‘Justice for victims’ in trials of mass crimes
| Author | Saskia Scheibel,Elisa Hoven |
| Published date | 01 May 2015 |
| Date | 01 May 2015 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0269758015571470 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
‘Justice for victims’ in trials
of mass crimes: Symbolism
or substance?
Elisa Hoven
University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany
Saskia Scheibel
University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
Abstract
Providing ‘justice for victims’ has become a common argument for the establishment of
international criminal tribunals. However, the victims’ role in trials of mass atrocities is highly
disputed among scholars and practitioners. This article will take a look behind the theoretical
understanding of ‘justice’ and present the views of victims, judges, prosecutors and lawyers
involved in the proceedings. Based on 30 qualitative interviews that have been conducted at
the Khmer Rouge Tribunal in Cambodia, this article attempts to examine what elements of
justice an international(ized) criminal trial can and should achieve from the perspective of its
participants. An insight into the victims’ and legal professionals’ expectations for justice sheds
light on the question to what extent ‘justice for victims’ is a feasible interest of inter-
nation(ized) trials or a mere symbolic label to legitimize international courts. Considering the
financial and practical constraints of international criminal courts, the article endeavours to
identify measures both in and out of the courtroom that balance the interests of all
participants.
Keywords
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, international criminal law, justice, victim
participation
Corresponding author:
Dr Elisa Hoven, Luxemburger Str. 124–136, 50939 Cologne, Germany.
Email: ehoven@uni-koeln.de
International Review of Victimology
2015, Vol. 21(2) 161–185
ªThe Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0269758015571470
irv.sagepub.com
Introduction
It is the victimsand affected communities who arethe ones to determine whether or notjustice has been
done.Victims are the Court’s raisond’e
ˆtre.(Silvana Arbia,Registrar of the InternationalCriminal Court)
1
In the past decade, providing ‘justice for victims’ has become a commonly used argument for the
importance and purpose of trials of mass crimes (McCarthy, 2012). International and hybrid crim-
inal tribunals have increasingly referred to ‘justice for victims’ as the rationale for their mandate
(Elander, 2013: 95). In the case of Katanga and Chui at the International Criminal Court (ICC), the
prosecution explicitly stated that their ‘mandate is justice; justice for the victims’.
2
McCarthy
(2012: 353) observes that ‘justice for victims’ is prevalent in modern discourse on international
criminal proceedings and that international institutions ‘invoke the language of justice for victims’
to justify their intervention. Many scholars identify victims’ interests ‘as the dominant commit-
ment of international criminal justice’ (Findlay, 2009: 203).
While ‘justice for victims’ has immense symbolic power, the practical experiences of victims’
participation at international(ized) criminal courts tell a different story. After early enthusiasm
about victims’ participation (McCarthy, 2012), there appears to be a tendency towards restricting
victims’ procedural role in international trials. Referring to ‘victims’ as the raison d’eˆtre for inter-
national courts thus seems to be more symbolism than reality. Although a more humanitarian
approach has strengthened the role of victims in international criminal proceedings, victims’ par-
ticipation in trials of mass crimes is still highly disputed among scholars and practitioners. Opi-
nions about the victims’ legitimate role in the proceedings and the scope of rights a court
should attribute to the victims still differ significantly. The discrepancy between the terminology
used and the reality of victims’ participation raises the question of whether ‘justice for victims’ is
indeed a substantial and feasible interest of internation(ized) trials, or merely a symbolic label to
legitimize international courts.
Justice for victims as an aim of international criminal trials
The discussion on the scope and value of victims’ participation touches on a fundamental question
of international criminal law: how to reconcile restorative and retributive elements of justice in
trials of mass crimes (Mantle et al., 2005). Since international(ized) tribunals operate in the context
of transitional justice processes, providing ‘justice’, reconciliation and reparation might be seen as
evolving aims of international trials (Aertsen et al., 2013). The approach of restorative justice that
puts emphasis on the needs of the victims and the involved community instead of focusing solely
on punishment has received considerable attention in the criminological literature (Mantle et al.,
2005). Its ambition to promote forgiveness, healing and understanding might add a valuable new
component to international(ized) trials. Thus, many scholars have considered the development of
victim participation as an important achievement (Baumgartner, 2008; Bitti, 2011; Bitti and
Friman, 2001; Findlay, 2009; Van den Wyngaert, 2011). Hearing the voices of victims in trials
of mass crimes is often described as significant progress from the exercise of purely retributive
justice to a model of restorative or reparative justice (Fernandez de Gurmendi and Friman,
2001). Scholars observe a ‘trend toward restorative justice at the international level’ that promotes
national reconciliation and closure for victims (see, for example, Turner, 2009). Findlay (2009:
189) understands the integration of victims into the process as a necessary prerequisite for the
162 International Review of Victimology 21(2)
To continue reading
Request your trial