By Paolina Massidda

The ICC pursues justice for victims of grave international crimes through prosecution and reparations. The Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) provides legal representation in the ICC proceedings to Victims’ of gross human rights violations,  while the Trust Fund for Victims implements of both material and symbolic reparations. Major cases such as Ongwen, Lubanga and Ntaganda have led to large-scale reparations for thousands of victims. The OPCV20 Victims Donation Campaign invites public support so victims can rebuild their lives and regain hope.

Prosecution of crimes and redress for Victims lie at the heart of the mandate of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The creation of the Court marks an important turning point in defining the role for Victims of international crimes, not only because they can participate in proceedings independently of the Prosecutor by presenting their views and concerns, but also because they are entitled to compensation for the harm(s) suffered if the defendant is convicted.

For twenty years, the Office of Public Counsel for Victims (OPCV) at the ICC has ensured that Victims of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and the crime of aggression (Articles 5 to 8 of the Rome Statute) have a voice in the pursuit of justice (Article 68(3) of the Rome Statute; Rules 89-91 of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence). The Office, which is independent, represents Victims in court and provides legal advice at all stages of the proceedings.

Retributive justice, as the fundamental concept inherent to all criminal prosecutions, was accepted as a crucial objective for the ICC: to uphold due process rights and the rule of law. At the international level, retributive justice also plays a fundamental role in educating the public about what happened, and, in so doing, helps propagate important concepts for international harmony, such as the equal value of all persons; that no one is above universal human rights criteria, and that blatant disregard for those rights will not be condoned. However, a system that principally rests on prosecution of perpetrators has its limitations.

International prosecutions alone cannot properly address crimes that involve gross human rights violations. Restorative justice, therefore, is important in making the specific circumstances and needs of Victims more integral to the international criminal justice process as it encourages the shift towards incorporating their interests within the criminal proceedings.

While neither of the justice outcomes is sufficient when pursued separately, combined they can come closer to actually delivering on the promise of justice: to address the human rights violations, the perpetrators must be punished; to restore the rule of law and address the consequences of the crimes, measures must be designed that take into account the specific needs of Victims and their conditions within society.

Although the conviction of perpetrators is in itself a form of reparation, justice goes beyond the courtroom. The damage caused by international crimes must be recognised and repaired through compensation that provides Victims with tangible support to rebuild their lives, restore their dignity and secure a future for themselves, their families and their communities.

Reparations are about more than just responding to Victims’ basic needs. Reparations must respond to the real impact of violations in Victims’ lives and at the same time be received as sincere efforts on the part of the larger society to acknowledge what happened and to provide some real measure of justice to those harmed. Moreover, reparations in restoring the dignity of Victims can help to create the conditions necessary for reconciliation by rebuilding trust within and between communities..

In accordance with Article 75 of the Rome Statute, a reparations order may take the form of restitution, compensation or rehabilitation. By their very nature, crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC inevitably result in a large number of Victims. Consequently, in practice, reparations orders often take the form of collective measures designed to “repair” prejudice caused to the community, while retaining an “individual component”. The services provided to beneficiaries vary according to the type of harm(s) suffered.

In this sense, collective reparations may include individual elements such as psychological support, medical assistance, job placement or educational support. Furthermore, reparations can be material or symbolic in nature. Material reparations aim to compensate for damage that can be quantified in economic terms. They also seek to improve the living conditions of the beneficiaries. Symbolic reparations, on the other hand, take the form of commemorative actions, usually of a public nature. The right to reparations is one of the essential components of the right to justice. Indeed, the process has a cathartic and positive effect at an individual level, as well as a restorative virtue at a family, societal and community level.

Resources are essential to ensure that justice is not only delivered but felt by those who suffered most.

In this context, on the occasion of the 20^th anniversary of its creation, the OPCV launched the OPCV20 Victims Donation Campaign. A fundraising initiative aimed at supporting the reparation programmes for Victims of international crimes ordered by the Chambers of the ICC and implemented by the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV).

The Campaign is an opportunity to make a meaningful and lasting difference in the lives of those who have endured unimaginable suffering, in particular:

• Victims of sexual and gender-based crimes who need medical and psychological assistance and socio-economic support to rebuild their lives;
• Children, some as young as five, who have been abducted from their homes or schools and forcibly recruited into militias, have lost their childhood and education. These children need psychological support and assistance to reintegrate into society;
• Children born of rape who remain stigmatised and marginalised in society;
• Victims who have suffered mutilation during attacks on their villages or towns and now need prosthetics and physical rehabilitation;
• Victims who have lost their homes and livelihoods;
• Victims forced to flee their country due to persecution.

The main reparations proceedings before the ICC concern the Ongwen case (Uganda), in which a reparations order has been issued for approximately €52.4 million for nearly 50,000 Victims. The order provides for a combination of symbolic cash payments, community-based rehabilitation programmes and symbolic activities. Reparation proceedings are also being implemented in the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases (Democratic Republic of Congo), in which reparation orders totalling $31.3 million have been issued for 10,500 beneficiaries. In these cases, the measures adopted include medical and psychological rehabilitation programmes and economic and educational support.

Finally, reparations have been completed in the Katanga case (Democratic Republic of Congo), which involved symbolic compensation, support for education, housing, and medical and psychological care; and in the Al Mahdi case (Mali) concerning the destruction of the city of Timbuktu, with measures that included the restoration of buildings, commemorative ceremonies, and support for the local economy.

In all these cases, since the convicted individuals are indigent, reparations are implemented through the TFV, in accordance with Article 79 of the Rome Statute.

The TFV has a dual mandate: 1) to implement reparations orders in cases where convicted persons are indigent; and 2) to promote assistance programmes for the benefit of Victims and their families. The TFV is financed through voluntary contributions from Member States of the Court and private individuals.

The Campaign is not just a fundraiser. It is a call to recognise that international criminal justice cannot be limited to punishing the perpetrators.

A shared commitment is needed to restore dignity and hope to those who have suffered atrocities that continue to have a profound and lasting impact on their lives, tearing apart the social and cultural fabric of the communities affected.

Donating means standing with Victims, helping them regain the dignity, hope and future they deserve. A small gesture can turn into a great act of solidarity.

The Campaign is open until 31 December 2025.

For further information and to make a donation, visit:

https://whydonate.com/fundraising/opcv20-victims-donation-campaign

Paolina Massidda is the Principal Counsel of the independent Office of Public Counsel for Victims at the ICC. In said capacity she represents Victims in several proceedings before the Court.

By Kerry Clamp, Jennifer Llewellyn, Camilo Umaña, Juliette Vargas, Lorena Vega, Andrei Gómez-Suárez, Oscar Parra Vera, Catalina Diaz, & Stephan Parmentier

Colombia’s Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP) is pioneering a model of restorative sanctions that seeks to balance accountability, truth, and reparations in the aftermath of mass atrocity. This blog explores the first rulings issued in 2025, the debates they sparked, and what they reveal about the promise and limits of restorative justice for serious crimes. Drawing on insights from a University of Nottingham workshop, Clamp et al. examine challenges around victim participation, proportionality, conceptual clarity, and implementation. Ultimately, it reflects on whether restorative sanctions can meaningfully contribute to long-term peace and legitimacy in Colombia’s transitional justice process.

Introduction

Colombia’s 2016 peace agreement with the FARC established one of the world’s most ambitious transitional justice systems. At its core lies the Special Jurisdiction for Peace (JEP), tasked with addressing war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during decades of armed conflict.

A distinctive and often contested feature of the JEP is its provision for restorative sanctions. These are defined by the JEP as alternative sentences for those most responsible for serious crimes, contingent on full truth-telling, acknowledgement of responsibility, and contributions to reparation.

While some see the model as innovative and valuable, others warn it risks weakening accountability, either through measures resembling amnesty or by waiving prosecution for those already convicted. Critics also argue that restorative sanctions may unsettle legal principles such as proportionality, since they can appear incommensurate with the gravity of crimes committed. Importantly, under the JEP’s design most perpetrators of international crimes will not be prosecuted at all. Given the scale of violence and the tribunal’s limited mandate and resources, the majority are channelled through non-punitive pathways. This design reflects not only institutional constraint but also an attempt to craft rational solutions in contexts of mass atrocity.

Against this backdrop, key questions arise: what does it mean for a sanction to be restorative? Can such measures meaningfully balance accountability, victim participation, and societal transformation? And under what conditions might restorative sanctions provide a legitimate response to crimes as serious as crimes against humanity?

These questions were the focus of a two-day knowledge exchange workshop at the University of Nottingham in April 2025, which brought together JEP judges, Colombian practitioners, academics, and peace negotiators. Participants critically examined not only the practicalities of implementing restorative sanctions but also their normative foundations, ethical implications and contributions to long-term peacebuilding.

First Rulings: A Critical Test

In September 2025, the JEP issued its first two rulings imposing restorative sanctions in Case 01 (hostage-taking by the FARC) and Case 03 (extrajudicial executions by state agents). These rulings confirmed that sanctions will last eight years and include measures such as public acknowledgment, truth-telling, restrictions on liberty, and participation in reparative projects including memorialisation, environmental restoration, and victim-led initiatives.

They also consolidated dozens of prior convictions and explicitly linked sanctions to macro-criminal policies, underscoring both the accountability of high-level actors and the transitional character of this justice process. While the rulings marked a milestone, public debate followed. Some questioned whether proposed activities corresponded closely enough to the harms suffered, for example whether environmental projects could meaningfully repair the trauma of hostage-taking.

Restorative Sanctions: Beyond Punishment

Restorative justice is often contrasted with punitive approaches that equate accountability with punishment, fuelling claims that it amounts to impunity. Yet restorative justice does not reject accountability, it redefines it. It seeks to establish the relational and social conditions necessary for meaningful accountability at both individual and collective levels. In this sense, it is not merely an alternative to punishment but a fundamentally different approach to justice.

Within the JEP, restorative sanctions aim to deepen accountability through relational, participatory, and forward-looking measures. Sanctions are conditional upon detailed and public acknowledgment of responsibility, including identification of systemic patterns, naming of other actors, and active contributions to reparation and non-repetition. As the Constitutional Court affirmed in 2018 (Ruling C-080), their objective is not only the reparation and satisfaction of victims but also restoring balance between victim and perpetrator and demonstrating that offenders are subject to, not above, the law.

Participants at the Nottingham workshop noted that restorative sanctions may in fact demand more of perpetrators than conventional imprisonment: public acknowledgement of harm, ongoing engagement with victims and communities, and meaningful participation in rebuilding the social fabric. These measures are both retrospective and future-oriented, addressing past harms while supporting the conditions for just and peaceful relations.

Victim Participation and Communication

Another central theme from the workshop was the need to involve those directly affected by the conflict. Restorative justice cannot be designed as a purely top-down legal response; it must be co-shaped by victims and communities.

Yet participation is far from straightforward. Victims are not a homogeneous group, and expectations vary widely. Some prioritise punishment, others truth, or reparation. Meaningful participation therefore requires more than consulting preferences; it involves engaging in dialogue about needs and how they might be addressed.

Much scepticism arises from inconsistent communication about the purpose and nature of restorative sanctions, compounded by the long marginalisation of those harmed. Participants suggested that a key measure of success lies in whether victims remain engaged, even if critically. Their continued involvement signals legitimacy that is often absent in punishment-centred systems.

Early Practice and Pilot Projects

Although restorative sanctions have only been recently pronounced, restorative practices have already shaped earlier phases of the JEP’s work, particularly in truth-telling and investigation. In several macro-cases, requirements for detailed public acknowledgments of responsibility have moved proceedings beyond adversarial legalism toward relational engagement.

The JEP’s three pilot projects also provide additional lessons. These initiatives prioritised territorial relevance, victim participation, and bottom-up design. They demonstrated the potential of participatory approaches but revealed persistent challenges: security threats, institutional fragility, and insufficient victim input in determining sanctions meaningful to them.

Conceptual Clarity: Defining Restorative Sanctions

A significant gap identified during the workshop was the lack of conceptual clarity surrounding restorative sanctions. Even among those closely involved in the JEP process, the term is interpreted in diverse and sometimes conflicting ways.

Participants emphasised the importance of developing a shared understanding of what restorative sanctions mean in Colombia’s transitional justice context. This need not be a rigid definition but should involve reflective and inclusive spaces to explore tensions and complexities.

These discussions must address several core concerns: clarifying principles and objectives to guide design; defining the boundaries of proportionality; and guarding against instrumentalisation. If restorative sanctions are reduced to tools for securing confessions or cooperation, their ethical foundation is lost.

Designing and Implementing for Complexity

Participants identified key challenges in translating restorative principles into practice. A central concern was proportionality: sanctions must reflect the depth of relational, structural, and intergenerational harms, not just crime severity in a punitive sense. Flexibility is also critical. Colombia’s social and regional diversity means that a uniform model is unlikely to succeed.

Effective restorative processes require safe, informed, and sustained engagement not only for victims and survivors, but also for ex-combatants, communities, and institutions. Avoiding re-victimisation is vital. Processes must provide psychosocial support and guard against retraumatisation or coercion. Their legitimacy depends on respecting dignity, agency, and emotional well-being.

Participants also stressed that implementation cannot be reduced to checklists or procedures. If sanctions fail to change lived experience, they risk becoming symbolic gestures or rebranded community service. Comprehensive education and training are needed for judges, mediators, community leaders, and implementers, rooted in the ethical foundations of restorative justice not technical instruction alone. Participants emphasised that without a deep understanding of restorative justice principles, there is a risk that practices intended to repair harm will instead replicate the logic of punitive justice.

Finally, broader legal and institutional reforms are required. Frameworks must accommodate restorative demands, with monitoring and evaluation designed for learning as well as accountability. Coordination across JEP chambers is critical to ensure consistency and legitimacy. Above all, sustained political will is indispensable. Without it, restorative sanctions risk marginalisation or co-option.

A Careful but Hopeful Vision

The JEP’s restorative sanctions will not be a panacea. However, they are a small step, from indifference to interest, silence to truth-telling, and impunity to shared responsibility, that can represent progress. The goal is not perfection but advancing toward justice that builds the conditions for peace rather than merely condemning past wrongs.

The September 2025 rulings mark the first real test of this vision, revealing both its promise and its challenges. If Colombia can show that restorative sanctions are a viable response even to the most serious crimes, it will strengthen its fragile peace and contribute globally to the evolution of transitional justice.

Authors’ affiliations:

Kerry Clamp, University of Nottingham

Jennifer Llewellyn, Dalhousie University

Camilo Umaña, International Institute for the Sociology of Law

Juliette Vargas, German Colombian Peace Institute – CAPAZ

Lorena Vega, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana

Andrei Gómez-Suárez, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London

Oscar Parra Vera,  Special Jurisdiction for Peace

Catalina Diaz, Special Jurisdiction for Peace

Stephan Parmentier, KU Leuven