200 Access to Redress for Stateless Persons Under International Law there is still room for leniency if required by the circumstances. In the case of stateless persons, leniency is certainly required, especially regarding proof of identity.209 This is a similar challenge to that faced by the stateless in accessing redress at the IACtHR, with the main difference being that the threshold of proof is higher at the ICC due to the court’s nature. Since the emphasis of the application process is on eligibility to participate rather than the modes of participation, victims can become frustrated upon realizing that after having undertaken a painstaking application process, sometimes ‘there is little scope for their individual voices to be heard by the Court’.210 Case law of the ICC which has addressed the issue of proof of identity can be helpful in outlining potential challenges for access to redress before the ICC for stateless persons. Reparations issued by the ICC can include restitution, compensation and rehabilitation,211 and it is within the judges’ power to establish the principles guiding reparations and the ‘scope and extent of any damage, loss, or injury’.212 According to Cryer et al., ‘it appears that this [establishment of principles] will occur on a case by case basis’.213 It should be noted that in the ICC, according to Shelton, ‘prosecution becomes recast as an essential component of the remedy owed victims of certain grave human rights violations’214 since measures such as compensation or disciplinary sanctions imposed on the perpetrator may be insufficient to redress the harm.215 Only upon conviction, a request for reparations by the victims can be issued,216 and can result in an order by the court to make reparations. However, article 75(1) RS allows the court to act proprio motu on the matter and issue an order reparation without a previous request.217 Furthermore, victims can apply to receive individual or collective reparations. Under article 75 RS and Rules 94–99 RPE, the ICC ‘has the power to order reparations directly to, or in respect of, victims’218 against an accused person. Under Article 75(1) RS, the Court must establish principles ‘relating to reparations to, or in respect of, victims, including restitution, compensation and rehabilitation’219 and can make the order against the convicted person. Rule 97(1) RPE implies that awards should be made on an individual basis; however, the court can decide whether to ‘order reparations on an individualized or on a collective basis’.220 The second option can fund projects targeted towards an entire community of victims, such as building a school or a hospital for example.221 Since access to reparations under the ICC is not dependent on participa- 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 In Muthaura, Kenyatta & Hussein Ali, the single judge stated that the following documents could be accepted as forms of identification: National ID Waiting Card, a Chief’s Identification letter (which includes the name, date, gender and place of birth of the victim applicant), Notification of Birth Cards (for minors), Clinic Cards, Kenyan Police Abstract Form (for lost identity cards), and a signed declaration by two witnesses—along with their identification documents—attesting to the victim applicant’s identity. See Situation in Kenya in the case of the Prosecutor v Francis Kirimi Muthaura, Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta & Mohamed Hussein Ali [2011] ICC Pre-Trial Chamber II ‘Decision on Victims’ Participation at the Confirmation of Charges Hearing and in the Related Proceedings’ ICC-01/0902/11, para 43. Redress, The Participation of Victims in International Criminal Court Proceedings A Review of the Practice and Consideration of Options for the Future (Redress Trust, 2012), at 16; see also The Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the case of the Prosecutor v Germaine Katanga [2017] ICC Trial Chamber II, ‘Order for Reparations pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute’ ICC-01/0401/07, paras 71 & 72. Amnesty International, Ensuring an Effective Role for Victims, IOR 40/10/99 (Amnesty International, 1999). See Situation in the DRC in the case of The Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo [2015] ICC Appeals Chamber ‘Judgment on the appeals against the ‘Decision establishing the principles and procedures to be applied to reparations’ of 7 August 2012’, ICC-01/0401/06-3129, para 155; Situation in Mali in the case of The Prosecutor v A Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi [2017] ICC Trial Chamber VIII “Reparations Order” ICC-01/12-01/15, section IV; The Situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo in the case of the Prosecutor v Germaine Katanga [2017] ICC Trial Chamber II, “Order for Reparations pursuant to Article 75 of the Statute” ICC-01/04-01/07, section IV; see also R Cryer, H Friman, D Robinson & E Wilmshurst (eds), An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (3rd, Cambridge University Press, 2014), at 495. R Cryer, H Friman, D Robinson & E Wilmshurst (eds), An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (3rd, Cambridge University Press, 2014), at 495. D Shelton, Remedies in International Human Rights Law (2nd, Oxford University Press, 2005), at 9. Ibid, at 9. Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Proceedings of the Preparatory Commission at its second session 26 July–13 August 1999 (United Nations, 1999) PCNICC/1999/L.4/Rev.1, at 49, note 75. R Cryer, H Friman, D Robinson & E Wilmshurst (eds), An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (3rd, Cambridge University Press, 2014), at 495. Ibid, at 494. UN General Assembly, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (17 July 1998, last amended 2010). ‘Reparations and the Trust Fund for Victims’ in K. Booth & J Sulzer, Victims’ Rights Before the International Criminal Court: A Guide for Victims, their Legal Representatives and NGOs (International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), Paris 2007), at 16. Ibid, at 27.