Chapter 7 discusses the societal impact of Court on the affected communities, known as demonstration effect. Different elements are important to “demonstration effect,” including (1) whether the Court is perceived as impartial in a specific context, (2) whether the ICC’s interventions are perceived as relevant and responsive to local communities and their justice struggles, (3) whether the Court is viewed as a legitimate justice institution, and (4) whether it is perceived as independent. Relying on qualitative data, the chapter seeks identify trends in perceptions in Afghanistan, Colombia, Libya, and Uganda. The chapter concludes that the Court suffers from negative perceptions in all four countries. In Uganda and Libya, its failure to prosecute actors from different sides contributes to an impression that it is not impartial. In Afghanistan or Libya, it is perceived as Western-influenced and not independent. In different contexts including Afghanistan, Uganda, and Colombia, it was perceived as an external imposition, and not aligned with local justice priorities arising from many decades of conflict. The architecture of the Court, with limited capacity to conduct preliminary examinations to better contextualize its interventions, limited field offices and little outreach, hinders effectively addressing these negative perceptions.

Chapter 6 assesses the reparative effects of the Court on victims, with an emphasis on countries under investigation (Uganda and Kenya). Indicators of reparative effects include: whether victims are able to participate meaningfully in ICC proceedings; and whether victims receive reparations or assistance, either through Court proceedings or through the Trust Fund for Victims. The chapter concludes that the reparative effect of the Court on victims in situation countries is minimal. Victim participation is under strain and should be reexamined. By definition, the legal proceedings become more exclusionary as they progress. The Trust Fund for Victims lacks sufficient resources to provide for proportional individual reparations, and will inevitably disappoint victims, in spite of its innovative, humanitarian approach on the ground. In any case, victims need more concrete solutions to improve their daily lives instead of waiting years or decades for Court decisions (which have included many acquittals).