a) Context of the attacks against the IDP camps of Pajule, Odek, Lukodi, and Abok

98. As to the attack at or near the Pajule IDP camp, the Chamber recalls its previous findings that on 10 October 2003, LRA fighters, including Mr Ongwen, attacked the camp.Footnote ⁴³⁶ Pajule and Lapul IDP camps were situated in Aruu County, Pader district. The two camps were across from each other, Pajule on the east side of the Lira-Kitgum road and Lapul on the west.Footnote ⁴³⁷ They were commonly referred to, collectively, as ‘Pajule IDP camp’.Footnote ⁴³⁸ At the time of the attack, an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 people lived in the camp.Footnote ⁴³⁹ The Chamber refers hereafter to the ‘Pajule attack’ with reference to the crimes committed within the context of the entire attack at or near the Pajule IDP camp on 10 October 2003, as specified herein.

99. Regarding the attack on the Odek IDP camp, the Chamber recalls its findings that, on 29 April 2004, LRA fighters subordinate to Mr Ongwen attacked Odek IDP camp.Footnote ⁴⁴⁰ The Odek IDP camp was situated around Odek village in Odek sub-county, Omoro County, Gulu district, and, at the time, was home to between 2,000 and 3,000 individuals.Footnote ⁴⁴¹ The Chamber refers hereafter to the ‘Odek attack’ with reference to the crimes committed within the context of the entire attack at or near the Odek IDP camp on 29 April 2004, as specified herein.

100. Regarding the attack on the Lukodi IDP camp, the Chamber recalls its findings that on or about 19 May 2004, LRA fighters sent by Mr Ongwen attacked Lukodi IDP camp.Footnote ⁴⁴² The Lukodi IDP camp was situated near Lukodi village, in Bungatira Sub-County, Aswa County, Gulu District.Footnote ⁴⁴³ The Chamber reiterates that, for the purposes of the Conviction Judgment, it was unable to make a definitive conclusion as to the number of civilians that lived within the Lukodi IDP camp, but it was satisfied that a large contingent of civilians lived there at the time of the attack.Footnote ⁴⁴⁴ The Chamber refers hereafter to the ‘Lukodi attack’ with reference to the crimes committed within the context of the entire attack at or near the Lukodi IDP camp on or about 19 May 2004, as specified herein.

101. Lastly, regarding the attack on the Abok IDP camp, the Chamber recalls its findings that on 8 June 2004, LRA fighters subordinate to Mr Ongwen attacked Abok IDP camp.Footnote ⁴⁴⁵ Abok was located in Ngai sub-county, Apac district and estimates indicate that at least 7,000 to just over 13,000 civilians resided in the camp at the time of the attack.Footnote ⁴⁴⁶ The Chamber refers hereafter to the ‘Abok attack’ with reference to the crimes committed within the context of the entire attack at or near the Abok IDP camp on 8 June 2004, as specified herein.

102. Within the context of the four attacks against the IDP camps referred to above, the following victims are eligible for reparations:

b) Counts 1, 11, 24, and 37 - attack against the civilian population

103. Civilian residents of, and non-residents present at, the IDP camps of Pajule, Odek, Lukodi, and Abok at the time of the attacks, as victims of the war crime of attack against the civilian population as such, within the context of the Pajule attack,Footnote ⁴⁴⁷ the Odek attack,Footnote ⁴⁴⁸ the Lukodi attack,Footnote ⁴⁴⁹ and the Abok attack.Footnote ⁴⁵⁰

c) Counts 2, 3, 12, 13, 25, 26, 38, and 39 - murder

104. Victims of murder as a crime against humanity and as a war crime, within the context of the Pajule attack,Footnote ⁴⁵¹ the Odek attack,Footnote ⁴⁵² the Lukodi attack,Footnote ⁴⁵³ and the Abok attack.Footnote ⁴⁵⁴ Specifically:

1. a. Regarding the Pajule attack, at least four civilians killed by the LRA in the course of the attack, including: an unnamed woman killed by machete, Kinyera Benson Lacung, Pangarasio Onek, and an unnamed abductee killed near the RV location;Footnote ⁴⁵⁵

2. b. Regarding the Odek attack, at least 52 civilians killed by the LRA in the course of the attack,Footnote ⁴⁵⁶ including (i) the following persons within the camp during the attack: Adoni Okullu, Agudu's wife and her grandson, Betty Adong and her daughter Ajok, Catherine Amono, Okeny, Aldo Okello, Ayita Labanya, Charles Obur, Doris Apiyo, Jenaro Ongwen, Jimmy Ojok, Catherine Laker, Kevin Apiyo, Kerobina Acayo, Kejikiya Okec, Veronica Auma, Mary Acayo, Monica Aciro, Wilson Okoya, Okoya, Obangomoko, Pedwang Opio, Thomas Opiyo, Thomas Ojok, Valentino Okot, Walter Ojok, Atikcon, an unnamed camp resident, Mary Agudu, Doreen Ojok, DP, Acayo, Aboni, Witness P-0269's mother-in-law and her grandson, a girl found by the river;Footnote ⁴⁵⁷ and (ii) the following persons in the course of the retreat: Aroja, Atir, Hilary Kilama, Lalam, Rose Aweko, David Ojok, James Ayella, James Titus Latigo, Kidega, Lagii, Patrick Opap Odong, P'Mala Okot, Ojok, and Fabio Otto;Footnote ⁴⁵⁸

3. c. Regarding the Lukodi attack, at least 48 civilians killed by the LRA in the course of the attack,Footnote ⁴⁵⁹ including: (i) Keneri Okot, Jeneth Lakot, Kilama Aloyo, Kilama Kidega, Jackline Anee, Milly Anek, Akello Acii, Innocent Okello, Ojoko, an unnamed man shouting at the LRA, Christine Ajok, Odong Apiyo, David Otim and an unnamed stabbing victim, Agwesa Odoch, Beatrice's son, Charles Odong, Jasinta Aol, Jojina Angom, Lalobo's son, Tezira Oroma, Ojara, Okwera, Olwedo, Ocaka's wife and one unnamed teenage girl, Onencan, Witness P-0024's mother and another civilian, Min Ojoko, Ocii, Atim, Charles Anywar, Danger Joseph Oryem, James Opiro, Jeneth Lalur Akello, Joseph Ojara, Obedi, Rose Kiter, Tabicha Alum, Vincent Ocaya, and Santa Oroma;Footnote ⁴⁶⁰ and (ii) the following persons killed during the retreat from the Lukodi camp: Nancy Akello, an unnamed man stabbed with a bayonet, an unnamed abductee, Justin Omony, Aleka, and Charles Obwoya;Footnote ⁴⁶¹ and

4. d. Regarding the Abok attack, at least 28 civilians killed by the LRA in the course of the attack,Footnote ⁴⁶² including: Albino Okal, Justina Akullu, Hatari Anyima, D.P. Okello, Simon Okello, Alex Ogweng, Barikia Adonya, Fabio Ogweng, two of Hatari Anyima's children (Daniel or Emanwel Okite and Monica Ayugi), and Evelyn Akello.Footnote ⁴⁶³

d) Counts 14, 15, 27, 28, 40 and 41 - attempted murder

105. Victims of attempted murder as a crime against humanity and as a war crime, within the context of the Odek attack,Footnote ⁴⁶⁴ the Lukodi attack,Footnote ⁴⁶⁵ and the Abok attack.Footnote ⁴⁶⁶ Specifically:

1. a. Regarding the Odek attack, the LRA attempted to kill at least ten civilians in the course of the attack, including: Santa Akello, Betty Atenyo, Christopher Moro, David Bua, Witness P-0252, Kengali and his wife, a man by a borassus palm tree, Okot LC's mother, and a woman shot in the mouth;Footnote ⁴⁶⁷

2. b. Regarding the Lukodi attack, the LRA attempted to kill at least 11 civilians in the course of the attack, including: Pyerina Ayaa, Florence Adong, Adong Paska, Piloya, Joel Opiyo, Ojoko, an unnamed elderly woman, Nyeko, two unnamed girls who had been shot, and an unnamed girl with a burnt leg;Footnote ⁴⁶⁸ and

3. c. Regarding the Abok attack, the LRA attempted to kill at least 4 civilians in the course of the attack, including: Jacob Opio, Cyprian Ogola, Robson Oper, and Gwentorina Akite.Footnote ⁴⁶⁹

e) Counts 4, 5, 16, 17, 29, 30, 42 and 43 - torture

106. Victims of torture as a crime against humanity and as a war crime, within the context of the Pajule attack,Footnote ⁴⁷⁰ the Odek attack,Footnote ⁴⁷¹ the Lukodi attack,Footnote ⁴⁷² and the Abok attack.Footnote ⁴⁷³ Specifically:

1. a. Regarding the Pajule attack, hundreds of civilians abducted by the LRA and forced to carry injured LRA fighters and looted items, including heavy loads for long distances, while placed under armed guard to prevent their escape and under constant threat of beatings or death. Some were tied to each other, and many were forced to walk through the bush barefoot or not fully clothed. LRA fighters beat abductees to make them walk faster;Footnote ⁴⁷⁴

2. b. Regarding the Odek attack, civilians severely mistreated by the LRA during the attack and in its aftermath, suffering instances of grave physical abuse, such as beatings with sticks and guns. One woman was raped with a comb and a stick used for cooking while her husband was forced to watch. Civilians, as young as 11 or 12 years old, were also abducted and forced to carry heavy loads for long distances, some barefoot, while placed under armed guard to prevent their escape and under constant threat of beatings or death;Footnote ⁴⁷⁵

3. c. Regarding the Lukodi attack, civilians severely mistreated by the LRA during the attack and its aftermath and forced to carry heavy loads, some for long distances while tied together and under constant threat of beatings or death. Civilians were also injured, raped, beaten, and mothers forced to abandon their children in the bush. LRA fighters threw small children, including babies, into the bush, as they were crying and making it difficult for their mothers to carry looted goods;Footnote ⁴⁷⁶ and

4. d. Regarding the Abok attack, civilians severely mistreated by the LRA during the march from the camp through the bush, forced to carry heavy looted goods and at least one injured fighter for long distances, oftentimes under the threat of beatings or death, beaten as a punishment and to intimidate others, one forced to kill another abductee, as a lesson to those thinking of escaping.Footnote ⁴⁷⁷

f) Counts 8, 20, 33, and 46 - enslavement

107. Victims of enslavement as a crime against humanity, within the context of the Pajule attack,Footnote ⁴⁷⁸ the Odek attack,Footnote ⁴⁷⁹ the Lukodi attack,Footnote ⁴⁸⁰ and the Abok attack.Footnote ⁴⁸¹ Specifically:

1. a. Regarding the Pajule attack, hundreds of civilians abducted from the Pajule IDP camp by the LRA, including: Witness P-0006, her neighbour, her three relatives, Witness P-0081, Richard Otim, Witness P-0249 and his wife, Benson Ojok, Dick Okot and his family members, Rwot Joseph Oywak, Charles Bongomin, Oryema Kadogo, Sunday Abalo, Charles Ayela, Concy Ayet, Ogen, Opira, Okumu; Santo Oweka, David Okwera, Francis Kitara, George, Ronald Labeja, Christopher, Celestino, Vincent Okot, Ocana, Charles Abonga, David Otti Moyo, Christine, Paska, Oluge, Opira Bosco, and Oryema.Footnote ⁴⁸²

2. b. Regarding the Odek attack, at least 40 civilians, including men, women, and children as young as 11 or 12 years old, abducted from the Odeak IDP camp by the LRA, including: Atir, Hilary Kilama, Lalam, Rose Aweko, David Ojok, James Titus Latigo, James Ayella, Kidega, Lagii, Patrick Opap Odong, P'Mala Okot, Ojok, Fabio Otto, Onek, Witness P- 0275, Witness P-0269, Witness P-0252, Brian Odokonyero, Hellen Adong, Alice Kidega, Acan, Adaa/Ada, Agnes Adoch, Ajok, Akanyo, Apio, Atenyo, Carolina Lagulu, Dennis Otema, Doreen Aluku, Kadoge, Kala Adong, Joyce Aneno, Ocaka, Paul Ojara, Richard Okello, Santa Oling, Ventorina Akello, and the wife of Olet Okello;Footnote ⁴⁸³

3. c. Regarding the Lukodi attack, at least 29 civilians, men, women, and children, abducted from the Lukodi IDP camp by the LRA, including: Witness P-0024, Olanya, Aleka, Onek, four unnamed male abductees, Witness P-0187, two unnamed female abductees, Joel Opiyo, Lilly Apiyo, Christine Alanyo, Milly Ayaa, Beatrice, Mary Aol, Min Lagum, Min Ojak, Min Ochora, Alora, Okumu, Nancy Akello, an unnamed man stabbed with a bayonet, an unnamed abductee, Justin Omony, Lakwec, Aleka, and Charles Obwoya;Footnote ⁴⁸⁴

4. d. Regarding the Abok attack, many civilians abducted from the Abok IDP camp by the LRA, including Charles Amodo, Gwentorina Akite, Evelyn Akello, Robson Oper, Witness P-0280, Thomas Okitte's daughter, Ogweng, Ameny, Lucy Akello, Molly Ayugi, Monica Adur, Nighty Atim, Dilis Awor, and Witness V-0002.Footnote ⁴⁸⁵

g) Counts 9, 21, 34, and 47 - pillaging

108. Civilian residents of the IDP camps at the time of the attacks, in light of the widespread looting of homes and shops in the camps where LRA fighters took food and other property, as victims of pillaging as a war crime, within the context of the Pajule attack,Footnote ⁴⁸⁶ the Odek attack,Footnote ⁴⁸⁷ the Lukodi attack,Footnote ⁴⁸⁸ and the Abok attack.Footnote ⁴⁸⁹

h) Count 22 - outrages upon personal dignity

109. Victims of outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime, within the context of the Odek attack.Footnote ⁴⁹⁰ Specifically: (i) one abductee forced to kill another abductee with a club and forced to inspect corpses; (ii) one abductee forced to watch someone being killed; and (iii) mothers who were forced to abandon their children on the side of the road, with one child being left in a rubbish pit.Footnote ⁴⁹¹

i) Counts 35 and 48 - destruction of property

110. Civilian residents of the IDP camps of Lukodi and Abok at the time of the attacks, in light of the destruction of several hundreds of civilian huts and household goods, including food stocks and domestic animals, as victims of destruction of property as a war crime, within the context of the Lukodi attack,Footnote ⁴⁹² and the Abok attack.Footnote ⁴⁹³

j) Counts 10, 23, 36, and 49 - persecution

111. Victims of the crime against humanity of persecution on political grounds of civilians perceived by the LRA as being affiliated with, or supporting the Uganda government,Footnote ⁴⁹⁴ within the context of: the Pajule attack, by an attack against the civilian population as such, murder, torture, enslavement, and pillaging;Footnote ⁴⁹⁵ the Odek attack, by an attack against the civilian population as such, murder, attempted murder, torture, enslavement, outrages upon personal dignity, and pillaging;Footnote ⁴⁹⁶ the Lukodi attack, by an attack against the civilian population as such, murder, attempted murder, torture, enslavement, pillaging and destruction of property;Footnote ⁴⁹⁷ and the Abok attack, by an attack against the civilian population as such, murder, attempted murder, torture, enslavement, pillaging, and destruction of property.Footnote ⁴⁹⁸

a) Counts 50 to 60 - SGBC directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen

112. Count 50: victims of forced marriage as a crime against humanity. Specifically, P-0099 between 1 July 2002 and September 2002; P-0101 between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; P-0214, between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; P-0226 between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; and P-0227 between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.Footnote ⁴⁹⁹

113. Counts 51 and 52: victims of torture as a crime against humanity and as a war crime. Specifically, P-0101 between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; P-0214 between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; P-0226 between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; and P-0227 between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.Footnote ⁵⁰⁰

114. Counts 53 and 54: victims of rape as a crime against humanity and as a war crime. Specifically, P-0101 between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; P-0214 between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; P-0226 between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; and P-0227 between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.Footnote ⁵⁰¹

115. Counts 55 and 56: victims of sexual slavery as a crime against humanity and as a war crime. Specifically, P-0101 between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; P-0214 between September 2002 and 31 December 2005; P-0226 between 1 July 2002 and sometime in 2003; and P-0227 between approximately April 2005 and 31 December 2005.Footnote ⁵⁰²

116. Count 57: victims of enslavement as a crime against humanity. Specifically, P-0099 between 1 July 2002 and September 2002; P-0235 from September 2002 to 31 December 2005; and P-0236 between September 2002 and 31 December 2005.Footnote ⁵⁰³

117. Counts 58 and 59: victims of forced pregnancy as a crime against humanity and as a war crime. Specifically, P-0101, two pregnancies, between 1 July 2002 and July 2004; and P- 0214 sometime in 2005.Footnote ⁵⁰⁴

118. Count 60: victims of outrages upon personal dignity as a war crime. Specifically, P- 0226 sometime in 2002 or early 2003 close to Patongo, Northern Uganda; and P-0235 sometime in late 2002 or early 2003 at an unspecified location in Northern Uganda.Footnote ⁵⁰⁵

b) Counts 61 to 68 – SGBC not directly perpetrated by Dominic Ongwen

119. Count 61: victims of forced marriage as a crime against humanity, from at least 1 July 2002 until 31 December 2005. Specifically, over one hundred civilian women and girls abducted as so-called ‘wives’ of male members of the Sinia brigade.Footnote ⁵⁰⁶

120. Counts 62 and 63: victims of torture as a crime against humanity and as a war crime, from at least 1 July 2002 until 31 December 2005. Specifically, over one hundred civilian women and girls abducted by the Sinia brigade, subjected to severe physical and mental pain.Footnote ⁵⁰⁷

121. Counts 64 and 65: victims of rape as a crime against humanity and as a war crime, from at least 1 July 2002 until 31 December 2005. Specifically, over one hundred civilian women and girls abducted and ‘distributed’ to members of the Sinia brigade.Footnote ⁵⁰⁸

122. Counts 66 and 67: victims of sexual slavery as a crime against humanity and as a war crime, from at least 1 July 2002 until 31 December 2005. Specifically, over one hundred civilian women and girls abducted and ‘distributed’ to members of the Sinia brigade.Footnote ⁵⁰⁹

123. Count 68: victims of enslavement as a crime against humanity, from at least 1 July 2002 until 31 December 2005. Specifically, civilian women and girls abducted by the Sinia brigade, who were no longer or not yet subject to institutionalised sexual abuse, but enslaved by being deprived of their personal liberty, restricted and dictated on their movement, including by threats and subjecting them to armed guard, subjected to forced labour, and physical and psychological abuse.Footnote ⁵¹⁰

c) Children born out of forced marriage, forced pregnancy, rape, and sexual slavery

124. In regard to the SGBC directly perpetrated by Mr Ongwen, the Chamber recalls its finding that over a long period of time, P-0101, P-0214, P-0226, and P-0227 were subjected to sexual violence by Mr Ongwen repeatedly and continuously, resulting in pregnancies.Footnote ⁵¹¹ The Chamber also recalls that 10 of the 13 children fathered by Mr Ongwen were born outside the period relevant to the charges, and that Mr Ongwen was found guilty of forced pregnancy in regard to three pregnancies: two pregnancies of P-0101 and one pregnancy of P-0214.Footnote ⁵¹² Regarding SGBC not directly perpetrated by Mr Ongwen, the Chamber recalls its finding that the so-called ‘wives’ in Sinia bore children.Footnote ⁵¹³

125. In line with previous jurisprudence,Footnote ⁵¹⁴ and as supported by several submissions,Footnote ⁵¹⁵ the Chamber considers that the children born out of the crimes of forced marriage, forced pregnancy, rape, and sexual slavery for which Mr Ongwen was convicted, both as a direct and as an indirect perpetrator, qualify as direct victims, as the harm they suffered was a direct result of the commission of these crimes. In the view of the Chamber, recognising these children as direct victims of the abovementioned crimes is an acknowledgement of the particular harm they suffered and may constitute an adequate measure of satisfaction, among other forms of reparations they may be awarded.

a) Parties' submissions and participants observations

172. In their submissions on this issue, the LRVs refer to the findings of the epigenetic theory of transgenerational harm. Specifically, the LRVs note that studies have shown that the scientific basis for transgenerational harm derives from the interaction between phenotypic, environmental, and genetic variations that create an epigenetic state which persists across generations.Footnote ⁶²¹ The LRVs refer to a number of academic and scientific articles that they posit lend support to the epigenetic theory,Footnote ⁶²² including a study suggesting that, although genetic traits have been the usual starting point to explain transgenerational harm, new research points to the transference of disorders from one generation to the next due to the manner in which the human body responds to environmental factors present not solely in the material world but in the psychosocial world as well.Footnote ⁶²³ The LRVs also refer to a study which notes that many exposures during development are mediated by maternal phenotype and reflect stresses to which mothers were originally exposed, and which also highlights that exposure to conflict may affect subsequent generations.Footnote ⁶²⁴

173. On this matter, the CLRV submits that there is a consensus among experts that children of victims of trauma display heightened levels of distress and psychopathology, even when they are not personally exposed to the traumatic stress.Footnote ⁶²⁵ The CLRV further notes that the social transmission theory and the epigenetic transmission theory are the two leading schools of thought regarding the scientific basis for transgenerational transmission of trauma,Footnote ⁶²⁶ and highlights that both schools do not question the fact that trauma is passed from one generation to the other, but simply do not agree on how the trauma is transferred.Footnote ⁶²⁷ Moreover, the CLRV recalls that four experts called to testify at trial confirmed the transmission of trauma from one generation to the next and provided evidence regarding the trauma suffered by victims of the LRA in Northern Uganda during the period of the charges, as well as the trauma's impact on their offspring and future generations.Footnote ⁶²⁸ Lastly, the CLRV posits that the existence of transgenerational harm has been acknowledged in the context of different cases before this CourtFootnote ⁶²⁹ and that, in light of the undisputed recognition of the transmission of trauma from trauma-exposed parents to their children, the Chamber should acknowledge the phenomenon's existence and devise relevant reparations accordingly.Footnote ⁶³⁰

174. Similarly to the CLRV, the TFV notes the existence of the two leading schools of thought as to the scientific basis of the transgenerational harm phenomenon: the epigenetic transmission theory and the social transmission theory.Footnote ⁶³¹ The TFV recalls that both theories advance a scientific explanation as to how a parent's exposure to trauma can be transmitted from a parent to a child who was not directly exposed to the parent's traumatic experience.Footnote ⁶³² The Chamber further notes the TFV's observations as to each of the theories.Footnote ⁶³³

175. In its initial submission, the Defence explicitly reserved its comments regarding the scientific basis for the concept of transgenerational harm for its responses.Footnote ⁶³⁴ Responding to the LRVs, the Defence argues that epigenetic effects from malnutrition do not arise out of a short period of hunger, for example, over a period of one or two days, but rather over an entire season, which the Defence notes extends beyond the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ⁶³⁵ Instead, the Defence submits that Uganda is to blame for creating the IDP camps, and that, as a result, any inheritable changes caused by environmental factors of the war cannot be attributed to Mr Ongwen, nor can any reparations relating thereto be properly assessed.Footnote ⁶³⁶ Further, the Defence challenges articles cited by the LRVs, arguing that they are not rooted in current generally accepted science and are not the work of research scientists and medical professionals, but are rather studies that merely contain opinions and perspectives.Footnote ⁶³⁷

176. As to the CLRV's submissions, the Defence replies that Mr Ongwen is not categorically responsible for the all trauma and harms suffered by victims of the LRA in Northern Uganda during the period of the charges, but only for the crimes for which he was convicted.Footnote ⁶³⁸ The Defence notes that it takes issue with the claim that a singular attack – as opposed to long term exposure to violence – can result in transgenerational harm.Footnote ⁶³⁹

177. In relation to the TFV's observations, the Defence argues that the TFV offers little insight into whether transgenerational harm is an established science, and merely states that multiple studies have demonstrated an increased risk for children to adopt traumatic stress disorders when their parents have also suffered from such disorders.Footnote ⁶⁴⁰ The Defence also notes that the TFV itself states there are credible researchers who disagree with the epigenetic theory, of which the Defence requests the Chamber take note and decide that the aforementioned theory is not a settled science.Footnote ⁶⁴¹ Lastly, in relation to the social transmission theory, the Defence states that the TFV merely refers to the existence of the theory, without explaining its scientific basis, and that the Chamber should disregard the TFV's submission regarding the same.Footnote ⁶⁴²

b) Chamber's determination

178. Regarding the scientific certainty as to the concept of transgenerational harm, the Chamber is satisfied that, as submitted by the LRVs,Footnote ⁶⁴³ the CLRV,Footnote ⁶⁴⁴ and the TFV,Footnote ⁶⁴⁵ within the current stage of advance in the academic and scientific research, experts from different disciplines agree on the existence of ‘a phenomenon, whereby social violence is passed on from ascendants to descendants with traumatic consequences for the latter’.Footnote ⁶⁴⁶

179. The Chamber's assessment of the Court's prior jurisprudence,Footnote ⁶⁴⁷ the additional scientific and academic literature referred to by the Defence,Footnote ⁶⁴⁸ the LRVs,Footnote ⁶⁴⁹ the CLRV,Footnote ⁶⁵⁰ and the TFV,Footnote ⁶⁵¹ expert evidence heard in the case,Footnote ⁶⁵² the views of experts in other cases before this Court and decisions issued by other international jurisdictions, as summarised in the Ntaganda case,Footnote ⁶⁵³ leads this Chamber to conclude, that experts from different disciplines agree on the existence of the phenomenon of transgenerational harm, in which traumatised parents set in motion an intergenerational cycle of dysfunction, handing-down trauma.Footnote ⁶⁵⁴

180. As noted in the Ntaganda case,Footnote ⁶⁵⁵ the diverse scientific explanations focus on how traumatised parents pass on trauma to their children who themselves did not directly experience the atrocities their parents endured, not on whether the phenomenon of transgenerational harm exists. As also noted in the Katanga case,Footnote ⁶⁵⁶ the ever-evolving scientific discussion on how harm is transmitted revolves around two main schools of thought: the epigenetic theory and the social transmission theory. The former focuses on the ‘parent-to-child transmission of epigenetic marks that retain a memory of traumatic events experienced by the parents’, while the latter focuses on ‘the impact of upbringing and emotional learning on the child's emotional development’.Footnote ⁶⁵⁷ As also noted in the Ntaganda case,Footnote ⁶⁵⁸ recent studies suggest that the process of social transmission and epigenetic modifications, in fact, mutually reinforce and feed into each other and that a holistic understanding of the intergenerational mechanisms and effects of trauma, including those emanating from war experience and famine, requires an interdisciplinary biopsychosocial approach.Footnote ⁶⁵⁹

181. In effect, these studies indicate that it is ‘extremely difficult to exclude explanation by social transmission’ although that ‘depends on the manner and level to which the parent was able to cope with the abnormal experience’.Footnote ⁶⁶⁰ Further, in addition to the genetic mechanisms of transmission, multiple studies posit that ‘in utero and early life exposure to environmental factors during critical periods of developmental plasticity, including parental stress and PTSD’ predispose offspring to later disease with physiological and psychological consequences.Footnote ⁶⁶¹ The Chamber notes that it has carefully considered the above theories, the literature and studies referred to by the parties and participants, the evidence presented in the case, and the current state of the scientific debate as to the manner in which transgenerational harm is transmitted.

182. As to the Defence's submissions, the Chamber notes that the existing body of academic, scientific, and theoretical research and studies, as outlined above, clearly establish the existence of the phenomenon of transgenerational transmission of trauma and its scientific foundation.Footnote ⁶⁶² Regarding the Defence's argument of the lack of proof of a ‘strong scientific basis for transgenerational harm’, particularly over prolonged periods of violence and trauma,Footnote ⁶⁶³ the Chamber notes that the Defence mischaracterises the threshold required to establish whether the concept of transgenerational harm has a sufficient scientific basis to be applied in the present proceeding. In the view of the Chamber, it is sufficient to demonstrate, as has been done in the present and previous cases before the Court, that despite different explanations as to the way in which the harm is transmitted, the phenomenon of transgenerational harm is rooted in sound science, reasoning, research, and qualitative study.

a) Parties' submissions and participants observations

183. Regarding the evidence required to establish transgenerational harm, the LRVs submit that it is not necessary for such evidence to stem from a conflict environment exposure alone, but also the physiological stress the survivors encountered.Footnote ⁶⁶⁴ The LRVs posit that the evidentiary requirements to prove this harm include a number of factors, such as environment exposures, physiological stresses, psychosocial spaces and the relationships which the primary victim experiences during a specific time in their lifetime.Footnote ⁶⁶⁵ As to the need for a psychological examination of children and their parents, the LRVs submit that the Chamber should adopt and rely on presumptions in addressing transgenerational harm.Footnote ⁶⁶⁶ The LRVs argue that the justification for introducing a presumption of psychological harm lies in the violent nature of LRA attacks on the IDP camps and the increased vulnerability of the victims during such attacks.Footnote ⁶⁶⁷ Additionally, with regard to the need, if any, to exercise caution in assessing applications based on transgenerational harm, the LRVs acknowledge that the ‘study and must be rooted in sufficient evidence of the causal nexus between the child's harm and the harm caused to the parent(s) stemming from the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

a) Parties’ submissions and participants observations

198. The Chamber notes the LRVs' submission that Mr Ongwen is liable to repair transgenerational harm owing to the fact that a victim ought to demonstrate generally that the harm suffered has a causal link to the harm suffered by the primary victim of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ⁷¹¹

199. The Chamber notes as well the CLRV's submission that it has been established at the required standard that Mr Ongwen is the proximate cause of the transgenerational harm suffered by the children of the direct victims, and as such, Mr Ongwen must be held liable for said harm.Footnote ⁷¹² The CLRV argues that the ‘but/for’ standard of causation does not require that the act posed by the convicted person be the sole cause of the harm but only that the convicted person could ‘reasonably foresee’ that his or her crime would cause the harm and that said crime is ‘closely connected’ and ‘significant enough’ to have caused the harm.Footnote ⁷¹³ The CLRV states that Mr Ongwen could indeed reasonably foresee that his acts would result in transgenerational harm, and argues that his crimes are closely connected and significant enough to have caused such harm.Footnote ⁷¹⁴

200. Moreover, the CLRV posits that considering the development of the conflict in Northern Uganda and its protracted nature, it is very unlikely that a trauma suffered by the direct victim arises out of events that preceded the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ⁷¹⁵ In addition, the CLRV states that any trauma that a victim might have suffered prior to the period of the charges is unlikely to be significant enough to outweigh the impact of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ⁷¹⁶ Lastly, the CLRV submits that given the ‘particularly cruelty of the acts committed by Mr Ongwen’, it can be ‘concluded that the convicted person could have reasonably expected, and he in fact intended, that his crimes would lead to trauma beyond the direct victims’.Footnote ⁷¹⁷

201. The Chamber also notes the TFV's observation that Mr Ongwen could have reasonably foreseen the impact this would have on the descendants of direct victims.Footnote ⁷¹⁸ In its observations, the TFV also states that the closer the applicant's date of birth was to the date of the commission of the crime(s), the more likely it is that the crime(s) had an impact on the applicant concerned.Footnote ⁷¹⁹

202. The Defence submits that Mr Ongwen is not liable to repair transgenerational harm due to the protracted armed conflict in Northern Uganda involving the LRA led by Joseph Kony, on the one side, and the UPDF, on the other side.Footnote ⁷²⁰ To further illustrate its point, the Defence refers to ‘ample evidence on record showing that there was crossfire between the UPDF and the LRA in the course of the attacks against the four IDP camps namely Pajule, Odek, Abok, and Lukodi’.Footnote ⁷²¹ The Defence therefore argues that any transgenerational harm that may have been suffered cannot be entirely attributed to Mr Ongwen.Footnote ⁷²²

203. The Defence also posits that, in the context of Mr Ongwen's conviction as an indirect co-perpetrator, he cannot be held fully accountable for any transgenerational harm that may have been suffered by the victims.Footnote ⁷²³ Additionally, the Defence submits that Mr Ongwen is not responsible for any transgenerational harm that the victims may have suffered prior to the date on which he became commander of the Sinia brigade, that he did not directly commit.Footnote ⁷²⁴

204. Lastly, the Defence argues that Mr Ongwen is not liable to repair any transgenerational harm that the victims may have suffered as result of establishment of the IDP camps and the suffering that they may have endured as a result of the atrocities experienced.Footnote ⁷²⁵

b) Chamber's determination

205. The Chamber has considered the Defence's argument regarding whether Mr Ongwen should be liable to repair transgenerational harm in the specific context of the crimes for which he was convicted and taking into account the impact of the protracted armed conflict in Northern Uganda. First, the Chamber notes that sufficient safeguards to the rights of the convicted person are incorporated throughout this Reparations Order, and are further bolstered by the Court's statutory framework governing reparations proceedings. The Chamber recalls, as described above, that any potential award based on transgenerational harm requires sufficient proof of the causal nexus between the child's harm and the harm caused to the parent(s) stemming from crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. As noted previously, the standard of causation recognised in this case is the ‘but/for’ standard and it is further required that the crimes for which the person was convicted had to be the ‘proximate cause’ of the harm for which reparations are sought.Footnote ⁷²⁶ Accordingly, the issue of the impact of the protracted armed conflict in Northern Uganda and the causal nexus between the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted and the harm alleged by victims is a matter of evidence that must be addressed and decided on a case-by-case basis during the eligibility assessments. As the Chamber highlighted above, caution should therefore be exercised when assessing whether victims who claim transgenerational harm are indeed eligible to benefit from reparations.

a) Direct victims of the attacks

(ii) Moral harm

231. The Chamber notes that the LRVs, the CLRV, and a number of the participants describe the moral harm suffered by direct victims of the attacks. In particular, they identify mental and psychological illnesses,Footnote ⁸⁶¹ trauma,Footnote ⁸⁶² emotional harm,Footnote ⁸⁶³ stress,Footnote ⁸⁶⁴ flashbacks,Footnote ⁸⁶⁵ and development of psychological disorders such as suicidal tendencies, depression, and dissociative behaviour.Footnote ⁸⁶⁶ Parties and participants indicate that moral harm was suffered by direct victims of the attacks, inter alia, as a result of experiencing the attack on a camp,Footnote ⁸⁶⁷ being abducted by the LRA,Footnote ⁸⁶⁸ being taken away from family,Footnote ⁸⁶⁹ facing stigma and rejection upon return,Footnote ⁸⁷⁰ and witnessing gruesome crimes.Footnote ⁸⁷¹

232. As noted by the parties and participants, the Chamber's assessment of the evidence indeed supports the findings that, in the context of the attacks on all four of the IDP camps, direct victims suffered moral harm. Civilians were crying,Footnote ⁸⁷² screaming,Footnote ⁸⁷³ wailing,Footnote ⁸⁷⁴ scared,Footnote ⁸⁷⁵ and distressedFootnote ⁸⁷⁶ during the attacks on the camps and during their aftermath. Civilians were extremely disturbed as they escaped death,Footnote ⁸⁷⁷ with many victims being particularly defenceless.Footnote ⁸⁷⁸ The Chamber recalls the testimony of P-0061, a civilian resident of the Pajule IDP camp, who testified that he witnessed civilians falling down and crying as LRA rebels shot randomly at unarmed civilians during the attack.Footnote ⁸⁷⁹ In the context of the attack on the Odek IDP camp, P-0218, a local teacher living in the Odek IDP camp, testified that civilians ‘started to panic’ when they heard rapid gun fire coming from the direction of the barracks, with some running away while others ran to hide inside their homes.Footnote ⁸⁸⁰ Similarly, during the attack at the Abok IDP camp, P-0293, a camp leader, explained that, after returning to the camp, ‘people were very scared’.Footnote ⁸⁸¹ P-0293 also stated that family members sent children away to live with relatives, as the children ‘couldn't continue staying’ because they were ‘very, really very, very scared’.Footnote ⁸⁸² Finally, P-0024, a Lukodi IDP camp resident, described her experience while hiding in the bush during the attack, stating that ‘all we could hear were bullets. And you could hear them cutting people into pieces. They were laughing while they were cutting people into pieces. […] That is what happened. We were helpless and were hoping we could be saved’.Footnote ⁸⁸³

233. Consistent with the evidence heard at trial, many victims within the Sample stated that people were crying,Footnote ⁸⁸⁴ screaming, and in a state of emotional distress during the attacks on the IDP camps.Footnote ⁸⁸⁵

234. The Chamber also recalls that in the context of all four IDP camps, civilians were abducted and forced to carry loads in difficult conditions and often for long distances.Footnote ⁸⁸⁶ The Chamber notes that in the Conviction Judgment, the Chamber found that the LRA fighters, by committing these acts, inter alia, engaged in psychological abuse of the abductees.Footnote ⁸⁸⁷

235. In effect, victims abducted from the IDP camps were tortured, having their personal human dignity, security, and mental well-being assaulted,Footnote ⁸⁸⁸ and endured severe mental pain and suffering.Footnote ⁸⁸⁹ Abductees were placed under armed guard to prevent their escape, and held in an environment of fear under constant threat of being beaten or killed.Footnote ⁸⁹⁰ These findings are consistent with the testimonies provided during trial which showed that abductees were exposed to an environment of violence and experienced feelings of distress, panic, and fear during their time in captivity.Footnote ⁸⁹¹ On this point, the Chamber also notes Dr Atim's conclusions indicating that victims who had been abducted during one of the attacks had increased impairment and worse psychosocial well-being.Footnote ⁸⁹²

236. The Chamber additionally recalls the findings in the Conviction Judgment and Sentence about one abductee who was forced to kill another abductee with a club and forced to inspect corpses, and another abductee who was forced to watch someone being killed.Footnote ⁸⁹³ Particularly in the Odek camp, this was found to be a severe violation of the dignity of the victims.Footnote ⁸⁹⁴ In the Conviction Judgment, the Chamber considered the testimony provided by P-0275, an abductee from the Odek camp who witnessed an LRA soldier hit a woman with a hoe and beat her to death.Footnote ⁸⁹⁵ The woman died in front of her, after which P-0275 was forced to carry her corpse.Footnote ⁸⁹⁶ As found in the Sentence, the Chamber outlined the long-lasting psychological suffering caused by these acts, which include recurring painful memories.Footnote ⁸⁹⁷

237. The Chamber also recalls that during the attacks and while abducted, many women suffered the loss of family members, including their children, or had family members who were deliberately injured.Footnote ⁸⁹⁸ The Chamber notes that women who carried their babies were forced to abandon them during the retreat or abduction under threat of beatings or death.Footnote ⁸⁹⁹ The Chamber further notes that the Conviction Judgment found this to be a violation of the victim's dignity.Footnote ⁹⁰⁰ The evidence heard at trial described instances of abducted mothers being forced to abandon their children in the bush so that they could carry their loads.Footnote ⁹⁰¹ For instance, P-0024, a former Lukodi camp resident, testified that she pled with the LRA fighters not to throw her baby away,Footnote ⁹⁰² but was forced to do so.Footnote ⁹⁰³ After she was rescued by government soldiers she was reunited with her baby and she recalled that ‘[she] thought he was no more’ and had felt ‘helpless’ about seeing him again.Footnote ⁹⁰⁴

238. The Chamber has also considered the long-term consequences alleged by victims of the attacks in relation to moral harm. During the trial proceedings, victims testified that they continue to suffer psychological harm,Footnote ⁹⁰⁵ traumaFootnote ⁹⁰⁶ and experience nightmares.Footnote ⁹⁰⁷

239. The Chamber has also considered the findings made by Dr Atim.Footnote ⁹⁰⁸ Dr Atim reported that the data collected from her survey of participating victims demonstrated that there was a ‘significant relationship’ between being a victim of one of the attacks on the IDP camps and experiencing impaired psychosocial functioning.Footnote ⁹⁰⁹ Furthermore, Dr Atim explained that experiencing war crimes and crimes against humanity had a more negative impact on women.Footnote ⁹¹⁰ In addition to the gender aspects, the results of the survey showed that the experience of losing a child was also correlated with increased psychosocial impairment.Footnote ⁹¹¹

240. The Chamber also notes that some of the witnesses and victims referred to ‘spiritual disturbances’ or claimed to have experienced the phenomena referred to throughout the proceedings as ‘cen’.Footnote ⁹¹² In relation to this, the Chamber considered the evidence that ‘cen’ represents the vengeful spirits of those who have died a violent death, and are commonly used to interpret what western medicine would call ‘mental illnesses’.Footnote ⁹¹³ Dr Atim's report noted that 67% of her survey participants stated that they had been ‘harmed by spirits of the dead in relation to the LRA attacks’Footnote ⁹¹⁴ and a number of the victim participants in her survey gave detailed explanations of the long term impacts they believe the spirits continue to have on them.Footnote ⁹¹⁵

241. The Chamber also notes that many of the accounts within the Sample outlined the long- lasting consequences that the attacks had on them. Victims reported that they have become very fearful following the attack,Footnote ⁹¹⁶ feel traumatised because of what they witnessed during the attacks,Footnote ⁹¹⁷ are haunted by the memories of seeing dead bodies around the camps,Footnote ⁹¹⁸ have nightmares of what they experienced,Footnote ⁹¹⁹ and live with the constant fear that an attack might happen again.Footnote ⁹²⁰ A number of victims reported feeling scared every time they hear a loud sound,Footnote ⁹²¹ that they suffer mentally,Footnote ⁹²² and cannot eat meat anymore.Footnote ⁹²³ One victim stated that he had contemplated suicide.Footnote ⁹²⁴

242. Considering the findings beyond reasonable doubt reached by the Chamber in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence heard during trial proceedings, and the information obtained from its assessment of the Sample, as summarised above, the Chamber is satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that direct victims of the attacks suffered moral harm as a result of the crimes committed in the context to the attacks against the Pajule, Odek, Lukodi, and Abok IDP camps, for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. The moral harm suffered by these victims includes: severe mental pain and suffering; trauma; feelings of fear, panic, helplessness, and distress; psychological abuse; psychological trauma; emotional harm; stress; recurring painful memories; nightmares; severe violation of dignity; suffering from being forced to leave their children behind; spiritual disturbances; and impaired psychosocial well-being and functioning. The Chamber acknowledges that the moral harm suffered by the direct victims of the attacks had long-lasting consequences.

(iii) Material harm

243. The Chamber notes that the LRVs, the CLRV, and a number of the participants describe the material harm suffered by direct victims of the attacks. In particular, they identify loss of housing and property,Footnote ⁹²⁵ personal items goods,Footnote ⁹²⁶ food supplies,Footnote ⁹²⁷ livestock,Footnote ⁹²⁸ loss of capital and means of production,Footnote ⁹²⁹ loss of earning capacity and income generating opportunities,Footnote ⁹³⁰ loss of opportunities for development,Footnote ⁹³¹ including loss of and disruption to schooling,Footnote ⁹³² damage caused to businesses,Footnote ⁹³³ loss of support provided by murdered and abducted family members who sometimes were the main providers for the family,Footnote ⁹³⁴ additional financial burden of providing for dependants of murdered relatives,Footnote ⁹³⁵ as well as money spent on medical treatment.Footnote ⁹³⁶

244. As a result of the crime of pillaging, which was committed within the context of the four attacks,Footnote ⁹³⁷ the Chamber found beyond reasonable doubt that LRA fighters broke into homes and shops at the trading centre and looted food and property, including beans, flour, salt, sugar, cooking oil, maize, sweets, biscuits, groundnuts, soda, bedding, clothing, a radio set, saucepans, medicine, livestock, and money.Footnote ⁹³⁸ In the context of the Pajule IDP camp, the looting was ‘widespread’,Footnote ⁹³⁹ and the goods and items that were looted represented ‘the basic means of survival for the population’ living in the Pajule IDP camp.Footnote ⁹⁴⁰ In the Odek IDP camp, the Chamber recalls that, in addition to the food and household items that were stolen during the attack, LRA attackers also took the recently distributed food aid.Footnote ⁹⁴¹ In the context of the Lukodi and Abok IDP camps, the Chamber recalls that it was found in the Sentence that the impact that pillaging had on the residents was ‘considerable’.Footnote ⁹⁴²

245. The Chamber further recalls that, in the Sentence, the Chamber found that the victims suffered severe economic consequences as a result of the widespread looting and pillaging across the four IDP camps.Footnote ⁹⁴³ Witnesses testified to the long-lasting economic impact that the attacks had on their lives, and on their communities. For example, V-0004, a civilian resident of the Lukodi IDP camp, stated that ‘[p]eople are desperate, desperately in a poor, living in a poor condition. People are not able to farm and get enough money to pay for the school fees’.Footnote ⁹⁴⁴ He also emphasised the importance of livestock for people, ranging from paying bride wealth, ploughing, food, school fees and health treatment.Footnote ⁹⁴⁵ Similarly, at the Abok IDP camp, the looting of the medicine and food would mean ‘starvation’, in the words of Abok IDP camp leader witness P-0293.Footnote ⁹⁴⁶ Witness P-0306, a resident abducted from the Abok IDP camp, testified that people in his community relied on farming for their income, and whilst people were trying to restock their livestock, ‘it's taking time’.Footnote ⁹⁴⁷

246. The Chamber has also considered the findings of Dr Atim, who noted in her report that the ‘vast majority’ of victims participating in her survey indicated that their property had been stolen by LRA rebels during the attack on their camp (89%).Footnote ⁹⁴⁸

247. The Chamber also notes that, within the Sample, a number of victims reported that they were very poor,Footnote ⁹⁴⁹ that they live in poverty,Footnote ⁹⁵⁰ and some stated that they suffered hunger as a result of the looting.Footnote ⁹⁵¹ It was also common for victims to report that the looting of their livestock caused them to become very poor.Footnote ⁹⁵² A number of them stated that, as a result of their household goods and livestock being looted and or destroyed, they were forced to drop out of school as they no longer had the financial means to continue their studies.Footnote ⁹⁵³

248. Regarding the crime of destruction of property,Footnote ⁹⁵⁴ the Chamber found beyond reasonable doubt that, in the context of the Lukodi and Abok IDP camps, LRA fighters set civilian huts on fire,Footnote ⁹⁵⁵ destroying household goodsFootnote ⁹⁵⁶ and food stocks,Footnote ⁹⁵⁷ and causing livestock to be burnt.Footnote ⁹⁵⁸ Indeed, hundreds of civilian huts were burnt, including household goods, clothes, food stocks, and livestock.Footnote ⁹⁵⁹ The Chamber also recalls that evidence heard at trial suggested that a limited number of houses were burnt down in the PajuleFootnote ⁹⁶⁰ and Odek IDP camps.Footnote ⁹⁶¹

249. The Chamber recalls the evidence of P-0060, a Lukodi resident, who testified that upon returning to his house, he found out that everything had been burnt and decided to leave the camp immediately with no possessions other than a blanket saved by his wife.Footnote ⁹⁶² P-0060 also testified that, after the attack, most of the residents had to leave Lukodi and move to another IDP camp.Footnote ⁹⁶³ Similarly, witness P-0024, a former Lukodi resident, testified that ‘everything got wasted. […] I had lost it all’.Footnote ⁹⁶⁴ At the Lukodi IDP Camp, the Chamber found that approximately 210 huts were burnt.Footnote ⁹⁶⁵

250. Regarding the destruction in the Abok IDP camp, the Conviction Judgment found that the damage to homes was enormous.Footnote ⁹⁶⁶ Witness P-0293, who was a camp leader in Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack,Footnote ⁹⁶⁷ testified that the rebels would remove the grass from one of the huts, put it on the fire and then torch other houses until the fire spread in the camp.Footnote ⁹⁶⁸

251. The Chamber also considered Dr Atim's Expert Report, which demonstrated that victims of the case indicated that the destruction of property in the IDP camps was ‘extensive’, with 89% of the surveyed participant victims reporting destruction.Footnote ⁹⁶⁹ Within the Sample, victims also reported that they were now poor as their homes had been burnt down,Footnote ⁹⁷⁰ which for some resulted in lack of shelterFootnote ⁹⁷¹ and hunger.Footnote ⁹⁷² Other victims in the Sample reported not being able to generate an income following the destruction of their propertyFootnote ⁹⁷³ and no longer being able to support family members.Footnote ⁹⁷⁴ Some also reported having to drop out of school as they no longer had the financial means to continue their studies as a result of their property being destroyed.Footnote ⁹⁷⁵

252. The Chamber also notes that the physical injuries sustained during the attacks continue to have a significant material impact on the victims today.Footnote ⁹⁷⁶ On this point, the Chamber recalls that during the trial proceedings, it heard evidence indicating that victims had become poor and could not return to the work they used to do in the past.Footnote ⁹⁷⁷ In her report, Dr Atim described that the majority of the victims of the attacks who suffered physical harm reported a disability, which, in turn, affected their livelihoods, access to human and material resources,Footnote ⁹⁷⁸ ability to work,Footnote ⁹⁷⁹ and education.Footnote ⁹⁸⁰ According to Dr Atim, victims with lower psychosocial well-being were also found to have lower household wealth, lower earnings, and lower income potential.Footnote ⁹⁸¹ This is consistent with the Chamber's findings in the Sample, where a number of victims stated they could no longer work in the same capacity due to the injuries they had sustained during the attacks.Footnote ⁹⁸²

253. In addition, the Chamber notes the evidence provided by the Expert Witness Professor Wessells who provided specific evidence regarding abducted children.Footnote ⁹⁸³ Professor Wessells explained that ‘physical injuries left some abducted children with long term physical disabilities that impaired their ability to work and contribute to their families’.Footnote ⁹⁸⁴ In his report, Professor Wessells further stated that ‘the higher rates of mental health problems such as PTSD and depression among formerly abducted children likely interfere with the children's ability to work and earn money following their escape or release from the LRA’.Footnote ⁹⁸⁵

254. Furthermore, the Chamber notes that the victims of the attacks also suffered from the loss of their life plan. In effect, the expectations of personal, professional, and familial future development were affected by the loss of their property and economic opportunities,Footnote ⁹⁸⁶ the long-time some victims spent in captivity,Footnote ⁹⁸⁷ the long-lasting physical injuries they suffered,Footnote ⁹⁸⁸ and the loss or disruption of schooling of children.Footnote ⁹⁸⁹ For instance, witness V-0002, who was a former resident of Abok,Footnote ⁹⁹⁰ described the effects of his abduction:

255. The Chamber notes that as a consequence of being victims of the crimes committed in the contexts of the attacks, many of the victims within the Sample also described the impairment to their self-realisation.Footnote ⁹⁹²

256. Considering the findings beyond reasonable doubt reached by the Chamber in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence heard during trial proceedings, and the information the Chamber obtained from its assessment of the Sample, as summarised above, the Chamber is satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that direct victims of the attacks suffered material harm as a result of the crimes committed in the context of the attacks against the Pajule, Odek, Lukodi, and Abok IDP camps, for which Mr Ongwen has been convicted. The material harm suffered by these victims include: loss of housing and property; loss of personal items, clothes, goods and food supplies; loss of livestock; lack of shelter; loss of property used for paying bride wealth, ploughing, food, school fees and health treatment; loss of earning capacity and income generating opportunities; long-lasting economic impact; and loss life plan and opportunities for development, including loss of and disruption to schooling. The Chamber acknowledges that the material harm suffered by these victims had long-lasting consequences.

(i) Physical harm

257. The CLRV submits that indirect victims of the attacks suffered the same types of harm as direct victims.Footnote ⁹⁹³ Regarding physical harm, the CLRV notes that this includes injuries,Footnote ⁹⁹⁴ chronical and long-lasting health ailments,Footnote ⁹⁹⁵ impairments and handicaps.Footnote ⁹⁹⁶ The TFV observes that relatives and dependents left behind by victims of murder are deprived of a family member, and thereby experience physical manifestations of harm.Footnote ⁹⁹⁷

258. Having assessed the findings in the Conviction Judgment and the Sentence, the evidence provided during trial proceedings, the results from the Sample, and the submissions and observations from the parties and the participants, the Chamber considers that there is insufficient evidence or information to conclude that physical harm was indeed suffered by the indirect victims of the attacks as a result of the commission of the crimes against the direct victims. Accordingly, the Chamber considers that it is has not been established, on a balance of probabilities, that indirect victims of the attacks suffered from physical harm as a result of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

(ii) Moral harm

259. The CLRV and a number of participants describe the moral harm suffered by the indirect victims of the attacks. In particular, they identify psychological or emotional harm and traumas;Footnote ⁹⁹⁸ loss of family members and separation from families as a result of abductions and murders;Footnote ⁹⁹⁹ and deprivation of love, care and support.Footnote ¹⁰⁰⁰

260. The Chamber recalls that indirect victims include the family members of direct victims.Footnote ¹⁰⁰¹ During the attacks in the four camps, many civilians were killed, severely mistreated or injured,Footnote ¹⁰⁰² which caused a severe psychological impact on the families of the victims. For instance, during the attack in Odek, a women was raped while her husband was forced to watch.Footnote ¹⁰⁰³ She described the impact it had on her marriage recalling that ‘we could never live as husband and wife again but he did not leave me’.Footnote ¹⁰⁰⁴ P-0281, who was a resident in Abok, recalled that during the attack he and his mother hid in a bathroom that was made of grass.Footnote ¹⁰⁰⁵ The place was rapidly caught by the fire spread by the LRA and he got seriously burned.Footnote ¹⁰⁰⁶ He recalled that his mother ‘was very upset’ and ‘was scared that [he] would die’ because of his wounds.Footnote ¹⁰⁰⁷

261. The Chamber further notes that during the trial proceedings, witnesses also elaborated on the harm they suffered as a result of seeing the dead bodies of their family members lying in the camp after the attack.Footnote ¹⁰⁰⁸ The Chamber underlines the emotional impact this had for children who saw the dead bodies of their family members.Footnote ¹⁰⁰⁹ For instance, witness P-0270, a civilian resident of the Odek IDP camp, testified that she saw the dead bodies of her two children in the aftermath of the attack.Footnote ¹⁰¹⁰ In her statement, P-0270 recalled that the morning after the attack people went back and collected the bodies of their relatives and then she saw the bodies of her sons.Footnote ¹⁰¹¹ She recounted:

262. The Chamber also notes its finding in the Sentence that family members of victims of the crime of enslavement suffered psychological harm,Footnote ¹⁰¹³ which in some cases had long-lasting consequences.Footnote ¹⁰¹⁴ In effect, during the trial proceeding, numerous witness underlined the moral harm experienced due to the loss of a family member or their abduction by the LRA.Footnote ¹⁰¹⁵ As noted in the Sentence, P-0081, a civilian resident of Pajule, testified that during his captivity with the LRA, his family suffered greatly as a result of believing that he had been killed.Footnote ¹⁰¹⁶ Similarly, P-0196, a Lukodi resident, stated that he was abducted along with his brother and sister and that his brother never returned from captivity.Footnote ¹⁰¹⁷ He further expressed about the abduction of his siblings that ‘remembering this period is still very painful for me’.Footnote ¹⁰¹⁸

263. On this point, the Chamber has also considered the conclusions made by the Expert Witness Professor Wessells. In his report, Professor Wessells addressed the effects that the abduction of children had on their parents,Footnote ¹⁰¹⁹ which includes immediate psychological effects such as intense shock, fear, and panic.Footnote ¹⁰²⁰ According to Professor Wessells, families whose children were abducted were left in a situation of ambiguous loss since they had little way of knowing whether their children were still alive.Footnote ¹⁰²¹ Parents and family members worry constantly and experience profound agony, with little hope that they could do anything to find or help their abducted children.Footnote ¹⁰²² In his testimony, Professor Wessells stressed the ongoing effects that the abduction had on the victims' families and the emotional stress it caused them,Footnote ¹⁰²³ he noted:

264. Similarly, Expert Witness Professor Musisi also referred to the suffering experienced by the families whose members never came back from captivity.Footnote ¹⁰²⁵ According to Professor Musisi, ‘family members will keep on thinking about them, dreaming about them, feeling guilty about things they did not do’, which is also linked to cen.Footnote ¹⁰²⁶ The Chamber further notes Dr Atim's report, in which she indicated that the crimes not only impacted the direct victims but also their household as a whole.Footnote ¹⁰²⁷ To substantiate her conclusions, Dr Atim referred to the account of one participant victim in her survey, recounting that one victim's husband was abducted and forced to kill other people.Footnote ¹⁰²⁸ The victim stated that because of this experience, the spirits now haunt her husband and he has become more aggressive and is unable to properly work, which has affected their relationship.Footnote ¹⁰²⁹ The victim also reported that she feels saddened by her husband's condition, and that it is difficult for her to be with him.Footnote ¹⁰³⁰

265. The Chamber also recalls that indirect victims may include persons who witnessed the commission of crimes, insofar as their personal harm is demonstrated pursuant to the required standard of proof.Footnote ¹⁰³¹ The Chamber notes that the evidence in the case file shows that, during the attacks, many civilians witnessed the killing of members of their community.Footnote ¹⁰³² In the Sentence, the Chamber underlined the magnitude of the attacks by recalling the testimonies of victims who saw people being shot dead during the attacks.Footnote ¹⁰³³ P-0061, a civilian resident of Pajule, stated that he saw people in the camp being shot at by the rebels, including four people who had been shot at their doors.Footnote ¹⁰³⁴ The Chamber underlines that child victims at the time of the crimes expressed in their testimonies that they suffered extreme emotional distress from witnessing people being killed.Footnote ¹⁰³⁵

266. The Chamber further recalls that in the Conviction Judgment, the Chamber found that civilians abducted from the Odek IDP camp were forced to watch others being killed, which constituted one of the underlying acts of the crime of outrages upon personal dignity.Footnote ¹⁰³⁶ The Chamber notes that victims abducted from other camps also experienced a similar harm as indirect victims of crimes they witnessed in captivity.Footnote ¹⁰³⁷ For instance, P-0006, an abducted woman from Pajule, referred during her statement about watching an abducted man being killed whose body she later had to carry and move.Footnote ¹⁰³⁸ As to the impact it had on her, she stated that ‘based on the things that I saw in the bush, I personally feel that at times I'm tired. I feel tired. I'm confused. […] I mostly stay by myself. I isolate myself’.Footnote ¹⁰³⁹

267. Residents of the camps also suffered from the impact of seeing the dead bodies of their community members in the aftermaths of the attacks. P-0306, an Abok camp leader, recalled during his testimony that the day after the attack he saw the dead bodies of people that had been shot dead and burnt.Footnote ¹⁰⁴⁰ He further stated that remembering the people who lost their life ‘pains [him]’.Footnote ¹⁰⁴¹ Similarly, P-0067, a resident of Pajule, stated that he saw the dead body of a woman who had a deep cut in her neck and that her children were crying around her body.Footnote ¹⁰⁴² Moreover, in the context of the Odek camp, as noted in the Sentence, bodies of the dead were scattered everywhere across the camp.Footnote ¹⁰⁴³

268. As to the information extracted from the Sample, the Chamber first notes that only 1.06% of victims of the attacks alleged to be indirect victims-only, most of them were both direct and indirect victims of the crimes committed within the context of the attacks on the IDP camps.Footnote ¹⁰⁴⁴ Within the Sample, eligible victims suffered moral harm as indirect victims including: trauma after seeing many people being killed or seeing dead bodies during the attack;Footnote ¹⁰⁴⁵ suffering from witnessing the commission of crimes while abducted;Footnote ¹⁰⁴⁶ pain of seeing a family member being killed;Footnote ¹⁰⁴⁷ pain of missing a family member who was either killed or abducted;Footnote ¹⁰⁴⁸ deploring the trauma caused to an abducted family member;Footnote ¹⁰⁴⁹ have a family member who is ‘mentally unstable’;Footnote ¹⁰⁵⁰ frustration for not having been able to defend a family member from becoming a victim of a crime;Footnote ¹⁰⁵¹ and the suffering from the lack of information about the whereabouts of an abducted family member.Footnote ¹⁰⁵²

269. Considering the findings beyond reasonable doubt reached by the Chamber in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence heard during the trial proceedings, and the information obtained from its assessment of the Sample, all as above summarised, the Chamber is satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that indirect victims of the attacks suffered moral harm as a result of the crimes committed in the context to the four attacks against the Pajule, Odek, Lukodi, and Abok IDP camps, for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ¹⁰⁵³ The moral harm suffered by the indirect victims includes: experiencing feelings of fear and distress; experiencing nightmares; psychological or emotional harm and traumas; pain associated with the loss of a family member; spiritual disturbances; deprivation of love, care and support from a deceased family member; trauma after seeing people being killed or seeing dead bodies during the attack; suffering from witnessing the commission of crimes while abducted; pain for seeing a family member being killed or raped; pain of missing a family member who was either killed or abducted; shock, fear, and panic for the abducted children well-being; deploring the trauma caused to an abducted family member; frustration for not having been able to defend a relative; and suffering from the lack of information about the whereabouts of an abducted family member. The Chamber acknowledges that the moral harm suffered by the indirect victims of the attacks had long-lasting consequences.

(iii) Material harm

270. The CLRV and a number of participants describe the material harm suffered by the indirect victims of the attacks on the four IDP camps. In particular, they identify the loss of help and support previously provided by family members who were killed or abducted;Footnote ¹⁰⁵⁴ the interruption or loss of schooling for children;Footnote ¹⁰⁵⁵ the eviction and economic hardship for widows;Footnote ¹⁰⁵⁶ and the economic burden of providing for dependents of a murdered relative.Footnote ¹⁰⁵⁷

271. The Chamber recalls that, when assessing the aggravating circumstances for the crime of destruction of property in its Sentence, it considered the de facto economic, social, cultural or environmental function of the property destroyed.Footnote ¹⁰⁵⁸ In doing so, the Chamber recalled the testimony of P-0060, one of the Lukodi camp leaders, which illustrated the impact that the destruction of property had for him and his family.Footnote ¹⁰⁵⁹ As noted above, in his statement, P-0060 stated that upon his return to his house after the attack, he found that everything he had was burnt, so he decided to immediately leave the camp with his family.Footnote ¹⁰⁶⁰ The Chamber recalls that P-0060 testified that his family walked to another camp with no possessions other than a blanket saved by his wife.Footnote ¹⁰⁶¹

272. The Chamber underlines that, as noted by the Appeals Chamber in the Lubanga case, the harm suffered by indirect victims may include material deprivation that accompanies the loss of the direct victim's contributions.Footnote ¹⁰⁶² In the present case, testimonies heard throughout the trial proceedings referred to the economic hardship suffered by those who lost family members by way of murders or abductions.Footnote ¹⁰⁶³ For instance, witness P-0218, who was a victim of the attack in the Odek IDP camp, testified that he had to take care of his brother's children following his death.Footnote ¹⁰⁶⁴

273. The Chamber further notes that the evidence heard throughout the trial demonstrates that indirect victims of the attacks suffered material harm including the loss or disruption of schooling as a result of losing family members who supported them economically, either by murder or abductions. Witness P-0306, a camp leader from Abok,Footnote ¹⁰⁶⁵ testified that after the attack there were many widows and orphans left without means of livelihood.Footnote ¹⁰⁶⁶ He added that ‘many of the people who died left children who were now orphans and they are not going to school’.Footnote ¹⁰⁶⁷ Similarly, within the Sample, many victims indicated that indirect victims had to leave school after the abduction or killing of a close family member who paid for their school fees.Footnote ¹⁰⁶⁸ The Chamber further notes that in her report, Expert Witness Dr Atim referred to the ways in which indirect victims of the attacks suffered material harm indicating, for example, that a victim's disability negatively impacts their dependents as it affects their livelihoods and their access to material resources.Footnote ¹⁰⁶⁹

274. Similarly, within the Sample, a number of indirect victims indicated that they suffered material harm as a result of: the loss of economic support provided by a direct victim, including paying for school fees,Footnote ¹⁰⁷⁰ and the material burden of having to take care of family members who lost their primary caregiver during the attack.Footnote ¹⁰⁷¹

275. Considering the findings beyond reasonable doubt reached by the Chamber in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence heard during trial proceedings, and the information the Chamber obtained from its assessment of the Sample, all as above summarised, the Chamber considers that it has been established, on a balance of probabilities, that indirect victims of the attacks suffered material harm as a result of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. The material harm suffered by these victims includes: economic hardship, including loss of schooling; loss of the economic support previously provided by a killed or abducted direct victim; and the economic burden associated with providing for dependents of murdered and abducted relatives. The Chamber acknowledges that the material harm suffered by the indirect victims of the attacks had long-lasting consequences.

(i) Physical harm

315. A number of participants describe the harsh conditions that children born out of SGBC endured during their time in captivity. They indicate that these children were born in ‘extremely unsafe conditions’ without access to food, clothes, or medication.Footnote ¹²⁸⁶ They further state that children were born and raised in the ‘wilderness under very hostile situations’Footnote ¹²⁸⁷ and that they endured hardship and lacked access to ‘basic needs’ including ‘nutritious food, sleeping facilities, sanitation and clothing’.Footnote ¹²⁸⁸

316. The Chamber recalls its findings in the Conviction Judgment, that in addition to the sexual and physical violence, the living conditions of the abducted women and girls resulted in severe physical and mental pain.Footnote ¹²⁸⁹ As noted in the Sentence, these children were ‘kept with their mothers in the same coercive environment’, and thus, they were subject to the same harsh living conditions.Footnote ¹²⁹⁰ The Chamber recalls that during her testimony, P-0101, one of Mr Ongwen's so-called ‘wives’,Footnote ¹²⁹¹ recalled that once when the government soldiers attacked the group she was part of ‘the child [she] was carrying flew out of [her] hands’.Footnote ¹²⁹² She further stated that on that same occasion another of her children was hit by a splinter.Footnote ¹²⁹³ Similarly, P- 0099, who also was one of Mr Ongwen's so-called ‘wives’,Footnote ¹²⁹⁴ explained that she decided to escape because of the severe conditions for a child in the bush and the deteriorating health of her baby.Footnote ¹²⁹⁵ P-0099 testified that she decided to escape as she was unable to produce breast milk for her child and she ‘would have lost [her] child’ if she decided to stay.Footnote ¹²⁹⁶

317. The Chamber also notes that one of victims in the Sample also referred to the difficulties she had providing food for the children she had while in captivity.Footnote ¹²⁹⁷

318. Considering the findings beyond reasonable doubt reached by the Chamber in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence heard during trial proceedings, and the information the Chamber obtained from its assessment of the Sample, all as summarised above, the Chamber is satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that children born out of rape suffered physical harm from the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted, as they were born and grew up within a violent environment enduring harsh living conditions, lacking access to adequate facilities, sanitation, and nutritious food. The Chamber further acknowledges that the physical harm suffered by children born out of SGBC had long-lasting consequences.

(ii) Moral harm

319. The LRVs, the CLRV, and a number of participants describe the moral harm suffered by children born out of SGBC. Some of the moral harm they identify include: psychological harm,Footnote ¹²⁹⁸ mental health vulnerabilities,Footnote ¹²⁹⁹ complex emotional and psychological effects,Footnote ¹³⁰⁰ loss of identity,Footnote ¹³⁰¹ significant stigmatisation and rejection from families and communities,Footnote ¹³⁰² and unstable relationships with family members.Footnote ¹³⁰³

320. Parties and participants indicate that moral harm was suffered by children born out of SGBC, inter alia, as they are prevented from attending school,Footnote ¹³⁰⁴ unable to develop relationships,Footnote ¹³⁰⁵ denied access to lands,Footnote ¹³⁰⁶ and thus deprived the opportunity to raise themselves out of poverty,Footnote ¹³⁰⁷ not recognised by family members of their mothers,Footnote ¹³⁰⁸ not entitled to their mothers’ family property,Footnote ¹³⁰⁹ unable to gain identity documentsFootnote ¹³¹⁰ and thus unable to be legally recognised as citizens,Footnote ¹³¹¹ unable to access basic social services,Footnote ¹³¹² have nowhere to live,Footnote ¹³¹³ are raised by grandmothers,Footnote ¹³¹⁴ live in damaged and disjointed families,Footnote ¹³¹⁵ sometimes return as orphans unable to ‘trac[e] their roots’,Footnote ¹³¹⁶ and are often viewed as ‘proxy members of the LRA’ and ‘symbols of misfortune’.Footnote ¹³¹⁷

321. The Chamber recalls that, as noted in the Sentence, these children were ‘kept with their mothers in the same coercive environment’.Footnote ¹³¹⁸ On this point, the Chamber notes that throughout the trial, a number of the Expert Witnesses gave evidence in relation to the psychological harm, mental pain, anguish, and emotional distress suffered by children born out of SGBC. In his report, Expert Witness Professor Reicherter indicated that a ‘growing body of inquiry, investigation, and literature’ suggests that these children have impaired psychosocial development and functioning.Footnote ¹³¹⁹ Professor Reicherter also noted that many of the women who were forcibly impregnated by their LRA so-called ‘husbands’ reported that their children display symptoms of ‘stress, perturbed development, or behavioural problems’.Footnote ¹³²⁰ Similarly, Expert Witness Professor Musisi stated that many of these children suffered from PTSD or developed trauma disorder.Footnote ¹³²¹ Professor Musisi explained that many of the children born from unwanted pregnancies, remained in the bush after their parents died or ran away, and many children became orphans as a result of their parents dying from HIV/AIDs.Footnote ¹³²²

322. Throughout the trial proceedings, the Chamber also heard evidence on how children born out of SGBC experienced rejection and stigmatisation from their families upon return to their mothers' community. On this particular point, the Chamber notes the testimony of P- 0006, who was a so-called ‘wife’ of a Sinia Brigade's soldier,Footnote ¹³²³ and testified about her experience of having a male child who was born in the bush.Footnote ¹³²⁴ She stated that ‘in [her] culture, a child that is born out of wedlock is known as the mother's child. You as the mother have to take care of your child, the child is you responsibility’.Footnote ¹³²⁵ She also testified about the difficulties she has experienced in her new relationship, stating that her new partner complains about the male child she had whilst in the bush, and that as a result, her son stays with her parents.Footnote ¹³²⁶ A similar experience was accounted by P-0187, who explained that she had to take care of her daughter's baby, because her husband rejected the baby her daughter conceived while in captivity.Footnote ¹³²⁷

323. The Chamber further notes the consistent evidence provided by Expert Witness Professor Musisi, who also testified that many of these children were rejected by their families.Footnote ¹³²⁸ This was further explained by Expert Witness Professor Reicherter who in his report, explained that these children are rejected by their communities as they ‘serve as a symbol and reminder of atrocities committed by the LRA, and are therefore subjects of blame, scorn and rejection’.Footnote ¹³²⁹ Professor Reicherter further explained that these victims are ‘automatically labelled as a criminal, rebel or murderer’,Footnote ¹³³⁰ and stated that in combination with other factors, the stigmatisation suffered by these victims can ‘create [a] very bad prognosis for the child's wellbeing and also the child's mental wellbeing’.Footnote ¹³³¹ Professor Reicherter also explained that often children born out of rape are not accepted by their mothers' kin as they are perceived as a burden,Footnote ¹³³² and that it was very common for children born within the LRA to live with the mother's family.Footnote ¹³³³ In a similar sense, Expert Witness Professor Wessells testified that these children ‘bear the double burden of being born out of wedlock and being a so-called rebel child’,Footnote ¹³³⁴ and that it was common for the child to be rejected by their mothers' new partner.Footnote ¹³³⁵

324. The Chamber also notes the account of one of the SGBC victims in the Sample who described the child she had in captivity as a ‘burden’.Footnote ¹³³⁶ Another victim in the Sample indicated that while her son, who was born to a rebel, is attending school, he is stigmatised by others and suffers a lot as a result.Footnote ¹³³⁷

325. The Chamber further notes that the stigmatisation faced by children born out of SGBC has caused the loss of their identity. On this point, the Chamber recalls the testimony provided by witness D-0049, who was one of Joseph Kony's so-called ‘wives’,Footnote ¹³³⁸ and explained that children born in captivity experience stigma and struggle with their identity.Footnote ¹³³⁹ She explained that:

326. Considering the findings beyond reasonable doubt reached by the Chamber in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence heard during trial proceedings, and the information contained in the Sample, all as summarised above, the Chamber is satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that children born out of SGBC suffered moral harm from the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. The moral harm suffered by these victims includes: psychological harm; impaired psychosocial development and functioning; emotional distress; perturbed development and behavioural problems; significant stigmatisation and rejection from families and communities; and loss of identity. The Chamber further acknowledges that the moral harm suffered by children born out of SGBC had long- lasting consequences.

(iii) Material harm

327. The LRVs, the CLRV, and a number of participants describe the material harm suffered by children born out of SGBC. Some of the material harm they identify include: reduced access to school;Footnote ¹³⁴¹ denied access to land;Footnote ¹³⁴² loss of childhood;Footnote ¹³⁴³ no land to settle onFootnote ¹³⁴⁴ or cultivate;Footnote ¹³⁴⁵ loss of ability to make an income;Footnote ¹³⁴⁶ inability to pay for courses to improve skills;Footnote ¹³⁴⁷ loss of opportunities for advancement;Footnote ¹³⁴⁸ and risk of losing their inheritances.Footnote ¹³⁴⁹

328. The Chamber notes that the evidence heard during trial proceedings demonstrates that children born out of SGBC had reduced access to education and impaired personal and professional opportunities.Footnote ¹³⁵⁰ The Chamber recalls the evidence given during trial by P-0045, a former female LRA soldier who provided testimony as an insider witness,Footnote ¹³⁵¹ and testified about the living conditions for children in the bush. She stated that for the children ‘there was no form of education because [they] did not have schools there’.Footnote ¹³⁵² She further explained that when children grow up in the bush, they simply become LRA fighters.Footnote ¹³⁵³

329. The Chamber also takes note that in his report, Expert Witness Professor Reicherter noted that the inequities experienced by children born out of SGBC in terms of access to health, education and employment has been well documented.Footnote ¹³⁵⁴ Whilst giving evidence during the trial proceedings, Professor Reicherter further indicated that children born out of rape will have difficulties in completing their education as a result of the stigmatization they suffer.Footnote ¹³⁵⁵

330. The Chamber also notes that, consistent with the evidence heard at trial, a SGBC victim in the Sample noted that her son, a child who was born to a rebel, does not attend school due to fear.Footnote ¹³⁵⁶

331. The Chamber further considers the loss of opportunities for economic advancement associated with denied access to land that children born out of SGBC experience. On this point, the Chamber notes the evidence provided during the trial proceedings by Expert Witness Professor Musisi, who explained that these children have less opportunities when compared to children born in the community because they have no ‘lineage in the patriarchal […] Acholi society’.Footnote ¹³⁵⁷ Professor Musisi explained that in Acholiland, after a bride price has been paid and a mother and father has a child, the child ‘belongs to that father and has a lineage in which they are going to derive a name, a homestead and later land’.Footnote ¹³⁵⁸ However, these children ‘belong[…] to the mother’Footnote ¹³⁵⁹ which creates issues for young males as they have not been ‘assigned a piece of land because the[ir] father [is] not there’.Footnote ¹³⁶⁰

332. Considering the findings beyond reasonable doubt reached by the Chamber in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence heard during trial proceedings, and the information the Chamber obtained from its assessment of the Sample, all as summarised above, the Chamber is satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that children born out of SGBC suffered material harm from the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. The material harm suffered by these victims includes: reduced access to school, health, education and employment; impaired personal and professional opportunities; and loss of access to land. The Chamber further acknowledges that the material harm suffered by children born out of SGBC had long-lasting consequences.

(i) Moral harm

333. The CLRV and a number of participants describe the moral harm suffered by the indirect victims of SGBC. In particular, they identify as moral harms, psychological suffering and trauma;Footnote ¹³⁶¹ psychosocial harm from the loss of a family member;Footnote ¹³⁶² psychosocial harm from changes in family structure;Footnote ¹³⁶³ separation from children and relatives without any information regarding their well-being;Footnote ¹³⁶⁴ and emotional burden of looking after victims following their captivity.Footnote ¹³⁶⁵

334. The Chamber recalls that indirect victims include the family members of direct victims,Footnote ¹³⁶⁶ which encompasses the families of all SGBC victims, including children born out of SGBC who are direct SGBC victims.

335. The Chamber notes that in the Sentence, the Chamber gave special consideration to the psychological harm caused to the family members of victims of enslavement abducted from the four IDP camps.Footnote ¹³⁶⁷ When assessing the gravity of SGBC, this consideration was extended to the family members of enslaved women and girls.Footnote ¹³⁶⁸ The Chamber further notes that during the trial proceedings it heard abundant evidence on the psychological pain and frustration families felt when women and girls members of their family were abducted.Footnote ¹³⁶⁹ For instance, P-0226, who was abducted when she was seven years old,Footnote ¹³⁷⁰ testified that when she was taken by the LRA her mother was crying and ‘[she] witnessed [her] mother's fear’.Footnote ¹³⁷¹ The Chamber also notes the suffering that parents and family members experienced while their family members were in captivity, as they were constantly worrying about their children's integrity and well-being.Footnote ¹³⁷² P-0366 recalled during her testimony that ‘[her] mother was extremely worried about [her]. She was constantly concerned about [her] life. She did not know whether [she] was alive or dead’.Footnote ¹³⁷³

336. On this point, the Chamber has also considered Expert Witness Professor Reicherter's report in which he indicated that indirect victims of SGBC may also experience post-traumatic stress disorder (‘PTSD’) symptoms as a result of being exposed through their loved ones.Footnote ¹³⁷⁴ Professor Reicherter also noted that the impact of SGBC on families or communities may appear in the form of an organisational or societal sense of hopelessness or lack of future vision, similar to individual symptoms of depression.Footnote ¹³⁷⁵

337. The Chamber also notes the moral harm and emotional distress families suffered when their children returned home. For example, during her testimony, P-0366 gave evidence about the suffering experienced by her family when trying to support her from being stigmatised by her community.Footnote ¹³⁷⁶ She testified that ‘[w]hen my family hear people talking about that, then of course it would stress them out. They would ask themselves, why are people talking like that?’.Footnote ¹³⁷⁷ On this point, the Chamber also notes the testimony of witness V-0003, a teacher at Lukodi, who explained about the frustration experienced by many parents of returned girls who contracted diseases, such as HIV, as they were not able to get married afterwards.Footnote ¹³⁷⁸ V-0003 explained that this was ‘heart breaking’ both for the children and their family.Footnote ¹³⁷⁹ He also recounted that ‘very few girls compared to boys were able to complete their education’.Footnote ¹³⁸⁰ Similarly, Expert Witness Professor Musisi noted during his testimony that many families of returned victims had difficulties with trusting their abducted children who were involved in the commission of crimes.Footnote ¹³⁸¹

338. The Chamber also acknowledges the moral harm caused to family structures as a result of the commission of SGBC. On this point, the Chamber recalls the findings made by Expert Witness Professor Reicherter, who reported that SGBC results in psychiatric symptoms which impact the quality and nature of family relationships as well as the general family stability and security.Footnote ¹³⁸² In this regard, the Chamber further notes the evidence heard during trial proceedings in relation to the impact that children born out of rape had in the victim's family structure. For instance, P-0187 testified that her daughter was abducted and became pregnant during her time in captivity.Footnote ¹³⁸³ Upon P-0187 daughter's return, the daughter decided to get married.Footnote ¹³⁸⁴ P-0187 testified that when her daughter's husband found out she was pregnant he refused to stay with her.Footnote ¹³⁸⁵ Then, after her daughter gave birth, P-0187 testified that she had to take care of her daughter's baby.Footnote ¹³⁸⁶ The Chamber notes that the testimonies presented during the trial are consistent with the Expert Witness Professor Tim Allen's testimony.Footnote ¹³⁸⁷ According to Professor Allen, upon their return and upon establishing new partner relationships, women and girls who were abducted and spent time in captivity were forced by their new partners to abandon their children.Footnote ¹³⁸⁸ Professor Allen indicated that this has caused a new phenomenon of orphan children or children living with older women and ‘a huge problem with large numbers of young people who are not living in stable family situations’.Footnote ¹³⁸⁹

339. In addition, the Chamber notes that the accounts in the Sample demonstrate that indirect SGBC victims suffered from moral harm including: sadness for the crimes suffered by their relatives;Footnote ¹³⁹⁰ taking care of children the victims had while abducted;Footnote ¹³⁹¹ and stigmatisation because of being a relative of a child fathered by an LRA soldier.Footnote ¹³⁹²

340. Considering the findings beyond reasonable doubt reached by the Chamber in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence heard during trial proceedings, and the information the Chamber obtained from its assessment of the Sample, all as summarised above, the Chamber is satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that indirect SGBC victims suffered moral harm as a result of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. The moral harm suffered by these victims includes: psychological harm; psychological pain and frustration; shock; fear; panic; suffering from the separation of families; constant worry and profound agony from the lack of any information of the victims' well- being; post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms; social sense of hopelessness or lack of future vision; emotional burden of taking care of victims after their return; constant nightmares; psychosocial disturbance caused to family structures; emotional burden of taking care of victims' children in captivity; sadness for the crimes suffered by their relatives; and stigmatization because of being a relative of a child fathered by an LRA soldier. The Chamber further acknowledges that the moral harm suffered by the indirect SGBC victims had long- lasting consequences.

(ii) Material harm

341. The CLRV and a number of participants describe the material harm suffered by the indirect SGBC victims. In particular, they identify loss of help and support from abducted persons;Footnote ¹³⁹³ loss of opportunities that stem from victims being unable to undertake income generating activities;Footnote ¹³⁹⁴ and loss of incomeFootnote ¹³⁹⁵ and expenses associated with looking after grandchildren when mothers do not have the capacity to do so.Footnote ¹³⁹⁶

342. The Chamber recalls its findings above mentioned in relation to the moral harm suffered by family members who had to support their relatives who returned from the bush, since they experienced material harm associated with the loss of opportunities including, future employment prospects, loss of life plan and loss of opportunity to develop practical skills.Footnote ¹³⁹⁷ On this point, the Chamber also notes that indirect victims of SGBC in the Sample, indicate they suffered from the loss of economic support from the returnees, as they are not able to carry work to support economically in the family.Footnote ¹³⁹⁸

343. The Chamber notes that the change in family structure referred to above,Footnote ¹³⁹⁹ resulted in family members having to provide the economic support to relatives who were SGBC victims, as well as their children. On this regard, the Chamber recalls the testimony provided by P-0187, who had to take care of her daughter's baby who was fathered by an LRA soldier.Footnote ¹⁴⁰⁰ In a similar sense, witness V-0003 testified about the frustration many parents felt when their abducted daughter returned with contracted diseases, including HIV, and as a result were not able to get married afterwards.Footnote ¹⁴⁰¹

344. The Chamber further recalls the findings of the Expert Witness Professor Wessells in his report, in which he explained how the abduction of children disrupted the social roles, which impacted the division of household tasks, such as caring for younger children, and earning money to help support the family.Footnote ¹⁴⁰² As noted above in relation to moral harm of these victims, Expert Witness Professor Allen noted the issue of SGBC victims having to leave children with their relatives,Footnote ¹⁴⁰³ causing the phenomenon of orphan children or children living with older women.Footnote ¹⁴⁰⁴

345. In this respect, the Chamber has also assessed the accounts of victims in the Sample, who referred to the economic burden associated with providing care to SGBC victim's children.Footnote ¹⁴⁰⁵

346. Considering the findings beyond reasonable doubt reached by the Chamber in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence heard during trial proceedings, and the information the Chamber obtained from its assessment of the Sample, all as summarised above, the Chamber is satisfied that it has been established on a balance of probabilities that indirect SGBC victims suffered material harm as a result of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. The material harm suffered by these victims includes: economic loss associated with providing for victims and their children born in captivity upon their return; loss of income from SGBC victims that are not contributing to their families; difficulties to find marriage for the victims; and disruption of social roles and household tasks. The Chamber further acknowledges that the material harm suffered by the indirect SGBC victims had long-lasting consequences.

iii. Harm suffered by victims of crimes against child soldiers

b) Indirect victims of crimes against former child soldiers

a) Introduction

432. The Chamber underlines that it has analysed the victims' dossiers included in the Sample by conducting its own assessment of the facts, as alleged by each of the potential beneficiaries, while taking into account the parties' submissions and the additional information they provided. In carrying out this assessment and establishing the parameters for future eligibility determinations to be conducted at the implementation stage, the Chamber also took into account the Court's previous jurisprudence on the matter. In what follows, the Chamber elaborates on the relevant evidentiary criteria, conditions of eligibility, and the results of its assessment of the Sample.

b) Evidentiary criteria and standard of proof applied to the Sample

433. The Chamber recalls that, as found above, victims eligible for reparations must provide sufficient proof of: (i) identity; (ii) their victimhood; (iii) the harm suffered; and (iv) the causal link between the crime and the harm.Footnote ¹⁷¹³ In addition, the Chamber recalls that reparations proceedings require a less exacting standard of proof than trial proceedings and, in line with previous jurisprudence, the Chamber has adopted the ‘balance of probabilities’ test as the appropriate standard of proof in reparations proceedings.Footnote ¹⁷¹⁴

434. In relation to the causal link, the Chamber recalls that it adopted the ‘but/for’ standard of causation as to the relationship between the crimes and the harm.Footnote ¹⁷¹⁵ Moreover, the Chamber indicated that it is required that the crimes for which a person was convicted were the ‘proximate cause’ of the harm for which reparations are sought.Footnote ¹⁷¹⁶ The Chamber underlines that the ‘proximate cause’ is one that is legally sufficient to result in liability, assessing, inter alia, whether it was reasonably foreseeable that the acts and conduct underlying the conviction would cause the resulting harm.Footnote ¹⁷¹⁷

c) Conditions of eligibility

435. In order to be found eligible to benefit from reparations, victims need to comply with the following requirements:

1. i. First requirement: their identity;

2. ii. Second requirement:

   1. 1. for direct victims: whether the person has established, on a balance of probabilities, to be a direct victim of at least one of the crimes committed in the context of the attacks against the Pajule, Lukodi, Odek, or Abok IDP camps, and for which Mr Ongwen was convicted; and or of at least one of the thematic crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

   2. 2. for indirect victims:

      1. a. whether the person has established, on a balance of probabilities, the victim status of the direct victim; and

      2. b. whether the person has established, on a balance of probabilities, that they fall within at least one of the four categories of indirect victims recognised by the Chamber.

3. iii. Third requirement: whether the person has established, on a balance of probabilities, the existence of the alleged harm; and

4. iv. Fourth requirement: whether the victim has established, on a balance of probabilities, the causal link between the alleged harm and the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

a) Supporting documentation

(ii) Chamber's determination

439. The Chamber recalls that what is necessary to satisfy the evidentiary standard of ‘a balance of probabilities’ and what is reasonable to expect from victims in support of their claims, necessarily depends on the specific circumstances of the case.Footnote ¹⁷³³

440. The Chamber notes that, during the present reparations proceeding, it has been made aware of the challenges the victims may face in producing documentary evidence to support their claims. In this regard, the Chamber particularly notes that Uganda informed that, as a consequence of the displacement that resulted from the insurgency, it has been difficult to issue birth, marriage, and death certificates.Footnote ¹⁷³⁴ Moreover, Uganda indicated that, until August 2014, it did not issue national identification cards and only men who were taxable would have tax identification cards as of 2001.Footnote ¹⁷³⁵ In addition, Uganda informed that most deaths in Uganda are not registered, except for the few that occur in hospitals.Footnote ¹⁷³⁶

441. The Chamber notes as well the observations of the Prosecutor stating that due to the attacks committed by Mr Ongwen, ‘victims lost important documents such as diplomas, identifications and other documents that might have assisted them in establishing their claims to reparations.’Footnote ¹⁷³⁷

442. Having carefully assessed the submissions and observations detailed above, the Chamber concludes that, in light of the time elapsed since the commission of the crimes, the displacement of the victims, and the lack of official records, it is extremely difficult for the victims to obtain additional documentary evidence in support of their claims. The Chamber further underlines that the Defence has not contested the victims' representatives allegations as to the lack of supporting documentation.Footnote ¹⁷³⁸

443. The Chamber is therefore satisfied that the victims, through their representatives, have sufficiently explained and justified their inability to produce additional supporting documents.Footnote ¹⁷³⁹ Bearing this in mind, the Chamber details below the specific requirements as to the supporting documentation the victims need to provide in order to prove, at the required standard, each of the four conditions of eligibility.

b) Compliance with the ‘balance of probabilities’ standard by the victims included in the Sample

444. The Chamber details below its reasoning as to the required information and documentation necessary for victims to fulfil each of the four conditions of eligibility at the required standard of ‘balance of probabilities’.

445. In order to reach its conclusions, the Chamber assessed the information included in the victims' dossiers and the available supporting documents by verifying the intrinsic coherence and credibility of each account. In addition, the Chamber addressed the submissions of the parties with regard to each potential beneficiary. Moreover, the Chamber assessed the extrinsic coherence, consistency, and credibility of the victims' accounts by contrasting them with the Chamber's previous findings in the Conviction Judgment and the Sentence, and with the accounts of other victims' dossiers included in the Sample.

446. In its assessment of the Sample, the Chamber first ruled upon the parties' submissions as to the eligibility of victims to benefit from reparations in the present case. Considering that the victims' representatives did not submit specific arguments as to the eligibility of 85 potential beneficiaries and the Defence only made submission regarding 27 victims, the Chamber refrained from making negative findings related to facts not alleged by the parties and only made positive findings when it was satisfied that there was sufficient information in the dossiers to reach a conclusion.

447. With the goal of assisting the eligibility process at the implementation stage, the subsections below also refer to issues noted by the Chamber when assessing the Sample, even if not raised by the parties.

(i) Issues related to the first requirement: identity

448. The Chamber notes that the victims' representatives submitted that, given the difficulties in obtaining official documentation in Uganda discussed above, the Chamber should deem it appropriate to accept official or unofficial identification documents or any other means of establishing the victims' identities, as well as other elements of their claims.Footnote ¹⁷⁴⁰ Consequently, the victims' representatives argue that the identities of all the victims included in the Sample are sufficiently established.Footnote ¹⁷⁴¹

449. The Chamber also notes the Defence submission inviting the Chamber to ‘set parameters regarding the identification documents to be furnished for those eligible, including, for example, national identity cards, passports and or recommendations from area Local Councils’.Footnote ¹⁷⁴²

450. The Defence argues that victims who have reached the age of 18 years old should only use official identification documents, as opposed to being allowed to use unofficial documents.Footnote ¹⁷⁴³ The Chamber considers that the Defence's submission is not sufficiently substantiated, and as such, it does not find merit in such proposal. The Chamber sees no reason to make an arbitrary distinction as to the documents the victims should use to prove their identity based solely on their age.

451. The Defence further submits that the use of unofficial documents would invite issues of impersonation for those otherwise ineligible.Footnote ¹⁷⁴⁴ In this regard, the Defence argues that victims should have secured official identification documents by now considering how much time has passed since Mr Ongwen surrendered himself to the Court.Footnote ¹⁷⁴⁵ As a result, the Defence requests that the Chamber depart from the approach taken in the Ntaganda case, arguing that securing official identification is nowhere near as hard in Uganda as it is in the DRC.Footnote ¹⁷⁴⁶

452. The Chamber also notes the Defence's submission inviting the Chamber to ‘set parameters regarding the identification documents to be furnished for those eligible, including, for example, national identity cards, passports and or recommendations from area Local Councils’.Footnote ¹⁷⁴⁷

453. However, the Chamber has considered Uganda's submissions regarding the difficulties of issuing birth certificates.Footnote ¹⁷⁴⁸ Specifically, Uganda did not issue national identification cards until August 2014 and only men who were taxable would have tax identification cards as of 2001.Footnote ¹⁷⁴⁹ Similarly, the Chamber has considered the Registry's information that children of war face difficulties in obtaining Ugandan birth certificates and national identity documents.Footnote ¹⁷⁵⁰ Consequently, having assessed the parties' and participants' observations, the Chamber sees no reason to depart from the approach followed by Trial Chamber II in the Ntaganda case.Footnote ¹⁷⁵¹

454. Accordingly, victims may use official or unofficial identification documents, or any other means of establishing their identity. In the absence of acceptable documentation, a statement signed by two credible witnesses establishing the identity of the victim and describing the relationship between the victim and any individual acting on their behalf shall be acceptable.Footnote ¹⁷⁵²

455. Upon consideration of the official and unofficial documents provided to prove the victims' identities included in the dossiers, the Chamber is satisfied that all but two of the 205 victims in the Sample provided sufficient proof of identity.Footnote ¹⁷⁵³ In addition, the Chamber notes that the quality of the document submitted by one of the victims is such that it did not allow the Chamber to precisely establish the victim's identity. The documentation submitted by the victims to establish their identities consisted of copies of Ugandan national identity cards, official documents signed and stamped by local authorities, certificates of amnesty, and voter location slips. The Chamber therefore concludes that 202 of the 205 victims in the Sample successfully established their identity. Annex 1 details the victims who are yet to establish their identity,Footnote ¹⁷⁵⁴ which they can still do at the implementation stage by submitting legible identity documents.

(ii) Issues related to the second requirement: direct or indirect victim status

456. As noted above, the Chamber considers that one of the preconditions for victims to be eligible for reparations is to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that they are a direct or indirect victim of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. In what follows, the Chamber details the manner in which it has conducted this assessment for: (i) victims of crimes committed in the context of the attacks against the IDP camps; (ii) SGBC victims; (iii) victims of crimes against child soldiers; and (iv) indirect victims.

a. Victims of the attacks against the IDP camps

457. As noted above, regarding the second requirement, victims of the attacks will need to demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, that they are a direct victim of at least one of the crimes committed in the context of the attacks against the Pajule, Odek, Lukodi, or Abok IDP camps for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ¹⁷⁵⁵ In addition, the Chamber recalls its finding above as to the fact that the victims have sufficiently explained and justified their inability to produce additional supporting documents.Footnote ¹⁷⁵⁶ Accordingly, the Chamber has verified: (i) whether the victim's account corresponds to the Chamber's findings as to the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted, meaning that the facts described by the victim are consistent with those previously assessed by the Chamber when it made its factual findings beyond reasonable doubt in the Conviction Judgment or in the Sentence; and (ii) the intrinsic coherence and credibility of the victim's account, and whether it is also consistent with that of other victims. The Chamber will now turn to these two criteria.

458. As to the first criterion, the Chamber considers that its assessment should be qualitative rather than quantitative. In this regard, victims do not need to provide information on a predetermined set of specific criteria, but rather multiple factors may be taken into account.Footnote ¹⁷⁵⁷ In its assessment, the Chamber analysed the information provided in each victim's dossier to verify whether the date of the event, the specific IDP camp, the description of events as pertaining to the various types of crimes, and the alleged perpetrators correspond to the Chamber's findings in its Conviction Judgment and Sentence regarding the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was found guilty.

459. To this end, the Chamber recalls that, in light of his conviction, Mr Ongwen cannot be held liable for crimes committed by other armed groups, but only by the LRA.Footnote ¹⁷⁵⁸ In this regard, the Chamber considers that where a direct victim names the LRA rebels as being responsible for their suffering within the context of the attacks against the four IDP camps, this might, depending on the circumstances, be sufficient to establish that the victim suffered crimes at the hands of the LRA.Footnote ¹⁷⁵⁹

460. As to the facts pertaining to the various types of crimes, the Chamber recalls that in its Conviction Judgment, it set out in detail, based on its factual findings, the underlying acts for each of the counts for which Mr Ongwen was convicted in relation to the attacks against the four IDP camps. As such, in assessing the victims' dossiers, the Chamber has taken into consideration the potential beneficiaries' accounts as a whole, paying attention to facts alleged by the potential beneficiaries, including the dates, location, description of events, and verifying whether they correspond to the crimes included in the Conviction Judgment. If the Chamber made either no findings or negative findings in relation to the facts alleged by a potential beneficiary, the Chamber did not consider the person to be a victim of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. To the contrary, if the Chamber made a positive finding in relation to the facts alleged by a potential beneficiary, the Chamber has proceeded to assess the information in the victim's dossier. In particular, the Chamber assessed the intrinsic coherence and credibility of the potential beneficiary's account and whether it is consistent with the account's other potential beneficiaries in order to determine whether the person has established, on a balance of probabilities, to be a victim of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

461. Where the Chamber made a specific finding as to the victimhood of a potential beneficiary in the Conviction Judgment, the Chamber relied on that finding for the purposes of reparations, considering that the person's victimhood has already been established beyond reasonable doubt – a higher standard of proof than the one required at this stage of the proceedings.Footnote ¹⁷⁶⁰ In this regard, if a potential beneficiary has established his or her identity, and such identity corresponds to that of a positive finding explicitly mentioning this individual in the Conviction Judgment, the Chamber considered that the individual has also complied with the second requirement (victimhood).

462. As to the coherence, credibility, and consistency of the victims' accounts the Chamber recalls its findings above as to the applicable standard. Furthermore, the Chamber reiterates that, in accordance with the Court's previous jurisprudence,Footnote ¹⁷⁶¹ slight discrepancies in the victims' dossiers, do not, on its face, cast doubt on the victims' credibility. When assessing the credibility of victims' accounts, the Chamber has paid attention to their intrinsic coherence, and whether they are also consistent with other victims' accounts in relation to the facts alleged. Thereafter, having regard to the victims' account and in light of its own findings in the Conviction Judgment and the Sentence, the Chamber has concluded whether the applicant has established, on a balance of probabilities, to be a direct victim of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

b. SGBC victims

463. The Chamber recalls that the SGBC victims are divided in two groups: victims of crimes directly perpetrated by Mr Ongwen (Counts 50 to 60), and victims of crimes not directly perpetrated by Mr Ongwen (Counts 61 to 68). Regarding the first group, the Chamber recalls that it has already identified all of the victims in the Conviction Judgment, and thus their victimhood has already been established beyond reasonable doubt.Footnote ¹⁷⁶² Therefore, as long as these victims establish their identity, the Chamber considers that they have proven to be victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

464. As to SGBC victims of crimes not directly perpetrated by Mr Ongwen, the Chamber notes that these individuals must comply with the same two criteria mentioned above in relation to victims of the attacks, namely: (i) consistency between the victim's account and the Chamber's factual findings as to the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted; and (ii) the intrinsic and extrinsic coherence and credibility of the victim's account.

465. In relation to the first criterion, the Defence recalled that the Confirmation Decision limited the SGBC for which Mr Ongwen could be convicted by including the common plan of enslaving women for the purpose of becoming wives and or household slaves.Footnote ¹⁷⁶³ Consequently, the Defence argues that persons who experienced random acts of sexual violence, especially acts not committed under Mr Ongwen's command, do not qualify as victims of crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted under Counts 50 to 68.Footnote ¹⁷⁶⁴ Similarly, the Defence challenges the eligibility of one potential beneficiary in the Sample as a SGBC victim based on the fact that he is male.Footnote ¹⁷⁶⁵

466. The Chamber recalls that for a potential beneficiary to be found eligible for reparations, it is necessary that the person has suffered from a crime that fall within the scope of the conviction. The Chamber further recalls that the SGBC charges as presented by the Prosecutor and confirmed by Pre-Trial Chamber II, concerned only women and girls that were abducted and ‘distributed’ to members of the Sinia brigade.Footnote ¹⁷⁶⁶ Consequently, pursuant to article 74(2) of the Statute the Chamber could only enter a conviction within the terms of the facts and circumstances described in the charges. As a result, the scope of the conviction for SGBC is strictly limited to women and girls that were abducted and ‘distributed’ to members of the Sinia brigade.Footnote ¹⁷⁶⁷ Therefore, where the person is male or there is no indication in the dossier that the person was abducted and ‘distributed’, the Chamber cannot find him or her eligible for reparations.

467. The Chamber notes that, unfortunately, twelve women and girls included in the Sample who alleged to have suffered from SGBC do not appear to have been abducted and ‘distributed’, and thus fall outside of the scope of the conviction. The Chamber acknowledges that women and girls appear to have indeed suffered from acts of sexual violence committed by members of the Sinia brigade, within the context of the attacks against the IDP camps, but without having been abducted and ‘distributed’. In this regard, the Chamber regrets that, as a result of the way in which the Prosecutor framed the charges, no findings could be made in relation to these allegations. As such, the Chamber is unable to find these women and girls eligible for reparations.

468. As to the second criterion, the Chamber notes the victims' representatives submission that in relation to these victims a consistent, credible, and reliable account may have sufficient probative value for purposes of satisfying the burden of proof.Footnote ¹⁷⁶⁸ The Chamber further notes that the Prosecutor advanced a similar view in its observations.Footnote ¹⁷⁶⁹

469. In accordance with jurisprudence upheld by the Appeals Chamber,Footnote ¹⁷⁷⁰ the Chamber considers it necessary to follow a gender-inclusive approach when applying the ‘balance of probabilities’ standard to SGBC. In this regard, the Chamber recalls rule 63(4) of the RulesFootnote ¹⁷⁷¹ and acknowledges the additional difficulties these victims may face in obtaining or producing evidence to demonstrate their victimhood. Accordingly, the Chamber considers that the victim's coherent and credible account shall be accepted as sufficient evidence to establish their eligibility on a balance of probabilities.Footnote ¹⁷⁷²

470. In the Defence's Submissions on the Sample, it is argued that SGBC victims must list something that can identify Mr Ongwen as the alleged leader of the group in order to be considered eligible.Footnote ¹⁷⁷³ The Chamber recalls that, in light of his conviction, Mr Ongwen can only be held liable for the SGBC perpetrated by members of the Sinia brigade of the LRA.Footnote ¹⁷⁷⁴ In that respect, the Chamber considers that, where a victim's coherent and credible account indicates that she was ‘distributed’ to a male member to the Sinia brigade, such a reference, depending on the circumstances, may suffice to establish that Mr Ongwen was the leader of the group. Such reference could consist in the victim mentioning that she was abducted in the context of the attacks against any one of the four IDP camps; that she mentions the name of a Sinia brigade commander; that she mentions to have been ‘distributed’ to a Sinia brigade member by Mr Ongwen; or that she mentions Mr Ongwen as responsible for the SGBC she suffered from; among other circumstances that could link her victimhood to crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

471. Lastly, the Chamber recalls that children who were born as a result of the crimes or children born out of the crimes of forced marriage, forced pregnancy, rape, and sexual slavery for which Mr Ongwen was convicted are eligible for reparations as direct victims.Footnote ¹⁷⁷⁵ To that end, in accordance with the gender-inclusive and sensitive approach followed by the Chamber, it considers that, as held with regard to other SGBC victims, their coherent and credible account shall be accepted as sufficient evidence to establish their eligibility on a balance of probabilities.

c. Victims of crimes against child soldiers

472. The Chamber notes that for a direct victim's child soldier status to be established on a balance of probabilities the victim must demonstrate (i) to have been under the age of 15 years at the time of the commission of the crime; and (ii) to have been conscripted into the LRA ranks and or used to participate actively in hostilities, between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005.Footnote ¹⁷⁷⁶ The Chamber will now turn to these two criteria.

473. In the Victims' Joint Submission on the Sample, the victims' representatives submit that all former child soldiers included in the Sample have sufficiently demonstrated that they were under the age of 15 at the time of the commission of the crimes.Footnote ¹⁷⁷⁷ The Chamber notes that for a direct victim to have been under the age of 15 years during the time frame of the charges, he or she must have been born after 1 July 1987. The Chamber further recalls the Appeals Chamber's finding in the Lubanga case that it is not required that the exact age of the victim be established, but only that the victim was under the age of 15 years.Footnote ¹⁷⁷⁸

474. Having reviewed the four alleged child soldiers' dossiers, with a view to verifying whether they fulfil this criterion, as further elaborated in Annex I, the Chamber concludes that two of the four child soldiers in the Sample have demonstrated to have been under the age of 15 at some point during the relevant time frame, i.e. between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005.

475. Regarding the second criterion, the Chambers notes the victims' representatives submission that all former child soldiers in the Sample have sufficiently demonstrated that they were recruited and or used to participate in hostilities.Footnote ¹⁷⁷⁹ The Chamber also notes that the victims' representatives recalled that multiple factors can be taken into account in order to meet the relevant standard of proof for these crimes.Footnote ¹⁷⁸⁰

476. In the Defence's Submissions on the Sample, it is argued that the Chamber limited Counts 69 and 70 to persons in the Sinia Brigade under Mr Ongwen's command. Therefore, the Defence submits that persons who were not under Mr Ongwen's command, do not qualify as victims of crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ¹⁷⁸¹ In this regard, the Chamber recalls that, in light of his conviction, Mr Ongwen cannot be held liable for the recruitment and conscription of child soldiers into other armed groups, but only those into LRA's Sinia brigade.Footnote ¹⁷⁸² Accordingly, the Chamber considers that, where a victim names at least one commander or one of the training camps mentioned in the Conviction Judgment or Sentence as those related to the Sinia Brigade, such a reference, depending on the circumstances, may suffice to establish that the victim indeed belonged to the Sinia brigade.Footnote ¹⁷⁸³

477. As in the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases, the Chamber notes that its assessment of this aspect is qualitative rather than quantitative, as it does not require a set number of criteria to be met.Footnote ¹⁷⁸⁴ As such, the victim's eligibility is determined by having regard to the quality of all the evidence the victim provides, assessed according to the relevant standard, i.e. balance of probabilities.Footnote ¹⁷⁸⁵ In this regard, the Chamber notes that the two potential beneficiaries that established to be victims of Counts 69 and 70 were dual status witnesses, and that their victimhood was established beyond reasonable doubt in the Conviction Judgment.Footnote ¹⁷⁸⁶

478. The Chamber further notes that the Conviction Judgment sets out the scope of Mr Ongwen's criminal responsibility and liability for reparations,Footnote ¹⁷⁸⁷ and delineates the time frame of the charges, i.e. between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. In this regard, the Chamber recalls that conscription is a continuous crime,Footnote ¹⁷⁸⁸ and consequently, the fact that a child soldier was conscripted before the time frame of the charges does not necessarily mean that the conscription did not extend into the relevant time frame.Footnote ¹⁷⁸⁹ It suffices that a child was conscripted or that a child participated actively in hostilities during the time frame of the charges.Footnote ¹⁷⁹⁰

479. It follows that, even when a potentially eligible victim refers to dates outside the time frame for which Mr Ongwen was convicted, it does not affect his or her credibility as long as the victim establishes in a coherent and credible manner their conscription and or use to participate actively in hostilities at any time during the relevant time frame, and that they were under the age of 15 years at the relevant time.Footnote ¹⁷⁹¹

d. Indirect victims

480. The Chamber reiterates that, to qualify as an indirect victim, a person must prove, on a balance of probabilities: (i) the victim status of the direct victim; and (ii) that he or she falls within at least one of the four categoriesFootnote ¹⁷⁹² of indirect victims recognised by the Chamber and that he or she has personally suffered harm because of the commission of a crime against the direct victim.Footnote ¹⁷⁹³

481. In the Defence Submission on the Sample, the Defence argues that indirect victims must prove: (i) a ‘strong relationship of significant importance’ with the direct victim; and (ii) direct harm.Footnote ¹⁷⁹⁴ In relation to this argument, the Defence recalls the concept of indirect victim as set out by the Appeals Chamber in the Lubanga case.Footnote ¹⁷⁹⁵

482. In the argument of the Defence, the alleged indirect victim must prove a very close relationship with the direct victim, and that the indirect victim suffered some type of measurable harm.Footnote ¹⁷⁹⁶ The Defence acknowledges that a member of the nuclear family is generally accepted in the jurisprudence as an indirect victim.Footnote ¹⁷⁹⁷ However, the Defence argues that it is incumbent upon the ‘applicant’ to prove the close family relationship and that the family member suffered harm because of the crime committed against the relative.Footnote ¹⁷⁹⁸ Accordingly, the Defence submits that the alleged indirect victim must present something more than a document simply stating that he or she was related to the direct victim and misses the family member.Footnote ¹⁷⁹⁹

483. At the outset, following the jurisprudence of the Lubanga and Ntaganda cases,Footnote ¹⁸⁰⁰ the Chamber considers that it cannot require the same level of detail from indirect victims as it does from direct victims. The Chamber acknowledges the fact that an indirect victim is not generally in a position to know and describe the detailed circumstances surrounding the victimhood of the direct victim.Footnote ¹⁸⁰¹ It is therefore the Chamber's view that an indirect victim cannot be required to recount a direct victim's circumstances to the same degree of detail.Footnote ¹⁸⁰² Therefore, the Chamber will consider the information provided by indirect victims on a case- by-case basis, having regard to each indirect victim's credible and coherent account, and any other corroborating information or evidence.Footnote ¹⁸⁰³

484. As to indirect victims of murder, the Chamber notes Trial Chamber II's finding in the Katanga case, that the fact that the direct victim died can be established through the victim's narrative and a death certificate.Footnote ¹⁸⁰⁴ In this regard, the Chamber recalls the observations of Uganda as to the difficulties in obtaining death certificates in this case.Footnote ¹⁸⁰⁵ Moreover, the Chamber noted in its assessment of the Sample that the documents submitted by potential beneficiaries to attest kinship with deceased victims also indicated the fact that the latter had died. The Chamber further notes that 91 potential beneficiaries in the Sample submitted such documents attesting to the fact that the direct victim is deceased.Footnote ¹⁸⁰⁶ Consequently, in addition to death certificates, the Chamber has also accepted kinship certificates to prove that the direct victim is deceased.

485. Regarding indirect victim status, the Chamber reiterates that it recognised four categories of indirect victims.Footnote ¹⁸⁰⁷ In addition, the Chamber recalls that what is key is for indirect victims to prove that they suffered personal harm as a result of the commission of a crime against the direct victim.Footnote ¹⁸⁰⁸ The Chamber further recalls that the personal harm suffered by indirect victims in the case at hand encompasses moral and material harm.Footnote ¹⁸⁰⁹

486. As to the Defence's submission that indirect victims must prove the existence of a ‘strong relationship of significant importance’ or a ‘close family relationship’ with the direct victim to be eligible for reparations,Footnote ¹⁸¹⁰ the Chamber recalls this has been ruled out by the relevant jurisprudence.Footnote ¹⁸¹¹ In line with the Appeals Chamber jurisprudence, the Chamber considers that demonstrating the existence of a ‘close personal relationship’ is just one way of proving the moral harm suffered, resorting to a presumption.Footnote ¹⁸¹² As such, the Chamber considers that proving the nature of the bond with the direct victim cannot and does not constitute a pre-condition to establish an indirect victim status, and therefore dismisses the Defence's argument.

487. In addition, the Chamber clarifies that, bearing in mind that one of the aims of the assessment of the Sample was precisely to gather information regarding the harms suffered by the victims, the Chamber refrained from resorting to presumptions. Consequently, a potential beneficiary alleging to be an indirect victim needs to establish that they have suffered personal harm under the same conditions as direct victims, i.e. on a balance of probabilities.

488. As to the Defence's submission that the alleged indirect victim must present something more than a document stating that he or she was related to the direct victim and misses the family member,Footnote ¹⁸¹³ the Chamber recalls that an indirect victim does not necessarily need to be a family member of the direct victim.Footnote ¹⁸¹⁴ As to the Defence's argument that a victim's statement indicating that he or she misses the direct victim is insufficient to prove the harm, the Chamber recalls that the alleged indirect victim must establish to have suffered personal harm on a balance of probabilities.Footnote ¹⁸¹⁵ Accordingly, the Chamber assessed on a case-by-case basis whether the indirect victim has established the existence of the harm, taking into account all the information contained in the dossier. In this regard, the Chamber has considered that, when, for example, the direct victim is the murdered child of the potential beneficiary, proving the kinship and mentioning that this is a source of sadness is enough to establish the moral harm suffered by the indirect victim. Conversely, when the relation between the direct victim and the potential beneficiary is more distant, the Chamber considered that the alleged indirect victim must provide more information than simply stating that he or she misses the direct victim.

489. In this respect, the Chamber notes that several potential beneficiaries in the Sample claimed to have suffered personal harm as a result of the crimes suffered by a friend and have submitted a certificate to prove ‘friendship’. In light of the reasoning set out above, the Chamber considers that a ‘friendship certificate’ is not sufficient – on its own – to prove the existence of such a bond. The Chamber is of the view that, in these cases, a potential beneficiary must demonstrate, on a balance of probabilities, to have suffered moral harm by providing additional information as to how the loss of a friend caused them the alleged harm.

e. Chamber's determination

490. Having analysed the 205 dossiers of victims contained in the Sample, using the aforementioned criteria to determine the victims status, the Chamber has reached the conclusions below.

491. Firstly, the Chamber notes that, according to the parameters provided by the Chamber, from the universe of 205 victims, the Registry transmitted dossiers of 174 potentially eligible victims of the attacks and 31 potentially eligible victims of the thematic crimes.Footnote ¹⁸¹⁶ However, when assessing the eligibility of the victims, the Chamber found that 16 out of the 31 victims transmitted as part of the victims of the thematic crimes were also victims of the crimes committed during the attacks, which resulted in a third category. Therefore, the Chamber analysed the Sample, subdividing the victims between 174 victims of the crimes committed during the attacks in the IDP camps, 16 victims of both the crimes committed during the attacks and the thematic crimes, and 15 victims of only the thematic crimes.

492. Regarding the three abovementioned categories, the Chamber is satisfied that, on a balance of probabilities:

1. a. Of the 174 potentially eligible victims of the crimes committed during the attacks, 173 were found to qualify as direct or indirect victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted and one was considered not to qualify as such. The Chamber recalls that three of the 173 individuals who demonstrated to be victims of the attacks have only provisionally established their identity.Footnote ¹⁸¹⁷ Therefore, the Chamber reiterates that these three victims will be required to submit legible documents to establish their identity at the implementation stage of the proceedings.Of the 173 victims of the attacks, 116 of them established their victimhood as both direct and indirect victims, 55 as direct victims only, and two as indirect victims only.Footnote ¹⁸¹⁸ Additionally, the Chamber found that 76 of these victims of the attacks are females, with the remaining 97 being males.

2. b. Of the 16 potentially eligible victims of both the crimes committed during the attacks and the thematic crimes, all were found to qualify as direct or indirect victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. In addition, the Chamber notes that 13 victims are both direct and indirect victims and three are direct victims only. The Chamber also notes that this subgroup contains 13 female victims and three male victims.

3. c. Of the 15 potentially eligible victims of the thematic crimes only, nine were found to qualify as direct or indirect victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted and six were found not to qualify as such. All of the nine victims of only thematic crimes are direct victims.Additionally, the Chamber notes that out of the 9 victims of the thematic crimes who demonstrated their status as victims, 7 are SGBC victims, all of whom are female. The remaining two victims are male and are victims of the crimes of conscription and use in hostilities of children under the age of 15.

493. Therefore, the Chamber observes that, out of the 198 victims who demonstrated to qualify as direct or indirect victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted (173 victims of the attacks+16 victims of the attacks and thematic crimes+9 victims of the thematic crimes): (i) 130 qualify as both direct and indirect victims; (ii) 66 qualify as direct victims only; and (iii) two qualify as indirect victims only. The Chamber also notes that out of these 198 victims, 102 are male and 96 are female.

494. Finally, the Chamber recalls that victims assessed as not having demonstrated to be victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted will have an opportunity to supplement their dossiers and clarify their accounts at the implementation stage.

(iii) Issues related to the third requirement: harm

495. The Chamber recalls that after considering all relevant information before it – including the Conviction Judgment, the Sentence, the evidence submitted during the trial and sentencing proceedings, observations by the parties and other participants in the proceedings, such as the Prosecutor, Registry, the TFV, Uganda, and the amici curiae – it defined the different types of harm caused to direct and indirect victims of each of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ¹⁸¹⁹

496. In this regard, the victims' representatives argue that, in the present case, the Chamber should follow the approach taken in the Ntaganda case and apply factual presumptions where the victims lack direct proof of the harm.Footnote ¹⁸²⁰ Accordingly, the victims' representatives submit that once an individual has proven to be a victim of a crime on a balance of probabilities, certain harms should be presumed.Footnote ¹⁸²¹

497. The Chamber notes that, when conducting the administrative eligibility process at the implementation stage of the proceedings, presumptions shall indeed be applied and certain harms can be presumed once victims have demonstrated their victimhood at the required threshold. However, for the purposes of the Sample, the Chamber has decided to refrain from relying on any factual presumptions in its assessment. The Chamber decided as such because the objective of this exercise is precisely to ‘reach statistically valid conclusions as to the victims actually entitled to benefit from reparations as a result of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted’.Footnote ¹⁸²² As such, the assessment of the Sample has particularly helped the Chamber to reach conclusions as to the factual presumptions that shall be relied upon in the present case when determining the eligibility of victims at the implementation stage. With this aim in mind, the Chamber assessed the Sample analysing the information contained in the victims' dossiers and ruled exclusively on said information to obtain a clear idea of the types of harm the victims suffered as well as any patterns that could help the Chamber establish presumptions of fact. Since presumptions will be applied at the implementation stage of this reparations proceeding, all victims falling within the scope of presumptions will be then be entitled to have their harms presumed, including the victims in the Sample.

498. Consequently, because the Chamber has not relied on any factual presumptions in its assessment of the Sample, it has undertaken an evaluation of the credibility, coherence, and consistency of the accounts in the dossiers as to the alleged harms. After carrying out this analysis in a manner analogous to the one detailed above in relation to the victimhood of potential beneficiaries, the Chamber made findings as to the different types of harms suffered by the victims, as detailed in their respective dossiers.Footnote ¹⁸²³

499. In carrying out this assessment, the Chamber noted that some victims alleged to have suffered harms for which there were no specific findings in the Conviction Judgment, but that could be considered a direct consequence of the attacks against the IDP camps. For example, some victims claimed to have suffered material harm as a result of the destruction of their property during the attacks against the Pajule and Odek IDP camps.

500. The Chamber recalls its findings in the Sentence that although the crime of attacking civilians as a conduct crime does not require a result in terms of infliction of harm, ‘actual harm was, however, inflicted’.Footnote ¹⁸²⁴ Following the reasoning of the Ntaganda case, where Trial Chamber II found that harms inflicted as a consequence of a conduct crime can be proven at the reparations stage of the proceedings,Footnote ¹⁸²⁵ the Chamber considers that it is not prevented from making findings at this stage to the extent that the actual infliction of the harm is proven on a balance of probabilities.

501. In light of the above, the Chamber deems it appropriate to recognise any harm directly caused by the conduct crime of attacks against the IDP camps, such as physical injuries and or material destruction, if proven on a balance of probabilities and as long as there is no break in the chain of causation. The Chamber has applied this criterion in a strict manner, and has excluded harms inflicted against civilians in the context of the attacks that were not a necessary and natural consequence of the attacks against civilians, such as rape.

502. Having analysed the 205 dossiers of victims contained in the Sample pursuant to the aforementioned criteria, the Chamber is satisfied that all 198 of the potential beneficiaries who have established their victimhoodFootnote ¹⁸²⁶ have also established, on a balance of probabilities, to have suffered harm falling within the scope of the harms defined by the Chamber as those caused to direct and indirect victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ¹⁸²⁷

(iv) Issues related to the fourth requirement: causal link between the harm and the crimes

503. In the Defence's March 2022 Submissions, the Defence submits that the victims who wish to receive reparations should provide evidence of the harm they have suffered, along with a link to the crimes established in the Conviction Judgment.Footnote ¹⁸²⁸ Moreover, in the Defence's Submissions on the Sample, it is argued that the Chamber should not create a causal link between the alleged victim and Mr Ongwen purely based on the fact that his name is mentioned in a victim's dossier.Footnote ¹⁸²⁹

504. The Chamber recalls that in its Conviction Judgment it found Mr Ongwen guilty of 61 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, affecting the residents of the four IDP camps, and the victims of the thematic crimes.Footnote ¹⁸³⁰ In this regard, to consider that a potential beneficiary has established the existence of a causal link between the harm and the crime, the Chamber does not consider that a mere reference to Mr Ongwen's name in the victim's dossier satisfies this requirement. On the contrary, as detailed above, the Chamber carefully scrutinised all of the information contained in a dossier and assessed whether each of the harms suffered by a potential beneficiary had as ‘proximate cause’ at least one of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ¹⁸³¹

505. The Defence also submits that two potential beneficiaries failed to provide medical reports indicating the date on which their alleged injuries were inflicted, and that they therefore would be unable to prove the causal link between their alleged harm and a crime for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ¹⁸³²

506. On this point, the Chamber recalls its finding above as to the difficulties victims may have in obtaining or producing medical documentation in Uganda and its determination that their inability to produce certain additional supporting documentation must be sufficiently justified.Footnote ¹⁸³³ Nevertheless, The Chamber notes the inconsistent approach taken by the Defence in contesting the existence of a causal link between physical injuries and the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted, in relation to only two out of 49 victims who made similar claims.Footnote ¹⁸³⁴ As such, the Chamber dismisses Defence's reasoning, and considers that the causal link between the harms they allegedly suffered and the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted can be established through a credible, coherent, and consistent account.

507. Having analysed the 205 dossiers of victims contained in the Sample, pursuant to the aforementioned criteria, the Chamber is satisfied that all 198 of the potential beneficiaries who have established their victimhood and to have suffered from harms,Footnote ¹⁸³⁵ have also established, on a balance of probabilities, the causal link between the harm and at least one of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ¹⁸³⁶

a) Rehabilitation measures

616. The Chamber notes that rehabilitation measures are directed at facilitating victims' reintegration into society, taking into account the different impacts crimes have on victims of different genders.Footnote ²¹⁵⁹ Rehabilitation should aim at the restoration of a function or the acquisition of new skills required as a result of the changed circumstances of a victim due to the crimes.Footnote ²¹⁶⁰ Rehabilitation for victims should aim to restore, as far as possible, their independence, physical, mental, social, and vocational ability; and full inclusion and participation in society.Footnote ²¹⁶¹

617. In the present case, the Chamber awards collective community-based rehabilitation programmes directed at addressing all types of harm suffered by the victims as identified by the Chamber, i.e. physical, moral, material, community, and transgenerational harms. These programmes should be designed by the TFV in close consultation with the victims. Collective community-based measures of rehabilitation in this regard may include: rehabilitative medical services (including physical, psychiatric and psychological programming) to address physical and moral harms and socio-economic rehabilitation to address material harms.Footnote ²¹⁶² Collective programmes could include, for example, group educational programming,Footnote ²¹⁶³ vocational skills training,Footnote ²¹⁶⁴ and community programmes designed to eradicate the stigmatisation of victims of SGBC or child soldiers.Footnote ²¹⁶⁵ The TFV also suggests providing trauma care through intensive group psychotherapy, which the Chamber finds appropriate.Footnote ²¹⁶⁶

618. The Chamber's decision to award community-based rehabilitation measures in the present case is grounded in the large number of victims and the extent of the multi-layered harms they suffered, which necessitates a community-based approach to the distribution of reparations. The Chamber further notes the TFV's submission that individual (one-to-one) rehabilitation measures, which are costly, may not be required for all beneficiaries in this case.Footnote ²¹⁶⁷ Therefore, the Chamber directs the TFV to design community-based rehabilitation programming that can reach a large number of victims in a less resource intensive manner.

619. While the Chamber considers that the TFV should focus on collective programming that reaches large groups of victims, the Chamber wishes to make clear that this should not include projects which would otherwise be the responsibility of the Government such as building and staffing hospitals, museums, or other infrastructure projects.Footnote ²¹⁶⁸ The Chamber finds merit in the TFV's submission that such measures are first and foremost the responsibility of the Government and could not feasibly be maintained over a long period of time by the TFV.Footnote ²¹⁶⁹ The Chamber considers that such a short term approach could in the end be harmful to victims, which is contrary to many of the reparations principles adopted in this Order.

b) Symbolic and satisfaction measures

620. The Chamber notes that symbolic measures are intended to help contribute to the process of rehabilitation,Footnote ²¹⁷⁰ while satisfaction measures are aimed at acknowledging the violations and safeguarding the dignity and reputation of the victims.Footnote ²¹⁷¹ Symbolic and satisfaction measures in this case are directed at addressing all harms. As detailed below, as part of the symbolic and satisfaction measures, the Chamber considers it appropriate for the collective community-based reparations awarded in the present case to include: (i) the payment of a symbolic award for each victim; and (ii) other community symbolic and satisfaction measures.

(i) Symbolic award

621. The Chamber considers it appropriate for each eligible direct and indirect victim in the case to receive a symbolic award of €750 EUR. In reaching its determination to award this symbolic cash payment, the Chamber has taken the following considerations into account:

622. First, the Chamber acknowledges the victims' expectations to receive monetary awards, in particular: (i) for loss of life and missing/unaccounted persons, consistent with the Acholi/Lango cultures;Footnote ²¹⁷² (ii) as SGBC victims;Footnote ²¹⁷³ (iii) as former child soldiers;Footnote ²¹⁷⁴ and (iv) as victims of the attacks.Footnote ²¹⁷⁵ The CLRV also noted that victims of the attacks expressed a similar preference.Footnote ²¹⁷⁶ The Registry also noted that most victims expressed a preference for individual pecuniary compensation that would enable them to become financially independent and self-reliant.Footnote ²¹⁷⁷

623. The Chamber has considered the Defence's submission that conflict may arise if different monetary awards are granted to victims and that an extensive amount of time would be required to determine the exact amounts that should be awarded to each victim.Footnote ²¹⁷⁸ The Chamber finds merit in the Defence's submission to the extent that most of the estimated large number of victims entitled to reparations in the present case are both direct and indirect victims of several crimes and are likely to have suffered extensive multi-layered harms. As such, the task of determining the value of each of the harms suffered by each potential beneficiary amounts to a nearly impossible undertaking. In an effort to mitigate the Defence's concerns, while recognising the victims' suffering, the Chamber has decided to set the same ex aequo et bono symbolic award for all direct and indirect victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

624. Second, the Chamber is conscious of the time that the design of the rehabilitation measures will take and notes that it may be years before the programmes may commence. As such, mindful that many victims are in dire need of immediate support,Footnote ²¹⁷⁹ and acknowledging that payments may also take time to be executed,Footnote ²¹⁸⁰ the Chamber intends this symbolic payment to serve as a ‘stopgap’ for victims before they can begin benefiting from the rehabilitative community programming modality of the reparations awarded.

625. Third, the Chamber considers that victims are best placed to address their own immediate needs arising from the harm they have suffered. The Chamber is hopeful that this symbolic payment will facilitate victims' ability to address their basic needs, and in doing so, place them in a better position to contribute to and engage in the consultations required for the design, development, and implementation of the remaining modalities of the collective community-based reparations awarded, i.e. rehabilitation and other symbolic measures.Footnote ²¹⁸¹ The Chamber is optimistic that this approach would enhance a victim-centred approach to the design of the programme, which would result in the concrete realisation of the reparations principles for the victims of the case.

626. Fourth, as to the amount of the symbolic payment, in its discretion, the Chamber has considered that, in the circumstances of the present case, €750 EUR is a fair amount to be awarded as a symbolic payment to direct and indirect victims of the case. In reaching the above determination, the Chamber has considered, inter alia, the symbolic payment awarded in the Katanga case. In that case, Trial Chamber II granted a ‘symbolic award of USD 250 compensation’ although noting that it ‘was not intended as compensation for the harm in its entirety’.Footnote ²¹⁸² The Chamber underlines that the symbolic monetary payment awarded to the victims in the present case is not intended as restitution, nor as a compensation for the harm, as it was, at least in part, in the Katanga case. The Chamber has also considered the Appeals Chamber's clear indication that the amount awarded in the Katanga case ‘should not be viewed as a precedent or indication of quantum when it comes to the determination of awards in future cases’.Footnote ²¹⁸³ Consistent with the above, although not viewing it as precedent or indication of quantum, the Chamber has taken the $250 USD symbolic compensation awarded in the Katanga case, among other factors, as a point of reference in its calculations.

627. Cognisant that the symbolic amount in the Katanga case was awarded in 2017 in.a case related to the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (‘DRC’), the Chamber considers that, to serve as a point of reference, it should be first adjusted to its current value in Uganda. In order to achieve this, the Chamber has decided to rely on the nominal per capita gross domestic product (‘GDP’) growth and the difference in the costs of living between the DRC and Uganda, according to the information provided by the World Bank.Footnote ²¹⁸⁴ In addition, because the last year on record in the World Bank's website is the year 2022, the Chamber has relied on the information provided by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics,Footnote ²¹⁸⁵ in order to adjust (per inflation rates) the values until January 2024. Specifically, the Chamber has, as a first step, updated the Katanga amount according to the nominal GDP growth in the DRC between 2017 (the year of the Katanga Reparations Order) and 2022 (the last year on record on the World Bank's website). The nominal GDP per capita in the DRC in 2017 was $451.1 USD while in 2022 it was $653.7 USD, which amounts to a total growth of 45%.Footnote ²¹⁸⁶ Accordingly, $250 USD adjusted per nominal GDP per capita growth in the DRC between 2017 and 2022 (45%) results in $362.5 USD. These calculations are illustrated below.

$250 USD in 2017 × 45% = $362.5 USD in 2022

628. Since the calculations above were made using data relevant to the DRC, the Chamber considers it necessary to adjust this figure to reflect its value in Uganda. The nominal GDP per capita in Uganda in 2022 was $964.4 USD, which compared to the $653.7 USD nominal GDP per capita for the same year in the DRC, results in a 48%Footnote ²¹⁸⁷ difference between the two countries. Accordingly, $362.5 USD in the DRC in 2022 adjusted at its value in Uganda for the same year (48% difference) amounts to $536.5 USD. These calculations are illustrated below:

$362.5 USD (for DRC) × 48% = $536.5 USD (for Uganda)

629. Since that the last year on record in the World Bank's website was 2022, the Chamber then adjusted the value to the current cost of living, which was done by relying on the information provided by the Ugandan Bureau of Statistics regarding inflation. The annual inflation in Uganda in January 2024 reached 2.8%.Footnote ²¹⁸⁸ Accordingly, adjusting $536.5 USD in Uganda in 2022 in.light of the annual inflation rate in the country during 2023 (2.8%), brings the sum to equate to approximately $551.5 USD in January 2024. Lastly, converting this amount from USD to EUR at the official exchange rate between USD and EUR in February 2024 results in €508.5 EUR.Footnote ²¹⁸⁹ In light of the above, the Chamber concludes that the symbolic amount of $250 USD awarded in the Katanga case in 2017, currently in Uganda would equate to approximately €508.5 EUR.

630. As noted above, in reaching its determination as to the amount of the symbolic payment, the Chamber took into account the symbolic compensation granted in the Katanga case, as a point of reference only. However, the Chamber underlines that granting a higher symbolic amount in the present case shall not be understood as implying that victims in the Katanga case suffered less than the victims in the present case or that the Chamber considers the victims in this case to be of greater significance or importance than the victims in other cases. Reparations orders are distinct as they are designed based on the specific circumstances of each case and must therefore be viewed in their entirety to understand how each order addresses victims' harms. With this in mind, the Chamber notes that, in addition to the symbolic compensation of $250 USD, in the Katanga case victims were also awarded ‘collective reparations designed to benefit each victim, in the form of support for housing, support for an income-generating activity, support for education and psychological support’.Footnote ²¹⁹⁰ In the case at hand, however, collective community-based reparations are awarded, which may not provide the same targeted individual support to repair individual harms that victims in the Katanga case were able to receive due to the small number of victims in that case. As such, taking into account the parties' and participants' submissions as to the individual costs of different services required to address the victims' harms,Footnote ²¹⁹¹ and acknowledging the victims' agency and capacity to make their own decisions regarding how to best address their own circumstances, the Chamber considers that a higher sum is justified in the present case.

631. Fifth, the Chamber notes that the symbolic payments ordered in the Katanga case were awarded as a form of individual reparation.Footnote ²¹⁹² However, for the reasons stated above, namely the number of potentially eligible victims and the extent of the harm they suffered, the Chamber considers that the symbolic sum awarded in this case is part of the collective community-based award. The Chamber considers this symbolic payment to be communal in nature, as the same amount of money ought to be provided to each member of the community of eligible victims. The individual circumstances of the victims have no bearing on whether a victim is entitled to receive the monetary award or on the amount of such an award. The decision to provide this symbolic award is based solely on a victim's membership to the community of victims in this case.

632. The Chamber has considered the submission of the TFV that specific groups of victims should receive symbolic payments, such as victims of SGBC.Footnote ²¹⁹³ While the Chamber acknowledges the distinct suffering of victims of SGBC, it is of the opinion, as explained above, that awarding a symbolic payment to only a certain groups of victims is contrary to the principle that all victims are to be treated equally and that reparations awards must avoid creating tensions, jealousy, or animosity.Footnote ²¹⁹⁴

633. Sixth, the Chamber acknowledges that, in light of the convicted person's indigency, the payment of the symbolic award to victims will be subject to a corresponding decision of the TFV's Board of Directors and to the TFV's ability to complement the reparations award. As such, as discussed in more detail in the section below, the Chamber underlines that priorities will need to be established by the TFV in line with the Chamber's instructions,Footnote ²¹⁹⁵ which implies that not all victims would receive the sum at the same time as payments would be issued depending on the victims' urgent needs and vulnerability and the availability of resources.

634. The Chamber also notes the LRVs' submission that in the event a monetary award is given to victims, they will require identity documents to be able to open bank accounts.Footnote ²¹⁹⁶ The Chamber therefore instructs the TFV to take this into account when determining the way in which cash payments would be executed.

(ii) Other community-based satisfaction and symbolic measures

635. The Chamber also considers appropriate to include in the design of the collective reparations in the present case other community-based satisfaction or symbolic measures. Such measures could include apologies from Mr Ongwen or the Government of Uganda, to the extent that such apologies are voluntary and accepted by the victims.Footnote ²¹⁹⁷ The TFV could consider implementing, based on its consultations with the victims, other symbolic measures such as those suggested by FJDI and WVCN as well as ALRPI, which may include: memorial centres; monuments; human rights sensitisation and training; community memorial ceremonies; memorial prayers; reconciliation and cleansing ceremonies.Footnote ²¹⁹⁸ The Chamber finds merit in FJDI and WVCN's submission that memorials preserve the experiences of survivors and ‘aid in healing communities, providing a basis for future peace and toleration providing a foundation for future advocacy and conflict prevention’.Footnote ²¹⁹⁹ The Chamber further considers that these measures could help alleviate tensions between victims in this case and victims of the war in general, who may be able to incidentally benefit from these community-based symbolic measures only.Footnote ²²⁰⁰ The Chamber wishes to be clear, however, that the fact that victims of the war in general may incidentally benefit from symbolic reparations has no impact on the liability of the convicted person.

636. Finally, the Chamber notes its intention that the recognition of the harm suffered by victims in this Order, the Conviction Judgment and the Sentence will serve as a satisfaction measure for victims in this case.Footnote ²²⁰¹ The Chamber further notes that in this Order, it has assessed in great detail the different types of harms suffered by the direct and indirect victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ²²⁰² The Chamber intends for the detailed accounting of the harm suffered by individual victims to serve a dual purpose of ensuring that reparations are not awarded to remedy harms beyond the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted,Footnote ²²⁰³ while also publicly acknowledging and recounting the harms the victims experienced as a result of Mr Ongwen's crimes. While the number of victims in this case makes collective reparations the only possible answer, the Chamber is hopeful that this public acknowledgment may play a role in repairing the harm suffered by individual victims.

637. The Chamber also expects that the collective community-based reparations awarded to victims in the present case have a transformative value. Reparation measures should indeed strive to tackle the cultural meaning and understanding of violence as well as the structural barriers leading to victims' stigmatisation, for instance, to enable all victims of sexual violence to come forward, seek help, and engage in the reparations process, which in turn should contribute to undermine the underlying causes of violence.Footnote ²²⁰⁴

638. Lastly, acknowledging the TFV's limitations in terms of available resources, the Chamber considers that the payment of symbolic monetary awards should be prioritised over rehabilitation and other symbolic measures, given the victims' submissions.

a) Direct victims of the attacks

706. The Chamber notes that the Registry, the CLRV, the TFV, and the Prosecutor appear to largely concur as to the total estimated range of potential victims of the attacks on the IDP camps. Specifically, the Registry's Mapping Report concludes that an approximate overall number of victims residing in the IDP camps at the time of the attacks can presently be fixed at a range between 41,000 and 50,000 individuals.Footnote ²⁴¹³ However, the Chamber observes that the collective total of the individual figures provided by the Registry for each IDP camp, as further detailed in its subsequent Additional Information submissions, is ‘up to’ 56,700 individuals.Footnote ²⁴¹⁴ The CLRV agrees that a range of between 41,000 and 50,000 individuals is a reasonable estimate,Footnote ²⁴¹⁵ notwithstanding the considerably smaller number of potential beneficiaries she identified (totalling 1,351 households of between 1 and 15 members,Footnote ²⁴¹⁶ together with an additional 100 beneficiariesFootnote ²⁴¹⁷) as a result of her preliminary inquiries.Footnote ²⁴¹⁸ The TFV provides no independent figures, submitting that it has no reason to doubt the estimate advanced by the Registry, noting that it is highly likely that all the residents at the camps at the time of the attacks are potential beneficiaries, and concluding that the figure of 50,000 constitutes an approximate ‘minimum number’ of victims of the attacks.Footnote ²⁴¹⁹ The Prosecutor similarly does not offer any estimates or analysis, deferring to the victims' representatives, the Registry and the TFV, without distinction, as to the estimated number of victims who may benefit from reparations, and observing that the Conviction Judgment and Sentence provide guidance to identify many of the victims of Mr Ongwen's crimes.Footnote ²⁴²⁰

707. For the purposes of reaching a more concrete estimate, and noting the differences in the maximum number of potential victims identified by the Registry (50,000Footnote ²⁴²¹ and 56,700Footnote ²⁴²²), the Chamber turns to assess the specific submissions of the Registry, victims' representatives and Defence with respect to the number of potential victims of the attacks on each IDP camp for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.

708. In determining the number of potentially eligible victims of the attacks on each IDP camp, the Chamber has remained mindful of the Defence's suggestion that the Sample indicates that some IDP camp residents had more than one home or hut, ‘meaning that the household estimates determined by the Registry would be inflated.’Footnote ²⁴²³ However, the Chamber finds no information to suggest that a resident's affiliation with multiple huts equates to an inflated ‘household’ estimate. Rather, household estimates appear to be calculated with reference to the individual head of a ‘household’ or family group and their associated household members, irrespective of the number of huts in which their household reside.Footnote ²⁴²⁴ Further, as already observed, the Chamber considers that contrary to the Defence's inference, whether or not potential victims are beneficiaries of compensation awarded by the High Court of UgandaFootnote ²⁴²⁵ is immaterial to their eligibility as victims in this case.Footnote ²⁴²⁶

709. Recalling the eligibility criteria established by the Chamber delineating the categories of eligible victims entitled to benefit from reparations in the present case,Footnote ²⁴²⁷ the Chamber similarly dismisses Uganda's recommendation to use the 2014 statistics for the total populations in the victim regions of Acholi, Teso and Lango to determine the number of victims of the attacks potentially eligible for reparations.Footnote ²⁴²⁸

(i) Pajule IDP camp

710. The Chamber recalls its findings in the Conviction Judgment that an estimated 15,000 to 30,000 people lived in the Pajule IDP camp—which comprised both the Pajule and Lapul IDP campsFootnote ²⁴²⁹—at the time of the attack.Footnote ²⁴³⁰ While the Registry's mapping exercise conducted in 2021 identified approximately 23,800 residents of the Pajule IDP campFootnote ²⁴³¹ at the relevant time,Footnote ²⁴³² in its subsequent submission of Additional Information on victims, the Registry refers to, and relies upon the ‘rough estimate’ it purportedly provided in its Mapping Report of ‘up to 30,000’ victims.Footnote ²⁴³³ The Registry provides no additional support for the figure of 30,000, beyond referencing a footnote in its prior submissions which cited the findings of the Chamber in the Conviction Judgment.Footnote ²⁴³⁴ The Defence offers no independent figures or calculations, but submits that the figure of 30,000 victims is ‘extremely high’, insisting that the Chamber should not entertain any increase in the number of potential victims beyond the estimate of 23,800 residents of the camp.Footnote ²⁴³⁵ The Chamber is unpersuaded by the Defence's suggestion that any estimate above the number of 23,800 residents may include persons who were abducted during different attacks beyond the October 2003 attack for which Mr Ongwen was convicted,Footnote ²⁴³⁶ reiterating that the information received by the Registry in relation to abductees appears to be immaterial to the Registry's overall calculation of the number of victims of the attack on the Pajule IDP camp.Footnote ²⁴³⁷

711. As previously noted, the remaining partiesFootnote ²⁴³⁸ and participants largely defer to the total number of victims of the IDP camp attacks proffered by the Registry.Footnote ²⁴³⁹ In this regard, the Chamber emphasises that although the CLRV identifies a relatively low figure of 908 households (of between 1 and 15 family members)Footnote ²⁴⁴⁰ from the Pajule area as potential ‘additional beneficiaries’, the CLRV submits that this number is indicative of ‘a very minimum’,Footnote ²⁴⁴¹ concurring that the Registry's estimated range of the total number of victims present in all IDP camps at the time of the attacks is reasonable.Footnote ²⁴⁴²

712. The Chamber has considered the available information, including the evidence submitted at trial. The Chamber finds particularly compelling the list of residents of the Pajule/Lapul IDP camps, dated 30 November 2003, signed and stamped by the Camp Leader of the Pajule IDP camp,Footnote ²⁴⁴³ who testified that he compiled the list from information provided to him by the block leaders of the Pajule side and from the Camp Leader of the Lapul side of the Pajule IDP camp.Footnote ²⁴⁴⁴ This list records a total of 31,142 residents of the Pajule IDP camp as of November 2003 (17,432 residents from the Pajule side and 13,710 residents from the Lapul side).Footnote ²⁴⁴⁵ These figures are also largely consistent with a handwritten list compiled by the Lapul Camp Leader, dated 26 November 2003, indicating that the Lapul side of the camp had a ‘population’ of 14,155.Footnote ²⁴⁴⁶ The Chamber notes that these signed, stamped, and dated lists are contemporaneous records, prepared some six weeks after the October 2003 attack, by the camp commandants, who the Chamber considers were well placed to quantify the number of residents of the Pajule IDP camp. The figure of 23,800 initially proffered by the Registry, on the other hand, was based on ‘limited information related to numbers’Footnote ²⁴⁴⁷ conveyed to the Registry during meetings with unidentified ‘intermediaries and local leaders’Footnote ²⁴⁴⁸ in 2021, some 18 years after the attacks.Footnote ²⁴⁴⁹ Further, the Registry concedes that this figure was only partly supported by documents and or corroborated by other sources,Footnote ²⁴⁵⁰ and would benefit from further confirmation,Footnote ²⁴⁵¹ noting that its efforts to liaise with the former leadership of the camps and the competent Ugandan authorities to obtain records and lists had proven unsuccessful.Footnote ²⁴⁵² Having regard to the foregoing, the Chamber estimates that the number of potentially eligible victims of the attack on the Pajule IDP camp amounts to approximately 30,000 individuals in total.

713. The Chamber takes note of the Registry's submission that a ‘large number’ of visitors were also present in Pajule IDP camp celebrating Uganda's Independence Day at the time of the attack on 10 October 2003.Footnote ²⁴⁵³ However, in the absence of any estimate of the number of visitors purportedly present,Footnote ²⁴⁵⁴ the Chamber resolves this uncertainty in favour of Mr OngwenFootnote ²⁴⁵⁵ and makes no additional allowance for visitors in its determination of the number of victims of the attack on the Pajule IDP camp.Footnote ²⁴⁵⁶ The Chamber emphasises, however, that this conclusion does not render visitors to Pajule IDP camp at the time of the attack ineligible for reparations. As to the Defence's submission that some residents may equally have been absent celebrating with friends and family elsewhere at the time of the attack,Footnote ²⁴⁵⁷ the Chamber recalls its finding that residents of the camp, even if not physically present during the attack, may still be considered victims of the attack.Footnote ²⁴⁵⁸

(ii) Odek IDP camp

714. The Chamber recalls its findings in the Conviction Judgment that the evidence indicates that there were between 2,000 and 3,000 residents in the camp at the time of the attack.Footnote ²⁴⁵⁹ Specifically, the Chamber notes witness statements on the record wherein the Camp Leader of Odek IDP camp estimated there were about 2,000 residents in the camp,Footnote ²⁴⁶⁰ and a block leader estimated there were approximately 3,000 residents.Footnote ²⁴⁶¹ Similarly, a contemporaneous post- attack incident report of an Internal Security Organisation (‘ISO’) officer, dated ‘May ‘04’, which was prepared based on information gathered from camp leaders and survivors of the attack, placed the number of residents of the Odek IDP camp at 2,600.Footnote ²⁴⁶² The Chamber also considered extracts from two notebooks provided by the Camp Leader, with the date ‘13/5/2005’, which itemised the number of households and population of each block of the Odek IDP, totalling over 6,000 residents.Footnote ²⁴⁶³ While the Camp Leader gave evidence that the data contained in the notebooks was based on information collected from the Odek IDP camp in January and February 2004,Footnote ²⁴⁶⁴ noting the later date marked on the notebooks, and the Camp Leader's prior statement estimating there were 2,000 residents in the Odek IDP camp, the Chamber ultimately afforded greater weight to the aforementioned witness evidence.Footnote ²⁴⁶⁵

715. Turning to the submissions of the parties and participants, the Chamber observes that the Registry's Mapping Report indicates that during focus group interviews different figures were provided ranging from 6,800 to 7,500 residents of the Odek IDP camp at the time of the attack.Footnote ²⁴⁶⁶ Considering that these figures are only partly corroborated by unspecified documents and or other sources,Footnote ²⁴⁶⁷ that the interlocutors of these interviews recommended that the Registry consult former block leaders who kept records at the time of the events, and that the Registry's efforts to obtain these records have been unsuccessful,Footnote ²⁴⁶⁸ the Chamber finds little support for adopting the comparatively ‘high’Footnote ²⁴⁶⁹ estimated number of residents advanced by the Registry. In this regard, the Chamber can envisage the possibility that such estimates may be inflated without any official records, as the Defence suggests.Footnote ²⁴⁷⁰

716. In contrast, the data gathered by the LRVs and their intermediaries in the field in consultation with former camp leaders and or officialsFootnote ²⁴⁷¹—which identified 2,419Footnote ²⁴⁷² former residents of the Odek IDP camp as potential beneficiaries—is consistent with the range provided by the Chamber in the Conviction Judgment.Footnote ²⁴⁷³ Notably, it is particularly proximate to the figure specified in the contemporaneous ISO incident report prepared shortly after the attack.Footnote ²⁴⁷⁴ Although the LRVs emphasise that the list, while comprehensive, is not conclusive and some further improvement on the data may be needed,Footnote ²⁴⁷⁵ the Chamber considers that the figure of 2,419 provides a reasonable estimate of potential victims of the attack on the Odek IDP camp, particularly when viewed in the context of the other evidence on the trial record.

717. Although the CLRV identified a considerably smaller number of potential beneficiaries for the Odek IDP camp, numbering some 191 households of 1 to 15 members,Footnote ²⁴⁷⁶ noting that the CLRV's identification efforts were preliminary and her estimate conservative,Footnote ²⁴⁷⁷ the Chamber finds the figure advanced by the LRVs and supported by more comprehensive data to be more compelling. The Chamber also notes it has no information as to the extent to which there is any overlap between the potential beneficiaries identified by the LRVs and CLRV. Accordingly the Chamber estimates that the number of potentially eligible victims of the attack on the Odek IDP camp amounts to approximately 2,419 individuals in total.

718. Finally, in the absence of any further information in relation to the 100 to 200 individuals from neighbouring villages the Registry reports were visiting the camp on the day of the attack,Footnote ²⁴⁷⁸ the Chamber makes no allowance for visitors in its estimated number of potential beneficiaries.Footnote ²⁴⁷⁹ The Chamber emphasises, however, that this conclusion does not render visitors of the Odek IDP camp ineligible for reparations. As to the Defence's submission that it is just as likely that some residents were not at the camp during the attack because they were visiting friends and family elsewhere,Footnote ²⁴⁸⁰ the Chamber recalls its finding that residents of the camp, even if not physically present during the attack, may still be considered victims of the attack.Footnote ²⁴⁸¹ (iii) Lukodi IDP camp

719. The Chamber recalls its findings in the Conviction Judgment that a ‘large contingent’ of civilians lived in the camp at the time of the attack.Footnote ²⁴⁸² However, in light of the significant disparity in the witnesses' evidence as to the number of residents of the camp, the Chamber concluded that the exact number of victims of the attack was not possible to determine.Footnote ²⁴⁸³ Specifically, a police investigator who examined Lukodi in the aftermath of the attack testified that the Lukodi camp leader told him that the camp had around 7,000 residents at the time of the attack;Footnote ²⁴⁸⁴ a local councillor of Lukodi testified that although it was not easy to know the exact number, he estimated the camp had about 4,000 residents at the time of the attack;Footnote ²⁴⁸⁵ and another witness who spent time in Lukodi estimated that roughly 400-500 people lived in the camp.Footnote ²⁴⁸⁶

720. The Chamber has also considered two notebooks which were in evidence at trial, labelled ‘Rwot Kweri Laco-Anga’Footnote ²⁴⁸⁷ and ‘Rwot Kweri Lukodi’,Footnote ²⁴⁸⁸ containing handwritten lists which purport to record the number of households and their members in these areas of the Lukodi IDP camp.Footnote ²⁴⁸⁹ However, considering inter alia that the date of compilation of the lists in these notebooks is unknown beyond that it predates the attack,Footnote ²⁴⁹⁰ that some data is missing from the lists,Footnote ²⁴⁹¹ that one of the Lukodi camp leaders testified that at least one of notebooks was never used because the format did not correspond to the agreed format,Footnote ²⁴⁹² and that the lists record data for only two of several areas of the Lukodi IDP camp,Footnote ²⁴⁹³ the Chamber does not find them to be probative for the purposes of establishing the number of victims of the Lukodi IDP camp.

721. The submissions of the parties and participants as to the number of potential beneficiaries for the Lukodi IDP camp are similarly varied. The Registry's Mapping Report indicates that the consensus in the groups the Registry consulted was that there were around 6,000 residents in the Ludoki IDP camp during the attack, with one camp leader specifying that there were between 800 and 1000 households in the camp at the time of the attack, with families having on average, 6 to 8 members.Footnote ²⁴⁹⁴ In contrast, based on data gathered by the LRVs and their intermediaries in the field in consultation with former camp leaders and or officials,Footnote ²⁴⁹⁵ albeit ‘not conclusive’,Footnote ²⁴⁹⁶ the LRVs identify 3,248Footnote ²⁴⁹⁷ residents of the Lukodi IDP camp as potential beneficiaries. The CLRV identifies an even smaller figure of 143 households of between 1 and 15 members,Footnote ²⁴⁹⁸ noting, however, that her efforts are preliminary and the estimate remains conservative.Footnote ²⁴⁹⁹ The Chamber notes it has no information as to the extent to which there is any overlap between the potential beneficiaries identified by the LRVs and CLRV.

722. While the Registry indicates that the LRVs agree that an approximation of 6,000 may represent the ‘upper limit’ of potential beneficiaries,Footnote ²⁵⁰⁰ and the CLRV supports the total estimated range of victims advanced by the Registry,Footnote ²⁵⁰¹ the Chamber takes note of the Defence's submissions that the Registry's estimate is proportionately high and may be inflated without any official records.Footnote ²⁵⁰² Considering the disparity in estimates, and observing that the Registry indicates its figures are only partly supported by unspecified documents and or other sources and that efforts to obtain camp records and lists have proven unsuccessful,Footnote ²⁵⁰³ the Chamber resolves the uncertainty in favour of Mr Ongwen in opting for the number of potential victims identified by the LRVs, which has a stronger evidentiary basis.Footnote ²⁵⁰⁴ The Chamber, therefore, estimates that the number of potentially eligible victims of the attack on the Lukodi IDP camp amounts to approximately 3,248 individuals in total.

(iv) Abok IDP camp

723. The Chamber recalls its findings in the Conviction Judgment referring to estimates ranging from at least 7,000 to just over 13,000 residents in the Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack.Footnote ²⁵⁰⁵ The Chamber notes that the evidence presented at trial, while not uniform,Footnote ²⁵⁰⁶ suggests that the number of residents of the Abok IDP camp fluctuated significantly, beginning at around 7,000 and increasing to 13,000 sometime before the attack, before diminishing to some 9,000 to 10,000 residents after the attack.Footnote ²⁵⁰⁷ Resources were scarce and lists of residents, which were compiled by the camp's ‘block leaders’ and conveyed to the camp secretary, were updated infrequently, as a result of which periodic variations in numbers of residents were not necessarily captured as people moved in and out of the camp.Footnote ²⁵⁰⁸

724. Although the Registry's Mapping Report, which identifies approximately 13,000 residents in the Abok IDP Camp at the time of the attack,Footnote ²⁵⁰⁹ is consistent with the upper range specified in the Conviction Judgment, it appears that this figure is based on limited information related to numbers and only partly corroborated by unspecified documents and or sources.Footnote ²⁵¹⁰ As such, the Chamber finds the LRV's identification of 11,231Footnote ²⁵¹¹ potential named beneficiaries, based on lists of individuals and their household members who lived in the Abok IDP camp at the time of the attack,Footnote ²⁵¹² more probative. In this regard, the Chamber finds that there is merit in the Defence's suggestion that the Registry's estimates may be inflated without any official records.Footnote ²⁵¹³ While the Registry indicates that the LRVs concur that an approximation of 13,000 may represent the ‘upper limit’ of potential beneficiaries from the Abok IDP camp,Footnote ²⁵¹⁴ and the LRVs emphasise that their lists, while comprehensive, are not conclusive and may require further improvement,Footnote ²⁵¹⁵ the Chamber resolves the discrepancy in estimates in favour of Mr Ongwen by opting for the lower figure.Footnote ²⁵¹⁶ Accordingly, the Chamber estimates that the number of potentially eligible victims of the attack on the Abok IDP camp amounts to approximately 11,231 individuals in total.

(v) Estimated total number of potentially eligible victims of the attacks on the IDP camps

725. Based on the Chamber's foregoing assessment, the Chamber estimates that the number of potentially eligible victims of the attacks on the IDP camps amounts to approximately: 30,000 individuals for Pajule; 2,419 individuals for Odek; 3,248 individuals for Lukodi; and 11,231 individuals for Abok. Accordingly, the Chamber estimates that the total number of potentially eligible victims of the attacks on the IDP camps for which Mr Ongwen was convicted is approximately 46,898 individuals.

b) Direct victims of thematic crimes

726. The Chamber notes that the parties and participants appear to concur that there is a dearth of reliable information available to inform a determination as to the number of potential victims of the thematic crimes (child soldiers and SGBC) for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ²⁵¹⁷ Specifically, the Chamber recalls that according to the Registry, none of the interlocutors consulted was in a position to provide estimate numbers.Footnote ²⁵¹⁸ Further, the Registry observes that there are no specific records on the number of child abductions and recruitments by the Sinia Brigade during the time relevant to Mr Ongwen's convictions,Footnote ²⁵¹⁹ and records are scarce and incomplete as regards SGBC and children born out of such crimes within the temporal and geographic confines of the Conviction Judgment.Footnote ²⁵²⁰ The lapse of time is a compounding factor for all of the above.Footnote ²⁵²¹

727. The Chamber takes note of the Registry's submission that providing estimate numbers that are not properly corroborated in the field can be problematic as it may close the door to potential further victims eligible for reparations.Footnote ²⁵²² On the other hand, as the CLRV submits, further mapping at this stage of proceedings will delay the implementation of reparations and is unlikely to generate more accurate data than that already provided by specialised experts and reviewed by the Registry in reaching its conservative estimate.Footnote ²⁵²³

728. The Chamber has carefully weighed the importance of generating estimates of potential beneficiaries which are as accurate and inclusive as possible against the need to ensure the timely and effective implementation of reparations.Footnote ²⁵²⁴ The Chamber has remained particularly mindful of its obligation to consider, in determining what reparations are appropriate for the purposes of article 75(2) of the Statute, the number of victims likely to come forward and benefit from collective reparations programmes during the implementation phase.Footnote ²⁵²⁵ While, as the CLRV suggests, a more accurate estimate could be achieved at the time of the implementation of reparations when the eligibility of each victim will be assessed,Footnote ²⁵²⁶ in light of the Appeals Chamber rulingFootnote ²⁵²⁷ the Chamber cannot defer its determination of the number of potential victims until this phase. Further, the Chamber emphasises that these victim estimates are based on projections used for the purposes of calculating Mr Ongwen's liability and do not limit the number of eligible beneficiaries who can come forward to benefit from the reparations ordered.

729. The Chamber has considered the LRV's request for authorisation to generate information on the group of victims falling under the thematic crimes in lieu of a deliberate mapping.Footnote ²⁵²⁸ The Chamber is unclear as to the distinction the LRVs draw between ‘generating information’ and ‘deliberate mapping’. The Chamber notes that it indeed would have been of assistance to the Chamber had the LRVs made efforts to generate information in relation to victims of thematic crimes (beyond the 327 potential victims of thematic crimes it documented through engagement with participating victimsFootnote ²⁵²⁹) in response to the Chamber's repeated instructions. However, in the Chamber's view, in the interests of the victims, it is imperative that there be no further delay in the order and implementation of reparations in this case. Accordingly, the Chamber proceeds to make its estimations as to the approximate number of potentially eligible victims of thematic crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted based on the information presently at its disposal.

(i) Former child soldiers

730. As a basis for the Chamber's preliminary calculations, and noting that the Defence does not in principle object,Footnote ²⁵³⁰ the Chamber turns to the figures advanced in the Berkeley Report proffered by the Registry.Footnote ²⁵³¹ The Chamber observes that the Berkeley Report analyses data gathered from eight out of the nine ‘reception centres’ operating in Uganda in early 2006, which receive and assist children, youth and adults who escaped from the LRA, or were captured in battle.Footnote ²⁵³² Although the data contained in the report is imperfect and incomplete,Footnote ²⁵³³ the Chamber considers it provides a reasonable foundation for the purposes of extrapolating estimates in order to inform the Chamber's determination as to the number of potentially eligible victims in order to set the amount of liability, which is preferable to the alternatives advanced. In this regard, the Chamber observes that although Expert Witness Professor Allen agreed that the figure of 66,000 abductees from northern Uganda advanced by researchers Christopher Blattman and Jeannie Annan was ‘probably accurate’,Footnote ²⁵³⁴ this figure appears to apply to the period from 1989-2004.Footnote ²⁵³⁵ Equally, the Chamber notes that there is insufficient supporting information included in the report of the Parliament of the Republic of Uganda on the performance of the Amnesty Commission from 2002 to 2008, to which the LRVs refer, to enable the figure of 12,772 demobilised former LRA fighters to be of any utility to the Chamber's analysis.Footnote ²⁵³⁶

731. Without wishing to reiterate the Registry's analysis of the Berkeley Report, which is detailed in the overview of submissions above,Footnote ²⁵³⁷ the Chamber recalls that based on the data contained in the Report, the Registry proposes to take a rough estimate of a total of 41,000Footnote ²⁵³⁸ individuals (comprised of 22,000 childrenFootnote ²⁵³⁹ and 19,000 adults,Footnote ²⁵⁴⁰ which ‘would include SGBC victims and child soldiers’Footnote ²⁵⁴¹), who were abducted by the LRA from 2002 to April 2006, as the basis for its calculations.Footnote ²⁵⁴² Noting that there are no specific records on the amount of child abductions and recruits by the Sinia Brigade during the time relevant to Mr Ongwen's conviction, the Registry divides the figure of 41,000 individuals (which does not distinguish between adults and children) between the four LRA brigades to provide a ‘rough indicator’ rounded down to 10,000 individuals abducted by the Sinia brigade between 2002 and April 2006.Footnote ²⁵⁴³

732. While the Registry's analysis provides a helpful starting point, given that not all adults who were abducted by the LRA were victims of SGBC, the Chamber considers that the inclusion of adults in the Registry's base figure artificially inflates its calculations as to the number of victims of thematic crimes. The Chamber further observes that the figure of 22,000 children included in the body of the Berkeley Report relates to children under the age of 18, whereas Mr Ongwen was convicted for crimes perpetrated against children under the age of 15. Based on additional data included in Annex 1 to the Berkeley Report, which provides a further breakdown by age group for each reception centre, the Chamber calculates that, on average, 37.4% of all abductees were under the age of 15.Footnote ²⁵⁴⁴ Accordingly, for the purposes of the Chamber's further analysis in relation to child soldiers, the Chamber adopts the figure of 15,334 children under the age of 15 (reflecting 37.4% of the previously advanced total of 41,000 adult and child abducteesFootnote ²⁵⁴⁵). The Chamber notes that the percentage of child soldiers under the age of 18 is nearly the same (15,334: 22,000 = 0.697, i.e. 69.7 %) as the percentage calculated in the Lubanga reparation order (71%), although with a different method.Footnote ²⁵⁴⁶ The Chamber considers SGBC separately.

733. The Chamber notes that Mr Ongwen was convicted of conscription and use in hostilities of children under the age of 15 specifically, regarding the ‘large number of children under the age of 15 years abducted during the four attacks relevant to the charges and generally between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005 in.Northern Uganda and assigned to service in the Sinia Brigade’.Footnote ²⁵⁴⁷ However, the figure adopted by the Registry is generated by data for the period between ‘2002 and April 2006’. Noting that the Berkeley Report does not specify the month of commencement in 2002, the Chamber assumes, for Mr Ongwen's benefit, that the data applies to the period commencing in January 2002. Therefore, the Chamber considers it appropriate to discount the figure by six months for the period from January until July 2002, and a further four months for the period from January to April 2006, to reflect the period applicable to Mr Ongwen's conviction. The Chamber will therefore apply a total reduction of 19.23%,Footnote ²⁵⁴⁸ as detailed below.

734. In the same vein, the Chamber dismisses the Defence's submission that the figure should be discounted by 52.38% to reflect the 22 month period of the jurisdiction of the case during which Mr Ongwen controlled the Sinia Brigade,Footnote ²⁵⁴⁹ reiterating that Mr Ongwen's conviction for conscripting and use in hostilities of children under the age of 15 pertained to the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005.Footnote ²⁵⁵⁰ The Chamber similarly dismisses the Defence's suggestion that the Registry should have applied a divisor of six, rather than four, LRA brigades to the overall number of abductees to reflect a number representative of those abducted by the Sinia brigade.Footnote ²⁵⁵¹ In this respect, the Chamber recalls its findings in the Conviction Judgment that the LRA was divided into four brigades: Sinia, Stockree, Gilva and Trinkle.Footnote ²⁵⁵² In contrast, Control Altar was described as the ‘overall group’ and headquarters of the LRA, ‘where the most senior commanders are’,Footnote ²⁵⁵³ while ‘Jogo’ appears to have been a similarly overarching ‘division’.Footnote ²⁵⁵⁴ While the Defence asserts that the ‘Control Altar and Jogo Division operated the same as the Sinia, Trinkle, Stockree and Gilva Brigades’, inferring that they too ‘carried out operations, abducted persons and distributed women as wives within the LRA’,Footnote ²⁵⁵⁵ it cites no evidence or information to support this proposition. The Chamber also notes that there is evidence on the record to suggest that after being abducted and trained by one of the four brigades, some child soldiers were then brought to Joseph Kony/Control Altar,Footnote ²⁵⁵⁶ further supporting a divisor of four. Nevertheless, in applying a divisor of four, the Chamber has remained mindful of the Registry's observations regarding the absence of information as to whether some of the LRA brigades were more active than others during the relevant period, and that most abductees spent time in at least two LRA brigades.Footnote ²⁵⁵⁷

735. Applying the foregoing analysis to the data included in the Berkeley Report, the Chamber considers that an estimate of the number of potentially eligible victims of the crime of conscripting and use in hostilities of children under the age of 15 could be calculated as follows: the Chamber first reduces the figure of 15,334 children under the age of 15Footnote ²⁵⁵⁸ by 19.23% for the months that are outside the scope of the conviction (i.e. 2,949),Footnote ²⁵⁵⁹ which equates to 12,385 children. The Chamber then divides this figure of 12,385 children by the four LRA brigades (to approximate those abducted by the Sinia brigade), which equals an estimated 3,096 potentially eligible former child soldier victims. The Chamber emphasises that this is a conservative estimate, noting that the Berkeley Report indicates that the prevalence of abduction figures collected among the population suggests that the number of abductees is higher.Footnote ²⁵⁶⁰ In reaching this estimate, the Chamber also reiterates the limitations of these calculations, based on estimates and extrapolated data.

(ii) SGBC victims

736. Turning to SGBC victims, the Chamber acknowledges that some of the potentially eligible former child soldiers victims identified above may have also been subject to SGBC for which Mr Ongwen was convicted, or may be the children thereof. In this regard, the Chamber notes that 4% of abductees were born in captivity,Footnote ²⁵⁶¹ suggesting that they were born of SGBC. Applying the figures and analysis detailed above, the Chamber calculates that 4% of 41,000 abductees equates to 1,640 children born of SGBC. When this figure is multiplied by 19.23%, consistent with the temporal scope of the conviction, and divided by four LRA brigades, it equates to approximately 79 children born of SGBC, of the 3,096 potentially eligible former child soldier victims already counted above. So as not to double count victims for the purposes of its determination of the amount of Mr Ongwen's liability, the Chamber focuses its analysis on SGBC victims who fall outside the scope of the Chamber's previous calculations, namely women over the age of 15. The Chamber will first focus its analysis on women aged between 15 and 18, and thereafter on women aged over 19 years old.

737. According to the Berkeley Report, 24% of all abductees were female.Footnote ²⁵⁶² This means that of the aforementioned total of 41,000 abductees (adult and child),Footnote ²⁵⁶³ approximately 9,840 were female. Based on additional data included in Annex I to the Berkeley Report, the Chamber determines that an average of 33.41%Footnote ²⁵⁶⁴ of all abductees were aged between 15 and 18. Using these figures (i.e. 33.41% of 9,840), the Chamber calculates that approximately 3,288 abducteesFootnote ²⁵⁶⁵ were females aged between 15 and 18. Applying the same analysis detailed above, the Chamber first reduces the figure of 3,288 abducted women aged between 15 and 18 by 19.23%Footnote ²⁵⁶⁶ (i.e. 632) to reflect the temporal period applicable to the conviction, which equates to 2,656 individuals. The Chamber then divides this figure of 2,656 by four (to approximate those abducted by the Sinia brigade), which amounts to an estimated 664 women aged between 15 and 18 abducted by the Sinia brigade during the period applicable to the conviction.

738. According to the Berkeley Report, approximately 5.5% of all former abductees were women over the age of 19.Footnote ²⁵⁶⁷ The Chamber calculates that 5.5% of the previously advanced figure of 41,000 abducteesFootnote ²⁵⁶⁸ equates to 2,255 female abductees over the age of 19. Applying the same analysis detailed above, the Chamber first reduces the 2,255 women by 19.23%Footnote ²⁵⁶⁹ (i.e. 434) to reflect the period applicable to the conviction, which equates to 1,821 women. The Chamber then divides this figure by four (to approximate those abducted by the Sinia brigade), which equals an estimate of approximately 455 women over the age of 19 abducted by the Sinia brigade during the period applicable to the conviction. 739. The foregoing calculations indicate that approximately 1,119 women aged over 15 years old were abducted by the Sinia brigade in the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005. The Chamber notes that it cannot definitively conclude that all abducted women over the age of 15 were subject to SGBC. However, the Chamber recalls its findings from the Conviction Judgment that the principal aim of the LRA's abduction of women and girls in Northern Uganda was for them to serve as so-called ‘wives’ and domestic servants,Footnote ²⁵⁷⁰ and that Joseph Kony, Mr Ongwen and the Sinia brigade leadership engaged in a coordinated and methodical effort to abduct women and girls and to force them to serve in the Sinia brigade for these very purposes.Footnote ²⁵⁷¹ Moreover, the evidence demonstrates that Sinia brigade members regularly forced abducted women and girls who had been ‘distributed’ to them to have sexual intercourse.Footnote ²⁵⁷² The Chamber also recalls its conclusion that the evidence from both victims and former LRA fighters and commanders gives rise to a powerful inference that almost all the abducted women and girls in the Sinia Brigade had broadly similar experiences of victimisation.Footnote ²⁵⁷³ While the evidence varied as to whether female abductees were distributed to men immediately upon abduction, or a short period thereafter,Footnote ²⁵⁷⁴ and younger abducted girls were frequently used as household servants, referred to as ting tings, until they were considered mature enough to become so-called ‘wives’,Footnote ²⁵⁷⁵ the evidence overwhelming indicates that the vast majority of female abductees were subject to some form of SGBC. Indeed, the evidence suggests that even women who served as LRA fighters also served as so-called ‘wives’.Footnote ²⁵⁷⁶

740. In arriving at a number which reasonably reflects the estimated number of potentially eligible victims of SGBC, the Chamber has also remained mindful of its finding in the Conviction Judgment that ‘at any time’ in the period between 1 July 2002 and 31 December 2005, there were over one hundred abducted women and girls in the Sinia brigade.Footnote ²⁵⁷⁷ Specifically, P-0205 testified that there were close to 50 women in the Oka battalion, more than 50 in.the Terwanga battalion, and more than 30 in.the Siba battalion;Footnote ²⁵⁷⁸ P-0374 estimated that there were 200-300 so-called ‘wives’ and ting tings in Sinia;Footnote ²⁵⁷⁹ and P-0142 stated that in 2003-2004 there were around 100 so-called ‘wives’ in Sinia, and 30 to 70 ‘young girls who were not yet ready to marry’.Footnote ²⁵⁸⁰ In this regard, the Chamber notes that the conviction spanned a period of three and a half years, during which time the Chamber considers there would have been some turnover in both the members of the Sinia brigade, and in the so-called ‘wives’ and ting tings. The Chamber has also had regard to the Registry's submissions indicating that 145 participating victims reported being victims of SGBC.Footnote ²⁵⁸¹ However, the Registry further observes that the number of participating victims who reported suffering harm as a result of these types of crimes is extremely low, despite information that the number of these victims is actually much higher,Footnote ²⁵⁸² noting that this may arise from inhibitions of these victims to come forward due to potential social stigma.Footnote ²⁵⁸³

741. Taking all of the foregoing into consideration, mindful of the Chamber's obligation to resolve any uncertainty in favour of Mr Ongwen, the Chamber determines that a conservative estimate of the approximate number of potentially eligible victims of SGBC, excluding those victims already accounted for in its calculations of former child soldiers, is approximately 1,000. This brings the total estimate of potentially eligible direct victims of thematic crimes to 4,096 individuals.

c) Total estimated number of potentially eligible direct victims

742. As detailed above, the Chamber has determined that the estimated number of potentially eligible victims of the attacks on the IDP camps would amount to approximately 46,898 individuals, and the number of potentially eligible victims of thematic crimes would amount to approximately 4,096 individuals, equating to a total estimated number of victims of approximately 50,994 individuals. However, in addition to the aforementioned overlap between potential former child soldiers victims and SGBC victims, the Chamber notes that there is also an overlap between the victims of thematic crimes and the victims of the attacks on the IDP camps,Footnote ²⁵⁸⁴ for which appropriate deductions must also be made.

743. Extrapolating from the Registry's data identifying the number of overlapping participating victims who are both victims of the attacks on the IDP camps and victims of thematic crimes, the Chamber estimates that approximately 2,144 potentially eligible victims would also qualify as both victims of the attacks on the IDP camps and victims of thematic crimes, as detailed below.

744. By way of explanation, the Chamber notes that from the pool of participating victims who were victims of the attacks on the IDP camps, the Chamber identifies for each IDP camp: (i) the number of participating victims who are victims of thematic crimes; and (ii) the total number of participating victims who are victims of the attack (including victims who are also victims of thematic crimes). The Chamber then divides figure (i) by figure (ii) to ascertain the percentage of participating victims who are both victims of the attack and victims of thematic crimes (‘dual victims’). The Chamber then applies these percentages to the estimated number of potentially eligible victims of each IDP camp attack to ascertain the number of potentially eligible ‘dual victims’ for each IDP camp. Tallying the numbers for each camp, the total number of potentially eligible ‘dual victims’ equates to approximately 2,144 individuals. As a corollary, deducting the 2,144 potential ‘dual victims’ from the estimated total of 4,096 potential victims of thematic crimes, the Chamber concludes that approximately 1,952Footnote ²⁵⁹² potentially eligible victims would be exclusively victims of thematic crimes.

745. So as not to double count these potentially eligible ‘dual victims’, the Chamber deducts the 2,144 potentially eligible dual victims from the estimated overall total of 50,994 potentially eligible victims, and determines that the approximate number of potentially eligible direct victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted for the purposes of calculating his liability for reparations is approximately 48,850 individuals.

d) Total estimated number of potentially eligible indirect victims

746. As to the number of exclusively indirect victims of the attacks on the IDP camps, the Chamber notes the Registry's submission that considering that entire families were residing in the four IDP camps, with only isolated instances of family members living outside the camps, the number of family members of direct victims who were not present in the camps on the day of the attacks would be relatively insignificant.Footnote ²⁵⁹³ Consistent with the Registry's observations, the Chamber recalls its finding that, as reflected in the Sample, there is a significant overlap between direct and indirect victims of the attacks on the IDP camps in the present case.Footnote ²⁵⁹⁴ Extrapolating from the Sample, which identified only 1.06%Footnote ²⁵⁹⁵ of victims as exclusively indirect victims of the attacks on the IDP camps, the Chamber estimates that there would be approximately 497Footnote ²⁵⁹⁶ potentially eligible indirect victims of the attacks on the IDP camps.

747. With respect to indirect victims of the thematic crimes, the Registry provides no basis for assessment, submitting that the categories of indirect victims and their approximate number can be provided once the approximate number of direct victims is established.Footnote ²⁵⁹⁷ The Chamber notes that of the small number of victims of exclusively thematic crimes reviewed as part the Sample, no victims were identified as indirect victims only.Footnote ²⁵⁹⁸ However, noting the sample size,Footnote ²⁵⁹⁹ the Chamber does not consider that this is representative of the overall number of indirect victims of exclusively thematic crimes. In the absence of any relevant data in the present case, for the purposes of estimating the approximate number of indirect victims of thematic crimes, the Chamber adopts an average of the percentage of the total number of victims found eligible to qualify as indirect victims in the Lubanga case (23%) and the estimate used in the Ntaganda case (20.5%),Footnote ²⁶⁰⁰ respectively. The Chamber therefore estimates that the approximate number of potentially eligible indirect victims of the thematic crimes would amount to 21.75% of the total estimate of 1,952 individuals, equating to approximately 425 indirect victims.

a) First consideration: harm

771. As to the harm suffered by the victims, the Chamber recalls that, as detailed above,Footnote ²⁶⁸⁸ consistent with the Court's jurisprudence,Footnote ²⁶⁸⁹ it conducted an in-depth analysis of all relevant information before it, including the submissions and observations of parties and participants, the Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the evidence in the case file, and a representative Sample of victims' dossiers.Footnote ²⁶⁹⁰ This assessment has allowed the Chamber to clearly define the harms that resulted from the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted. Further, the strong evidentiary basis supporting the findings above as to harm suffered by the victimsFootnote ²⁶⁹¹ allows the Chamber, by extrapolation, to reach valid conclusions regarding the entire universe of victims entitled to benefit from reparations in the present case.

772. The Chamber underscores that, consistent with its findings beyond reasonable doubt in the Conviction Judgment and Sentence, the re-assessment of the evidence and consideration of the Sample conducted during this reparations proceeding has allowed the Chamber to confirm ‘the serious, multiple, long-lasting and diverse consequences of the harms inflicted by the crimes’, as underscored by the Prosecutor.Footnote ²⁶⁹² The evidence indeed overwhelmingly demonstrates that entire families and the community of victims of the attacks on the four IDP camps as a whole – tens of thousands of individuals – suffered tremendous harm due to the unimaginable atrocities committed during and in the aftermath of the four attacks for which Mr Ongwen was convicted.Footnote ²⁶⁹³ Similarly, over one hundred women and girls and thousands of children – boys and girls – under the age of fifteen suffered profound multifaceted harm as a result of being kidnapped. Many were later subject to SGBC and or forced to serve as LRA soldiers, being kept in captivity under cruel methods of physical and psychological coercion.Footnote ²⁶⁹⁴

773. As a result, the Chamber has found that the direct victims of the attacks, direct SGBC victims, children born out of SGBC, and former child soldiers suffered serious and long-lasting physical, moral, and material harm, while the indirect victims suffered moral and material harm.Footnote ²⁶⁹⁵ In addition, the entire community of victims suffered community harm and children of direct victims and children born out of SGBC suffered transgenerational harm.Footnote ²⁶⁹⁶ The extent of the harm caused by the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted is indeed profound and multi-layered. Most, if not all victims are not only direct victims of a multiple heinous crimes but are, at the same time, also indirect victims of their entire family and many others who suffered as much or even worse harm. The whole community of victims of the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted also suffered community harms.

774. As detailed above,Footnote ²⁶⁹⁷ entire communities and families personally experienced the attacks, in which many of their family members, neighbours, friends, and others in their community were severely mistreated and or killed. Houses were destroyed and burnt, some with their residents still inside while everything else, including all aid food stocks, was looted or destroyed. Some civilians managed to escape the attacks but most of those who survived were then forced to walk next to the bodies scattered through the camps. These individuals were abducted and forced to carry heavy loads of looted goods and injured fighters for long distances, while tied to each other, barefooted, and mistreated in order to force them walk faster and prevent them from escaping. They suffered great physical and psychological abuse during the walk out of the camps. The examples are distressing: some were beaten to death, some were forced to kill other abductees, some children were taken from their mothers if they cried or caused their mothers to slow down, and some were thrown in pits and left to die. When reaching the locations of LRA forces where other abductees had been brought, women and girls were ‘distributed’ to LRA soldiers who subjected them to SGBC and children under the age of 15 were integrated into the LRA forces. Some were kept for years, while others never returned home.

775. As such, the Chamber finds merit in the Defence's submission regarding the difficulties in ‘attempting to monetize the individual harms to individual persons’.Footnote ²⁶⁹⁸ In effect, the estimates provided by the parties and participants only refer to certain services or monetary equivalents per certain harms, but are not fully comprehensive as to all harms or the complete amount needed to individually repair the totality of the harms suffered by the victims, as identified in this Order. This should not be understood as a criticism, as the Chamber does not fault the parties and participants for not providing more details. The lack of available information that the Chamber can rely upon only reinforces the Chamber's conclusion that the diverse and multi-dimensional harms the victims suffered are so interlinked that endeavouring to value each harm in order to provide restitution or compensation to each individual victim is simply an impossible undertaking. On this point, the Chamber recalls the LRVs' submission that ‘[t]he victims acknowledge that indeed no amount of reparations can repair the harm they have suffered’.Footnote ²⁶⁹⁹ In effect, their suffering can never be fairly valued financially. Accordingly, while the Chamber commends the parties and participants for their efforts in trying to provide some estimates as to the cost of certain services per victim or the monetary equivalent per harm,Footnote ²⁷⁰⁰ the Chamber will not take these individual compensatory values into consideration when determining the amount of liability, as it has decided to focus on the global costs for rehabilitation and symbolic measures included the reparations awarded in this Order, as discussed below.

b) Second consideration: number of victims

776. As to the number of victims, the Chamber recalls that, as found above, the estimated number of direct and indirect victims of the case would be approximately 49,772 individuals in total, broken down as follows:

1. a. Direct victims of the attacks, approximately 46,898 individuals;

2. b. Indirect (only) victims of the attacks, approximately 497 individuals;

3. c. Direct thematic victims (SGBC victims and former child soldiers), approximately 1,952 individuals; and

4. d. Indirect (only) thematic victims, approximately 425 individuals;

777. The Chamber underlines that the estimates above are based on projections and that it should not be understood as a limit on the maximum number of individuals who may come forward and be considered eligible to benefit from the award.

c) Third consideration: types and modalities of reparations

778. As to the types and modalities of reparations, the Chamber notes that, as ruled above, considering the extent of the harm caused by the crimes for which Mr Ongwen was convicted and the large number of potential beneficiaries in the case, it has decided to award collective community-based reparations focused on rehabilitation and symbolic/satisfactory measures.Footnote ²⁷⁰¹ As to the specific modalities awarded, the Chamber discusses these below when assessing the costs of repair.

d) Fourth consideration: costs of repair

779. The Chamber assesses below the cost of repair in light of the collective community- based reparations awarded which, as noted above, include rehabilitation measures in the form of collective programmes and symbolic/satisfaction measures in the form of a cash payment and other satisfaction measures.

(i) Rehabilitation measures

780. As part of the rehabilitation measures, the Chamber awarded collective community-based programmes aimed at rectifying all types of harm identified by the Chamber, meaning: physical, moral, material, community, and transgenerational harms.Footnote ²⁷⁰² As to the costs required to implement such measures, the Chamber has considered in detail the submissions of parties and participants and decides as follows:

781. The Chamber first commends the CLRV's work in providing detailed submissions regarding organisations that currently or recently have implemented projects in Northern Uganda and in submitting details regarding the scope and types of the programmes that can be implemented in the region.Footnote ²⁷⁰³ However, the Chamber notes that the CLRV indicates that not all organisations provide details as to the specific costs per programmeFootnote ²⁷⁰⁴ and there is no indication as to the approximate number of victims who are or have been benefited by such programmes. Accordingly, the Chamber cannot rely on these values to estimate the costs associated with repairing the harms caused to the victims in the present case.

782. Regarding Uganda's suggestion for the Chamber to be guided by the budget of the various programmes implemented through the PRDP and the DINU,Footnote ²⁷⁰⁵ the Chamber first notes that Uganda did not provide any further information as to such programmes. After a search of publicly available sources and information, the Chamber has concluded that the programmes to which Uganda refers do not provide a sufficient or relevant basis to make estimations in the present case,Footnote ²⁷⁰⁶ because they are directed at addressing other needs and not the type of harms suffered by the victims in the present case. For example, the Chamber notes that the DINU's general objective is to ‘consolidate stability in Northern Uganda, poverty and under-nutrition and strengthen the foundations for sustainable and inclusive socio-economic development’.Footnote ²⁷⁰⁷ Although such a mandate may appear somewhat relevant to the rehabilitation of material harm in the present case, when paying closer attention to the specific objectives implemented within the project, which include improving access to finance, improving the stock and quality of district roads, increasing local fiscal space, and enhancing local service delivery of core government functions,Footnote ²⁷⁰⁸ it is evident that the figures are not relevant to estimating the costs to repair the harms caused to the victims in this case.

783. Similarly, the Chamber considers that the estimated costs provided by the ICTJ and UVF which focus on setting up and maintaining a health centre and primary and vocational schools,Footnote ²⁷⁰⁹ are again not relevant for the estimation of the costs to repair the harms caused to the victims in this case. The Chamber underscores that the role of the Court in providing reparations is victim-centred and victim-focused and shall not be confused with that of development agencies.

784. The Chamber notes, however, that the CLRV highlights that since 2008, the TFV has been implementing several programmes in Uganda as part of its assistance mandate, developing a wide range of activities in support of the victims of the conflict, and providing them with physical, psychological, and economic assistance.Footnote ²⁷¹⁰ The CLRV notes that information available indicates that from 2008 until April 2021, the TFV has implemented 28 projects through 16 partners at an overall cost of around €9,606,389.63 EUR.Footnote ²⁷¹¹ Regarding concrete estimates as to the costs to repair the harms in the present case, the LRVs also referred to the TFV's submissions ‘given their experience in executing its assistance mandate’.Footnote ²⁷¹²

785. The Chamber has therefore duly considered the TFV's submissions regarding the costs of the rehabilitation programmes implemented in Northern Uganda as part of its assistance mandate. The Chamber underscores that both victims' representatives consider the TFV's expenditure in assistance programmes in Uganda as a reliable source for estimating the costs of repair in the present case. In addition, in light of the large number of victims, the overwhelming multi-layered harms, and the types and modalities of reparations awarded in the case, i.e. collective community-based reparations focused on rehabilitation and symbolic/satisfaction measures, the Chamber considers that the costs of the assistance programmes implemented to date in the same region by the TFV's partners constitute the most reliable basis for calculations of the costs to repair currently available to the Chamber.

786. The Chamber recalls that it has awarded collective community rehabilitation programmes directed at rectifying all types of harm identified by the Chamber, i.e. physical, moral, material, community, and transgenerational harms.Footnote ²⁷¹³ According to the information provided by the TFV, the types of support provided by the TFV's assistance programmes in Uganda include physical rehabilitation,Footnote ²⁷¹⁴ psychological rehabilitation,Footnote ²⁷¹⁵ livelihood support,Footnote ²⁷¹⁶ rehabilitation services to SGBC survivors,Footnote ²⁷¹⁷ and peacebuilding activities.Footnote ²⁷¹⁸ The Chamber notes that the specific services provided under the different types of support mentioned above are indeed comparable to those the Chamber would expect to be included in the design of the collective community-based rehabilitation reparations programmes required to address the multiplicity of harms suffered by the victims in the present case. As such, the costs of these programmes are a reliable basis for calculating the costs to repair in the present case.

787. The Chamber notes that the TFV indicates that the rehabilitative assistance provided in Northern Uganda between 2008 and 2021 benefited more than 60,000 victims at an estimated cost of €12 million EUR.Footnote ²⁷¹⁹ The CLRV notes that the public information indicates that these programmes reached approximately 351,665 direct beneficiaries and 574,511 indirect beneficiaries.Footnote ²⁷²⁰ On this point the Chamber does not consider that the number of victims who have benefited directly or indirectly from the assistance programmes, which are collective community by nature, is relevant to the calculation of the costs of repair. In effect, the Chamber notes that when referring to collective community programmes, the Chamber cannot estimate costs by simply dividing the total expenditure by the number of beneficiaries, as they are not individual or individualised awards.Footnote ²⁷²¹

788. Accordingly, the Chamber considers that the costs of these programmes made by the TFV are a relevant consideration in order to estimate the cost to repair the victims in this case, with reparations that ‘focus on recognition, rehabilitation, and symbolic/satisfaction measures’.Footnote ²⁷²² The Chamber notes that the TFV indicated that is ‘in a position to implement an adequately responsive, community-based and victim-driven reparation programme for an estimated 60,000 victims to be implemented over a ten year period’.Footnote ²⁷²³ The TFV appears to indicate that the costs of such programme should be estimated at €15 million EUR.Footnote ²⁷²⁴ However, the Chamber notes that the way in which the TFV presents its calculations is unclear as it indicates that it considers it ‘to be a reasonable ambition … to complement [the proposed programme] at a value of EUR 15 million’,Footnote ²⁷²⁵ but later it acknowledges that, ‘in an optimal funding situation’ the programme could ‘ideally’ be conducted ‘with a significantly higher financial ambition, for instance at the double value’.Footnote ²⁷²⁶ Nevertheless, the Chamber considers that the €15 million EUR originally indicated appears more in line with the approximate €12 million EUR the TFV indicated to have spent on the assistance programmes that serve as the point of reference for the TFV estimations. As such, and resolving this particular discrepancy in favour of the convicted person, the Chamber estimates that the cost of implementing the collective community rehabilitation programmes ordered in the present case would amount to approximately €15 million EUR.

(ii) Symbolic and satisfactory measures

789. As part of the symbolic and satisfactory measures, the Chamber awarded (i) the payment of a symbolic award of €750 EUR for each eligible direct and indirect victim;Footnote ²⁷²⁷ and (ii) other community symbolic and satisfaction measures.Footnote ²⁷²⁸

790. Regarding the cost of the symbolic award, the Chamber recalls that this is part of the collective community-based programme and, as such, is awarded to the benefit of all eligible victims without distinction as to their type of victimhood or harm. In order to calculate the amount required to provide this symbolic payment the Chamber relies on its estimation as to the total number of victims in the case, which amounts to approximately 49,772 individuals. As such, the total amount required to provide victims with this symbolic payment is €37,329,000 EUR.

791. Regarding the costs to implement other community-based symbolic and satisfaction measures, the Chamber notes that, with the exception of ARLPI,Footnote ²⁷²⁹ parties and participants do not provide estimates as to the costs required to implement these type of measures. The Chamber recalls, however, that the Defence welcomed ARLPI's observations on traditional ceremoniesFootnote ²⁷³⁰ and indicated that this amicus ‘offered the most insightful information from the amici about how to handle reparations’.Footnote ²⁷³¹ The TFV also refers to these estimates to indicate that the costs of symbolic and satisfaction measures may be relatively modest.Footnote ²⁷³² In the absence of other estimates it can rely upon, the Chamber has considered the estimated costs of the symbolic measures suggested by ARLPI.

792. The Chamber notes, in particular, the estimated costs for some of the rehabilitation, satisfaction measures, and human right training proposed by the amicus. Memorial prayers, cleansing ceremonies, and reconciliation ceremonies are estimated to cost, in total 260,000,000 UGX (equivalent to €62,908.30 EUR).Footnote ²⁷³³ Four monuments are estimated to cost, in total 28,000,000 UGX (equivalent to €6,774.74 EUR).Footnote ²⁷³⁴ The Chamber notes that ARLPI also suggests as a measure of satisfaction the construction of a museum. However, the Chamber does not consider it to be appropriate for it to request the TFV to undertake projects of that kind as part of the reparations ordered in the present case, as the Court cannot guarantee their future maintenance. As such, this item will not be considered as part of the present calculations.

793. ARLPI also provides estimates for a series of activities related to sensitisation and training on human rights, production and dissemination of information materials, radio talks shows, and radio spot jingles, estimated to cost in total 491,500,000 UGX (equivalent to €118,920.88 EUR).Footnote ²⁷³⁵ The Chamber notes that an important part of the proposed activities in this section are included as peacebuilding activities the TFV indicates are part of the assistance programmes that will be reflected in the collective community reparations to be designed by the TFV.Footnote ²⁷³⁶ An important part of the costs identified by ARLPI should thus be considered to have been already accounted for in the estimated cost of implementing the collective community-based rehabilitation programmes ordered in the present case. Accordingly, the Chamber considers that from the estimate provided by ARLPI for sensitisation and training on human rights, only 25% of the costs and activities should be accounted for as extras to be included in the Chamber's estimation.

794. In light of the above, the Chamber considers it fair and appropriate to estimate the costs of implementing other community symbolic and satisfaction measures, including, inter alia, apologies ceremonies, monuments, memorial prayers, cleansing ceremonies, reconciliation ceremonies, and other activities related to sensitisation and training on human rights at a total of €100,000.00 EUR.