## Facts

- Thomas Lubanga Dyilo was convicted of war crimes for conscripting, enlisting, and using children under 15 to participate actively in hostilities in Ituri, Democratic Republic of Congo (2002–2003) and sentenced to 14 years’ imprisonment.
- Trial Chamber I issued a reparations decision under Rome Statute Article 75 establishing general principles and procedures, and directed the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) to identify beneficiaries, assess harm, and propose modalities.
- The Trial Chamber’s approach treated “harm” broadly, suggesting reparations could cover sexual and gender-based violence even though those crimes were not part of the conviction.
- The Defence and victims’ legal representatives appealed aspects of the reparations decision; the TFV and other participants filed submissions.
- The Appeals Chamber issued a judgment resolving the appeals and an Amended Order for Reparations setting the operative framework for implementation.

## Issues

1. What essential elements must an Article 75 reparations order contain, and how specific must it be to be enforceable and reviewable?
2. Whether a chamber may delegate to the TFV core determinations reserved to judges, including defining harm and identifying eligible categories of victims.
3. Whether reparations may cover harm from alleged conduct not reflected in the crimes of conviction (including sexual and gender-based violence).
4. Whether collective reparations may be ordered, and what judicial guidance is required when implementation is left to the TFV.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber allowed the appeals in part and amended the Trial Chamber’s reparations decision.
- The Appeals Chamber held that the Trial Chamber erred by delegating inherently judicial functions to the TFV and by failing to include required elements in the reparations order.
- The Appeals Chamber held that reparations must be limited to harm caused by the crimes of conviction and may not extend to harm from other alleged crimes not adjudicated in the conviction.
- The Appeals Chamber endorsed collective reparations as an appropriate modality in this case, provided the order specifies the relevant victims and harm with adequate precision.
- The Appeals Chamber issued an Amended Order for Reparations that replaced the earlier approach and gave the TFV implementation directions within judicially set parameters.

## Legal Principles

- A reparations order under Rome Statute Article 75 is a judicial decision that must contain essential determinations rather than a general framework left to administrative implementation.
- At minimum, a reparations order must define the harm to direct and indirect victims resulting from the crimes for which the person was convicted and must identify eligible victim categories and the forms/modalities of reparations.
- Core judicial tasks—such as legally defining the scope of harm covered by the order and the categories of victims entitled to benefit—are not delegable to the TFV.
- Reparations against a convicted person must be causally linked to, and limited by, the crimes of conviction; principles such as non-discrimination and gender inclusiveness do not authorize expanding liability beyond adjudicated crimes.
- Collective reparations are permissible, including in mass-victimization settings, but must be tailored to the recognized harm and victims and provide sufficient guidance for TFV implementation.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Chamber corrected the reparations framework by requiring a concrete, judge-made order containing essential elements, restricting reparations to harm caused by the crimes of conviction, and confining the TFV to implementation functions within defined judicial parameters while approving collective reparations for victims of the child-soldier crimes.


Prosecutor v. Lubanga Dyilo (Order for Reparations), Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-3129 (Int’l Crim. Ct. App. Ch. 2015)