As explained by Professor Cherif Bassiouni on Jan. 29 at the CDDRL Program on Human Rights Sanela Diana Jenkins Speakers Series, victims before the International Criminal Court (the ICC) have rights that combine the practice in proceedings of two different legal systems: the Civil Law and the Common Law system.

Through direct victim representation, an important aspect of the civil law system, those who have suffered severe abuses may present to the ICC their points of view to the judges. In the civil system, this is important because it allows the prosecutor to assess harm and damages suffered and request corresponding reparations. In common law systems, victim representation is more central in civil cases, though increasingly the perspective of victims has been relevant during criminal sentencing.

In the ICC, victims are not required to participate in the court proceedings and the court may even decide on its own to make an award for reparations. That is, independent of any motion by the prosecutor, the victim may also seek reparation directly from the ICC through the Trust Fund for Victims, an independent body of the court charged with implementing the court’s decisions and providing physical and psychosocial rehabilitation and material support to victims of crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. Furthermore, the Trust Fund for Victims at the ICC can also act to benefit victims of crimes even when there is no conviction.

Why is this a valuable lesson? Suppose that the defendant accused of horrendous crimes does not have sufficient assets to cover the damages imposed onto the victim? In many countries including the United States, reparations are often based on the defendant’s ability to pay. Apart from a few cases of restitution for sex crimes in the United States, governments seldom take responsibility for losses and suffering caused by private individuals, leaving victims to their own resources, their personal insurance and their own means to recover and rehabilitate. When that happens, is justice done?

What do victims want? From years of researching and working with victims of human rights abuse including victims of war crimes in the context of Angola and, more recently, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the sentencing of perpetrators is only one of the elements of justice as understood by victims. Victims and survivors usually ask for guarantees that the crimes and violation of rights will not take place again. They want restitution to re-establish the lives they had before the violations took place, and they need support so they and their communities can work to overcome the severe psychological consequences affecting generations of victims’ descendants.

The ICC Trust Fund for Victims needs to raise funds to support the reparations it grants. Contributors to the fund are states, private donors, foundations and individuals that wish to support victims and communities that see the ICC as last resort. The Trust Fund for Victims is far from perfect. It struggles to ensure sufficient funds to sustain victims’ requested reparations, and it is not well equipped to establish reparations in cases of collective application. However, as the idealism that created the ICC in the first place, the ICC Trust Fund sends a signal of great relevance: reparations are an important representation of the justice process for victims of human rights abuse.

When the International Criminal Court (the ICC) issued its first decision on reparations of victims – in the case of Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, convicted in March of 2012 for conscripting, enlisting and using child soldiers in the DRC – it established an important precedent in victims’ agency in the identification of needs and in the design of reparations. This precedent can be a valuable lesson to the justice systems in many countries including the United States. As the ICC enters its second decade, let us learn the lessons that can become pillars in the expansion of international justice and may one day establish jurisprudence that benefits victims within the countries.

Nadejda Marques
Manager of the Program on Human Rights at the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL)

Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar, a Stanford law professor and expert on administrative law and governance, public organizations, and transnational security, will lead the university’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies.

The announcement was made in Feb. 11 by Provost John Etchemendy and Ann Arvin, Stanford’s vice provost and dean of research.

“Professor Cuéllar brings a remarkable breadth of experience to his new role as FSI director, which is reflected in his many achievements as a legal scholar and his work on diverse federal policy initiatives over the past decade,” Arvin said. “He is deeply committed to enhancing FSI’s academic programs and ensuring that it remains an intellectually rich environment where faculty and students can pursue important interdisciplinary and policy-relevant research.”

Known to colleagues as “Tino,” Cuéllar starts his role as FSI director on July 1.

Cuéllar has been co-director of FSI’s Center for International Security and Cooperation (CISAC) since 2011, and has served in the Clinton and Obama administrations. In his role as FSI director, he’ll oversee 11 research centers and programs – including CISAC – along with a variety of undergraduate and graduate education initiatives on international affairs.  His move to the institute's helm will be marked by a commitment to build on FSI’s interdisciplinary approach to solving some of the world’s biggest problems.

“I am deeply honored to have been asked to lead FSI. The institute is in a unique position to help address some of our most pressing international challenges, in areas such as governance and development, health, technology, and security,” Cuéllar said. “FSI’s culture embodies the best of Stanford – a commitment to rigorous research, training leaders and engaging with the world – and excels at bringing together accomplished scholars from different disciplines.”

Cuéllar, 40, is a senior fellow at FSI and the Stanley Morrison Professor of Law at the law school, where he will continue to teach and conduct research. He succeeds Gerhard Casper, Stanford’s ninth president and a senior fellow at FSI.

“We are deeply indebted to former President Casper for accomplishing so much as FSI director this year and for overseeing the transition to new leadership so effectively,” Arvin said.

Casper was appointed to direct the institute for one year following the departure of Coit D. Blacker, who led FSI from 2003 to 2012 and oversaw significant growth in faculty appointments and research.

Casper, who chaired the search for a new director, said Cuéllar has a “profound understanding of institutions and policy issues, both nationally and internationally.”

“Stanford is very fortunate to have persuaded Tino to become director of the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies,” Casper said. “He will not only be an outstanding fiduciary of the institute, but with his considerable imagination, energy, and tenacity will develop collaborative and multidisciplinary approaches to problem-solving.”

Cuéllar – who did undergraduate work at Harvard, earned his law degree from Yale and received his PhD in political science at Stanford in 2000 – has had an extensive public service record since he began teaching at Stanford Law School in 2001.

Taking a leave of absence from Stanford during 2009 and 2010, he worked as special assistant to the president for justice and regulatory policy at the White House, where his responsibilities included justice and public safety, public health policy, borders and immigration, and regulatory reform.  Earlier, he co-chaired the presidential transition team responsible for immigration.

After returning to Stanford, he accepted a presidential appointment to the Council of the Administrative Conference of the United States, a nonpartisan agency charged with recommending improvements in the efficiency and fairness of federal regulatory programs.

Cuéllar also worked in the Treasury Department during the Clinton administration, focusing on fighting financial crime, improving border coordination and enhancing anti-corruption measures.

Since his appointment as co-director of CISAC, Cuéllar worked to expand the center’s agenda while continuing its strong focus on arms control, nuclear security and counterterrorism. During Cuéllar’s tenure, the center launched new projects on cybsersecurity, migration and refugees, as well as violence and governance in Latin America. CISAC also added six fellowships; recruited new faculty affiliates from engineering, medicine, and the social sciences; and forged ties with academic units across campus.

He said his focus as FSI’s director will be to strengthen the institute’s centers and programs and enhance its contributions to graduate education while fostering collaboration among faculty with varying academic backgrounds.

“FSI has much to contribute through its existing research centers and education programs,” he said. “But we will also need to forge new initiatives cutting across existing programs in order to understand more fully the complex risks and relationships shaping our world.”

In addition to Casper, the members of the search committee were Michael H. Armacost, Francis Fukuyama, Philip W. Halperin, David Holloway, Rosamond L. Naylor, Douglas K. Owens, and Elisabeth Paté-Cornell.