| Abstract | From the growing jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court (‘ICC’ or ‘the Court’), a well-established yet unfortunate practice has emerged, and that is the near exclusion of victims from the complementarity process and the inadequate consideration of their needs and interests in admissibility determinations. This doesn’t come as a surprise seeing that the principle of complementarity wasn’t developed with victims in mind. Nevertheless, it is impossible to ignore the impact of complementarity decisions on all aspects of justice for victims at the ICC and in domestic jurisdictions. If the ICC requires states to mirror ongoing situations and cases before the Court to secure deference, this will circumscribe domestic measures to deliver justice. If the ICC adopts a purposive approach to complementarity, this gives states the room to develop measures for addressing Rome Statute crimes which can benefit victims. This paper deals with the question of how the principle of complementarity can be reinterpreted to achieve justice for victims. The answer lies in making complementarity more victim oriented. The paper introduces the concepts of victim-oriented complementarity first coined by Moffett, and victim-oriented qualified-deference which is an adaptation of Carsten Stahn's theorization of qualified deference. The paper argues that victim-oriented qualified deference is necessary for the realization of justice for victims because it ensures that victims interests are accommodated in how complementarity is interpreted and applied. |
|---|
| Keywords | International Criminal Court, ICC, complementarity, justice for victims, victim-oriented complementarity, deference, deferral, admissibility |
|---|