<<  <  >  >>

Page 15

treatment, psychological and legal counseling and

rehabilitatory support would not only help to

restore or "make whole" these victims, which will

be an expression of restitutive justice in ac-

tion.41

The Goal of Mandatory Contributions

There has been some discussion of making state contri-

butions to the ICC voluntary, but in a speech before the UN

Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of an Interna-

tional Criminal Court, the registrar for the Yugoslavia

tribunal, Dorothee de Sampayo Garrido-Nijgh, argued that

"since reliance on voluntary contributions will make [the

court's] activities subject to the generosity of donors, and

could compromise, or appear to compromise, the continuity

and autonomy of the court's activities, . . . [i]n my view,

it is essential that assessed contributions of state parties

be sufficient to finance the court's activities and that

reliance on voluntary contributions should be avoided."42

If ICC funding is not voluntary, and historical contri-

bution rates apply, 25 percent of the court's cost will

likely be passed on to the United States, which the UN says

already owes $1.6 billion in unpaid back contributions.43

Interference with Peacekeeping Operations

Many proponents of the ICC want to extend the power of

the court beyond deciding guilt or innocence and into the

domain of awarding reparations.  For example, Amnesty Inter-

national maintains,

The court must have the power to award victims and

their families reparations, including restitution

[and] compensation. . . . The court itself should

have the power to award such reparations since it

is unlikely that national courts, which were un-

able or unwilling to bring the person responsible

to justice, will be able or willing to award repa-

rations or to enforce the award.44

Likewise, Human Rights Watch argues,

Victims and their representatives have a right to