ADVANCED INTERNATIONAL LAW

BOSCH BUCH, Jofre

Individual Assignment 2 LUBANGA CASE

1. Essential Information on the Forum

The founding treaty of the International Criminal Court entered into force on 11 April 2002, when the
Democratic Republic of the Congo became a State party. Furthermore, the complainant President
Kabila, to refer the situation to the Prosecutor to fall the case within the ICC jurisdiction , used Article
19 of the Rome Statute because it provides that the Court shall satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in
any case brought before it.
2. Key Terms
Conscription and enlistment of children under the age of 15 and using them to participate actively in
the hostilities, article 74 of the Rome Statute. Individual criminal responsibility, article 25 (3)(a) and
30 of the Statute.
3. Brief Outline of the Facts
Between 1 September 2002 and 13 August 2003 the Union of Congolose Patriot and its military wing,
the Force Patriotique pour la Libration du Congo , which leadership was Thomas Lubanga Dyilo,
killed 800 civilians on the basis of their ethnicity in the region of Mongbwalu and also children under
age of 15 were voluntarily or forcibly recruited into the UPC/FPLC and send to its headquarters or
its military training camps. In each military camps, children endured harsh training regimes and were
subjected to a variety of severe punishments, to carry out domestic work or that girl soldiers were
subjected to sexual violence and rape. In addition, a special Kadogo Unit was comprised principally
of children under the age of 15, who were used as bodyguards or served the presidential guard of Mr
Lubanga.
In March 2003 the UPC loosed against the Ugandan army in Bunia. Then, one year later, the
Congolose government authorized the ICC to investigate and prosecute universal jurisdiction crimes
in the Democratic Republic of Congo because on 1 July, two months before the beginning of the
recruitment in the FPLC army of children under 15, entered into force the Rome Statute.
4. Summary of the Legal Findings
Under the article 25 (3a) and 30 f the Rome Statute, there was an agreement or common plan
between Mr Lubanga and one other co-perpetrator; he provided an essential contribution in the
common plan of the relevant crime; the accused meant to conscript, enlist or use children under the
age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities or he was aware that these consequences will occur in
the ordinary course of events; he was aware that he provided an essential contribution and of the
factual circumstances that established the existence of an armed conflict and the link between these
circumstances and his conduct.

5. Enforcement of the Decision and Outcome

On 19 March 2005 Mr Lubanga was arrested and 17 March 2006 Lubanga was the first precedent of
an ICC arrest warrant. He ICC Trial Lubanga case started on January 2009 until the Conclusion of the
Chamber when they declared him guilty of conscripting and enlisting children under the age of
fifteen years into the FPLC and using them to participate actively in hostilities within the meaning of
Articles 8 and 25 of the Statute. Finally, on July 2012, Lubanga was sentenced for 14 years and in fact,
he would be only 8 more years in prison, because the court spent 6 years to come to a conclusion.

6. Significance of the Case

In this case we have a good example of universal jurisdiction. In the result, there are different
opinions about the arguments of the International Court of Justice. First of all, there are some
opinions which can be opposed to judge a national of a sovereign state because it doesnt exist one
international community, in their opinion, but it is a very poor argument. In our world it exists
different states which their own sovereignty, its obviously. But also it exist a international relations
practice which states has to advocate for some fundamental principles which are in a serious danger
if they permit that other states doesnt respect it.
Any state in the world has the right to impose their behavior among the others but also any state
cant think that it is alone in the world. I dont want to justify why some countries can act against
their population without any justification like China or Russia where human rights are obviously non
respected. Even if every country wouldnt respect or violate the rights of their citizens, we also have
to defend and to claim against them. We cant build a new international community in a short period
of time, then we have settle little by little although we would do it in a different way. Universal
jurisdiction is useful because contributes to promote a more fair behavior of states unless there
several crimes which are not judged by the ICC.
The Crimes which are judged by this Court, are classified as a heinousness. But, like Addeno Addis
said in the article called Imagining the International Community, it doesnt exist an specific meaning
of the significance and the limits of this word. Which are the rules to define the classification of one
action as a heinousness? Unfortunately that depends on the interests of the states, and not every
states, the most powerful states, which are who decide the international relations policies. For
example, if Mr. Lubanga was the president of Russia, China or USA, any state would have the strong
authority to impose a judgment for crimes against humanity. This kind of states can do wherever
they want with the justification that the other states have an interest in relation to them and
nobody wants to be injured in advocating for new rules in the universal jurisdiction. The problem is
not only about which crimes we want to include to be classified as a heinousness, the main issue is
the power of coercion related to the enforceability of judgments. Its clear, that Mr. Lubanga was
judged because the powerful states permitted it, he was an exception. At the moment, universal
jurisdiction depends on the power flow of the states. However, this case its a precedent which can
made changes in the practice of universal jurisdictional, maybe would be a little step on a new way of
international law.

7. Secondary Literature on the Judgment

http://www.iccnow.org/?mod=drctimelinelubanga
http://africanarguments.org/2012/03/22/the-lubanga-verdict-a-milestone-in-the-fight-againstimpunity-%E2%80%93-by-koen-vlassenroot/
http://www.iccwomen.org/documents/Press-Statement-on-Lubanga-Sentencing.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Lubanga_Dyilo