.), The Law and Practice of the International Criminal Court (2015), 981, at 1000–2.

118 Regina v. A (No 2) [2001] UKHL 25.

119 C. McGlynn, ‘R v A (No 2) Judgment’, in R. Hunter, C. McGlynn and E. Rackley (eds.), Feminist Judgments: From Theory to Practice (2010), 211, at 221 (emphasis added).

120 Ibid., at 214–15.

121 Ibid., at 212.

122 Ibid., at 213–14.

123 E.g., ICC, Rules of Procedure and Evidence, Rules 70, 71.

124 E.g., Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, Transcript, ICC-01/05-01/08-T-61-Red2-ENG, T. Ch. III, 8 February 2011, 6–7.

125 Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Decision on judicial questioning, ICC-01/04-01/06-2360, T. Ch. I, 18 March 2020, paras. 3–5.

126 Ibid., paras. 33–9.

127 P. Bradfield, ‘Preserving Vulnerable Evidence at the International Criminal Court – the Article 56 Milestone in Ongwen’, (2019) 19 International Criminal Law Review 373.

128 Rome Statute, Art. 36(8)(b).

129 The principle of ejusdem generis supports this interpretation.