| Abstract | The discourse with regards to the interpretation of the International Criminal Court's complementarity principle has been focused on the exercise of the jurisdiction of the court or not, the office of the prosecutor (OTP)'s investigation and case selection strategy, and the primacy of sovereign state parties to try perpetrators of atrocious crimes (War Crimes, Crimes Against Humanity, Genocide Crimes and Crime of Aggression) committed within their territories. In this discourse however, victims are mentioned in a passing, almost as if they were an unimportant third party in international criminal justice. This reveals the pro-retributive approach of interpretation by the court of such a key feature of this great institution, whose justice framework favors a dual paradigm justice approach (Retributive-punitive and Restorative Justice for victims). This paper seeks to highlight the need to recognize the gap in the ICC's interpretation of the principle of complementarity and how a victim-conscious complementarity regime at the ICC can increase its universal impact. By equally considering the values of both retributive and restorative justice upheld at the ICC, this paper will explore whether the ICC in providing a better justice experience for victims, can consider other accountability mechanisms besides criminal prosecution, and if so, the criteria and process for such considerations, and its impact on a final decision on admissibility. |
|---|