| Abstract | International criminal proceedings conducted domestically or abroad fall within transitional justice (TJ) mechanisms necessary for addressing harms of victims of core international crimes. These and other ‘less’ formal TJ mechanisms have often been the subject of debate in relation to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) principle of complementarity. This principle is key to the ICC’s existence and sustainability due to states’ desire to protect their sovereignty, yet it impacts how justice for victims is shaped and delivered, and which victims may participate. Interpreting and applying complementarity is a multifaceted process and involves several stakeholders including, ICC organs, states, the accused, and victims. Each stakeholder has its own unique interests in the process and in complementarity decisions. For example, states, and the ICC may want to exercise their respective jurisdictions for various reasons, victims may desire to participate, the accused as well as victims may want justice to be served in The Hague or in domestic jurisdictions. Managing these diverse and sometimes conflicting interests in complementarity can be complex. Thus, this article examines how victims’ interests can be adequately accommodated in the complementarity regime and process to aid the ICC in the fight against impunity and in achieving victim-oriented justice in The Hague and fostering the same in domestic jurisdictions. It therefore proposes a design strategy for the creation of a neutral and independent ICC complementarity division. |
|---|