VICTIM’S REPARATIONS OF THE 1965-1966 GROSS HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATIONS IN PALU CITY

The Vienna Declaration and Program of Actions (VDPA)1993 recommends that each state consider the desirability of drawing up a national action plan of human rights. In Indonesia, it is reflected in “Rencana Aksi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia/RANHAM” and “Rencana Aksi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia Daerah/RANHAMDA” or the Indonesia National and Local Plan of Action on Human Rights. The best practice of the Local Plan of Action on Human Rights has conducted by the Local Government of Palu City-Central Sulawesi concerning the victim reparations of the 1965-1966 case as the past gross human rights violations that occurred in Palu City. The said reparations have implemented through economic and social programs as non-judicial reparations. This article will analyze the victim reparations of the past gross human rights violations of the 1965-1966 case in Palu City conducted by the Local Government of Palu City-Central Sulawesi.IntisariDeklarasi Wina dan Program Aksi tahun 1993 merekomendasikan bahwa tiap-tiap negara mempertimbangkan keinginannya untuk menyusun suatu rencana aksi nasional hak asasi manusia. Di Indonesia, hal itu direfleksikan di dalam Rencana Aksi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia (RANHAM) dan Rencana Aksi Nasional Hak Asasi Manusia Daerah (RANHAMDA). Praktik terbaik RANHAMDA telah dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Daerah Kota Palu-Sulawesi Tengah mengenai pemulihan korban kasus 1965-1966 sebagai pelanggaran berat Hak Asasi Manusia masa lalu yang terjadi di Kota Palu. Pemulihan tersebut telah diimplementasikan melalui program-program ekonomi dan sosial sebagai pemulihan yang bersifat non-yudisial. Artikel ini akan menganalisis pemulihan korban pelanggaran berat HAM masa lalu pada kasus 1965-1966 di Kota Palu yang dilakukan oleh Pemerintah Daerah Kota Palu-Sulawesi Tengah.

External and internal common legal representation of victims at the International Criminal Court: Beyond the ‘Kenyan trial approach’

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is primarily mandated to punish persons bearing the greatest responsibility for the worst crimes known to mankind. Additionally, its victim reparations are contingent on conviction; because of this, the Rome Statute’s retributive goal is compounded with the inquisitorial function of seeking the truth by realising the victim’s entitlement to participate at appropriate stages throughout the proceedings. However, the suspect’s due process rights must remain protected. While the Court balances these procedural functions, victims’ representatives determine which victims are members of the appropriate constituency. This paper’s theoretical framework shows how victims are vulnerable to their representative’s claims. Therefore, the question arises as to whether external or internal legal representation will be more effective for victims. This determines how victims’ voices may best be elicited. Some victimologists contend that the exclusion of an external Common Legal Representative (CLR) in the search of mass atrocity solutions promotes merely symbolic, rather than meaningful, victim participation in ICC proceedings. The Court insists on external CLRs because of their local knowledge. Others emphasise the proximity of the Office of the Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) to judges as providing access to justice at The Hague. Crucially, by requiring the OPCV to interface between the external CLR and the Chamber in day-to-day proceedings, the ‘Kenyan trial approach’ has made victims’ participation more meaningful. Yet, following the Ruto and Sang case, the ICC faces challenges when confronted with diverse modalities of implementing reparations for multiple victims. In the Palestine situation, claims seeking to promote victims’ interests required victim empowerment, including strengthening appropriate victim constituencies through outreach to enable them to articulate disagreements with their representatives. In the Ongwen case, a broad interpretation gave victims’ voices enhanced agency over the defence. Recently, in Ntaganda’s case, the Court directed the Registry to liaise not only with the CLRs but also with the Trust Fund for Victims for appropriate outreach and communication with victims.

Comparative Analysis of Reparations for the Holocaust and for the Transatlantic Slave Trade

This article provides a legal and economic comparison of proposed reparations for the Transatlantic Slave Trade and already realized German Holocaust reparations. Neither injustice was legal at the time according to international common law. This line of legal reasoning was successfully applied at the Nuremberg trials but did not lead to Holocaust reparations. Instead, representatives of the perpetrator side reached out to representatives of the victimized side. Emory University’s Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database is used to determine the amounts the primarily European countries who participated in the slave trade would owe if the same per-victim reparations rate were applied, both uncompounded and compounded over time. After controlling for differences in the number of victims and the passage of time, Transatlantic Slave Trade reparations demands resemble German Holocaust reparations payments. Thus, German Holocaust reparations may serve as a blueprint for eventual Transatlantic Slave Trade reparations.

Rome’s Legacy: Negotiating the Reparations Mandate of the International Criminal Court

This article examines the negotiations that led to the incorporation of reparations provisions into the legal framework of the International Criminal Court (icc). Building upon a review of the travaux préparatoires and interviews, it traces the actors and main debates during the lead-up to the Rome Conference and the drafting of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, explaining how and why reparations were included into the Rome Statute. In doing so, the article shows how the reparations mandate was produced at the intersection of a set of different agendas and actors. From this account, it identifies a number of key themes that were at the centre of the negotiations and often galvanised contestations among delegations or with ngos. The article concludes with a fresh perspective on the origin of victim reparations in the Rome Statute and its relevance for understanding many of today’s debates around reparations in international criminal justice.