The development of collective reparations in international courts and truth commissions

This dissertation focuses on substantive remedies that address the harm caused by mass atrocities, these are often referred to as reparations. More specifically, the starting point of this research was the observation that the individual right to reparations has increasingly received a collective character. As this dissertation explores, there is a growing recognition of collective reparations in international law.Nevertheless, neither a legal definition nor a framework of collective reparations has yet been established.Against this background, this dissertation sets out to gain a deeper understanding of collective reparations and its development, and to contribute to the crystallization of the legal framework regarding collective reparations. Concretely, the objective of this study is to analyze case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter IACtHR), the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC), the Extraordinary Chambers within the Courts of Cambodia (hereinafter ECCC) and the reports of 15 truth commissions in order to scrutinize how each court and truth commission defines and applies collective reparations, and the underlying reasoning for a specific approach to collective reparations. The analysis of the case law and reports is conducted in a systematic and comprehensive manner through the use of qualitative content analysis. Furthermore, this dissertation includes a comparative analysis between the truth commissions, between the courts, and between the courts and truth commissions.The analyzed institutions face some identical challenges inherent to mass atrocities, such as the high number of victims and harm that is often irreparable, and some challenges that are specific to the institution, including their mandates. The courts and truth commissions have developed different approaches to respond to these challenges, resulting in different definitions and varying modalities of collective reparations. Hence, the ordered reparations reflect the context from which they arise, including the legal field in which they operate (human rights law or international criminal law), their mandates, the circumstances of the case at hand, and available resources. Even though it is understandable that these distinct contexts influence the reparation decisions, the institutions should be transparent in relation to this.Furthermore, the institutions should consider how their contexts influence the (collective) reparations they can issue and that can realistically be implemented, and adjust the used definitions and orders accordingly. The institutions should not only be transparent on how its context influenced the understanding of (collective) reparations, these should also be transparent about the assumptions underlying their reparation orders, as well as the assumed added value of reparations over assistance. Lastly, the states and international organs that establish institutions with a reparations mandate should be realistic about the actual possibilities of these institutions to provide meaningful reparations

The development of collective reparations in international courts and truth commissions

This dissertation focuses on substantive remedies that address the harm caused by mass atrocities, these are often referred to as reparations. More specifically, the starting point of this research was the observation that the individual right to reparations has increasingly received a collective character. As this dissertation explores, there is a growing recognition of collective reparations in international law.Nevertheless, neither a legal definition nor a framework of collective reparations has yet been established.Against this background, this dissertation sets out to gain a deeper understanding of collective reparations and its development, and to contribute to the crystallization of the legal framework regarding collective reparations. Concretely, the objective of this study is to analyze case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter IACtHR), the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC), the Extraordinary Chambers within the Courts of Cambodia (hereinafter ECCC) and the reports of 15 truth commissions in order to scrutinize how each court and truth commission defines and applies collective reparations, and the underlying reasoning for a specific approach to collective reparations. The analysis of the case law and reports is conducted in a systematic and comprehensive manner through the use of qualitative content analysis. Furthermore, this dissertation includes a comparative analysis between the truth commissions, between the courts, and between the courts and truth commissions.The analyzed institutions face some identical challenges inherent to mass atrocities, such as the high number of victims and harm that is often irreparable, and some challenges that are specific to the institution, including their mandates. The courts and truth commissions have developed different approaches to respond to these challenges, resulting in different definitions and varying modalities of collective reparations. Hence, the ordered reparations reflect the context from which they arise, including the legal field in which they operate (human rights law or international criminal law), their mandates, the circumstances of the case at hand, and available resources. Even though it is understandable that these distinct contexts influence the reparation decisions, the institutions should be transparent in relation to this.Furthermore, the institutions should consider how their contexts influence the (collective) reparations they can issue and that can realistically be implemented, and adjust the used definitions and orders accordingly. The institutions should not only be transparent on how its context influenced the understanding of (collective) reparations, these should also be transparent about the assumptions underlying their reparation orders, as well as the assumed added value of reparations over assistance. Lastly, the states and international organs that establish institutions with a reparations mandate should be realistic about the actual possibilities of these institutions to provide meaningful reparations

The implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on eating disorder features and comorbid psychopathology among adolescents with anorexia nervosa and matched controls:a comparative cohort design study

PurposeTo examine implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on eating disorder (ED) features and psychopathology in female adolescents with anorexia nervosa (AN).MethodIn total 79 females with first-onset AN (aged 12-22 years) were included and were followed up across a period of 1 year. We assessed AN participants recruited pre-pandemic (n = 49) to those recruited peri-pandemic (n = 30). Pre- (n = 37) and peri-pandemic (n = 38) age-, and education-matched typically developing (TD) girls (n = 75) were used as a reference cohort. ED features and psychopathology were assessed at baseline. After 1 year of follow-up the association between pandemic timing and clinical course was assessed. Analyses of covariance were used to examine differences in ED features and psychopathology.ResultsPeri-pandemic AN participants experienced less ED symptoms at baseline compared to pre-pandemic AN participants. In particular, they were less dissatisfied with their body shape, and experienced less interpersonal insecurity. In addition, the peri-pandemic AN group met fewer DSM-IV criteria for comorbid disorders, especially anxiety disorders. In contrast, peri-pandemic AN participants had a smaller BMI increase over time. In TD girls, there were no differences at baseline in ED features and psychopathology between the pre- and peri-pandemic group.ConclusionOverall, peri-pandemic AN participants were less severely ill, compared to pre-pandemic AN participants, which may be explained by less social pressure and peer contact, and a more protective parenting style during the pandemic. Conversely, peri-pandemic AN participants had a less favorable clinical course, which may be explained by reduced access to health care facilities during the pandemic.Level of evidenceLevel III: Evidence obtained from well-designed cohort or case-control analytic studies

The development of collective reparations in international courts and truth commissions

This dissertation focuses on substantive remedies that address the harm caused by mass atrocities, these are often referred to as reparations. More specifically, the starting point of this research was the observation that the individual right to reparations has increasingly received a collective character. As this dissertation explores, there is a growing recognition of collective reparations in international law.Nevertheless, neither a legal definition nor a framework of collective reparations has yet been established. Against this background, this dissertation sets out to gain a deeper understanding of collective reparations and its development, and to contribute to the crystallization of the legal framework regarding collective reparations. Concretely, the objective of this study is to analyze case law of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (hereinafter IACtHR), the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC), the Extraordinary Chambers within the Courts of Cambodia (hereinafter ECCC) and the reports of 15 truth commissions in order to scrutinize how each court and truth commission defines and applies collective reparations, and the underlying reasoning for a specific approach to collective reparations. The analysis of the case law and reports is conducted in a systematic and comprehensive manner through the use of qualitative content analysis. Furthermore, this dissertation includes a comparative analysis between the truth commissions, between the courts, and between the courts and truth commissions. The analyzed institutions face some identical challenges inherent to mass atrocities, such as the high number of victims and harm that is often irreparable, and some challenges that are specific to the institution, including their mandates. The courts and truth commissions have developed different approaches to respond to these challenges, resulting in different definitions and varying modalities of collective reparations. Hence, the ordered reparations reflect the context from which they arise, including the legal field in which they operate (human rights law or international criminal law), their mandates, the circumstances of the case at hand, and available resources. Even though it is understandable that these distinct contexts influence the reparation decisions, the institutions should be transparent in relation to this. Furthermore, the institutions should consider how their contexts influence the (collective) reparations they can issue and that can realistically be implemented, and adjust the used definitions and orders accordingly. The institutions should not only be transparent on how its context influenced the understanding of (collective) reparations, these should also be transparent about the assumptions underlying their reparation orders, as well as the assumed added value of reparations over assistance. Lastly, the states and international organs that establish institutions with a reparations mandate should be realistic about the actual possibilities of these institutions to provide meaningful reparations

Trial and (Potential) Error: Conflicting Visions on Reparations Within the ICC System

Twenty years ago, the International Criminal Court (hereinafter ICC or the Court) was established holding the aim of placing victims at the heart of international criminal justice proceedings and delivering justice to them through, among others, reparations. Article 75 of the Rome Statute lays out the reparations regime, and, in practice, court-ordered reparations are a means of delivering such justice. Focusing on Court decisions on reparations, our analysis takes stock of all developments before the ICC and attempts to highlight the mismatch between characteristics inherent to the objectives of international criminal trials such as providing accountability and punishment of the accused and delivering justice for victims of mass crimes-the so-called procedural challenges. We also submit that the Court is facing conceptual challenges, related to an apparent misunderstanding of the various concepts at stake: reparations as such and the various modalities and channels of enforcing them. We conclude that although the ICC's reparation regime may not be the best reparative response to provide justice to victims in conflict situations affected by mass victimization, we suggest that improving the ICC's approach includes, at a minimum, tackling these challenges