Gender Report Design - 4genderjustice
GENDERON THEINTERNATIONALCRIMINAL COURT2018
The Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice would like tothank the following donors for their support:AnonymousHer Majesty’s Government’s Foreign andCommonwealth OfficePlanethood FoundationSwiss Federal Department of Foreign AffairsThe views expressed in this publication are those of the Women’sInitiatives for Gender Justice and do not necessarily represent the viewsof our donors, nor any of their affiliated organisations.Gender Report Card on the International Criminal Court Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice, December 2018ISBN derJusticehttps://4genderjustice.org
GENDERREPORT CARDON THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT 2018
CONTENTSINTRODUCTION8STATES PARTIES10Withdrawals from the Rome Statute12Amendments to the Rome Statute16ICC Jurisdiction Over the Crime of Aggression16Criminalisation of Three New War Crimes17Proposed Amendment on the Use of Anti-personnel Mines17The Independent Oversight Mechanism18ICC Budget for 201920Office of the Prosecutor21Registry22Trust Fund for Victims’ Secretariat23Under-representation of Female Judges and Heads of Organs24Gender Representation Across the Bench24Overview of Geographical and Gender Representation AmongstJudicial Candidates27All-male Presidency28Registrar28Prosecutor29
ICC PRELIMINARY EXAMINATIONS,SITUATIONS UNDER INVESTIGATION,AND CASES30Situations under Preliminary Examination32Overview of Preliminary Examinations33Preliminary Examinations Opened34Completed Preliminary Examinations38Situations under Investigation and Cases42Burundi43At the ICC44Central African Republic46At the ICC48Charges in cases of the CAR Situation49The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo50The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo et al58Côte d’Ivoire62At the ICC64The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé66Democratic Republic of the Congo71At the ICC72Charges in Cases of the DRC Situation74
The Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo76The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga78The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda80Georgia83At the ICC84Kenya86At the ICC87Charges in Cases of the Kenya Situation90Libya91At the ICC93Charges in Cases of the Libya Situation95The Prosecutor v. Al-Tuhamy Mohamed Khaled96The Prosecutor v. Mahmoud Mustafa Busayf Al-Werfalli96Mali98At the ICC100Charges in cases of the Mali Situation102The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi103The Prosecutor v. Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud109Darfur, Sudan111At the ICC111Charges in Cases of the Darfur, Sudan Situation114Uganda116At the ICC118Charges in Cases of the Uganda Situation120The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen122
GENDER JUSTICE AT THE ICC130Gender Responsive Procedures132Mainstreaming gender at the Court132Outreach and Victim Participation135Gender Justice Jurisprudential Developments139Justice for child soldiers in the Ntaganda case139Sexual and Gender-Based Violence, Modes of Liability, and thePrinciple of Culpability142Ongoing Challenges and Opportunities148Addressing sexual violence against men and boys148Accommodating Survivors’ Perspectives of Conflict-relatedForced Relationships153Appraising Sexual Violence in Composite Crimes157Intersectionality as a Pathway to Gender Justice159RECOMMENDATIONS162To the Assembly of States Parties163To the Court163Acronyms used in this Report168Publications by the Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice170Acknowledgements171
IntroductionThis Gender Report Card on the InternationalCriminal Court corresponds with the 20th Anniversary of the Rome Statute of the InternationalCriminal Court (Rome Statute). On this occasion,this Gender Report Card is dedicated to all theGender Justice Advocates who have contributedto the continually growing, and ever importantfield. A special tribute is made to all membersof the Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice, amovement of women’s human rights advocatesfrom around the world who came together with aview to enshrine principles of gender justice andgender equality in the framework and functioningof the International Criminal Court (ICC). Activebetween 1997 and 2003, the Women’s Caucusdemonstrated the need for feminist analysis ofinternational criminal law and humanitarian law,and for dedicated consideration of women’s interests in the work of the ICC to ensure it is inclusive,representative, and relevant to the lives of women,as well as men, affected by conflict. The Women’s8Women's Initiatives for Gender JusticeInitiatives for Gender Justice, established in 2004,continues to advocate for gender inclusive justicethrough the ICC and the Rome Statute.As a result of the tireless work of many, the legalframework of the ICC integrates gender in itsstructures, substantive jurisdiction, and procedures. The structures of the Court foresee the fairgender and regional representation of judges andstaff as well as gender specific legal expertise.Regarding the ICC’s substantive jurisdiction, theRome Statute is the first instrument of international criminal law to expressly include crimesof sexual violence and acknowledges sexualand gender-based violence as the constitutiveacts for genocide, crimes against humanity, andwar crimes. It further includes the principle ofnon-discrimination in the application and interpretation of the law, including on the basis ofgender. The procedures foresee the rights ofvictims to participate and apply for reparations,
and special measures, especially for victims and/or witnesses of crimes of sexual violence.The Gender Report Cards produced by the Women’s Initiatives for Gender Justice from 2005 to2014 have grown with the Court. As the Structures, Procedures and Substantive Work of theCourt have been implemented and grown, thefocus of the first decade of Gender Report Cardsevolved. In tribute to the Women’s Caucus, thisedition of the Gender Report Card is focused onthe extent to which gender has been integratedin a meaningful way in all organs of the ICC,and the extent to which it has provided genderinclusive justice.This Gender Report Card highlights the mostsignificant developments which have occurredover the past year, from 1 July 2017 to 30 June2018. Where relevant, information from prior tothis time period has been included to complement analysis of developments identified duringthe time period of this Report. As with previousGender Report Cards, the 2018 edition focuses onStates Parties, and the Substantive Work of theICC. The Substantive Work is explored throughthe Preliminary Examinations, Situations underinvestigation, and cases active during this year,and through the development of jurisprudenceparticularly relevant to gender justice. In a departure from previous Gender Report Cards, thesedevelopments are explored through a thematicapproach, providing an overview of proceduraldevelopments, and comprehensive analysisof the gender specific jurisprudential developments, challenges and opportunities before theCourt to ensure it is a mechanism capable ofdelivering gender inclusive justice. As in everyGender Report Card, detailed recommendationsaddressing the Assembly of States Parties andthe Court are provided.Gender Report Card on the International Criminal Court9
STATES PARTIES
States PartiesStates Parties are integral to the operation, functioning andeffectiveness of the ICC. Widespread support from States Parties grants legitimacy to the Court, and funding and cooperationfrom States Parties ensures its functionality. There are currently 123 States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC. EachState Party is represented in the Assembly of States Parties(ASP), the Court’s management oversight and legislative body.This section provides an overview of recent important developmentsrelated to the involvement of States Parties with the Court, individually orthrough the ASP. Selected items are presented due to their significancetowards achieving a gender inclusive Court and/or for the functioning ofthe Court and the Rome Statute as a whole. Special focus is placed on Statewithdrawal from the Rome Statute, the historic recent amendments to theStatute, the operationality of the Independent Oversight Mechanism (IOM),the proposed budget for 2019, and the current under-representation offemale judges and heads of organ at the ICC.Gender Report Card on the International Criminal Court11
Withdrawals from theRome StatuteStates Parties are able to withdraw from the Rome Statute State withdrawalpursuant to procedures set out in Article 127 of the Statute. A does not affectwithdrawal takes effect one year after written notification is the ability ofreceived by the UN Secretary-General.1 The first withdrawal the Prosecutornotification was received from South Africa in October 2016, to investigateand three further notifications have been received from Burundi, crimes allegedlyThe Gambia and the Philippines since then. South Africa and committed whileThe Gambia revoked their notifications of withdrawal prior to the State intheir taking effect due to internal parliamentary procedural question wasobstacles, and a change in policy after presidential elections, still party to therespectively.2 Burundi has effectively withdrawn, and the with- Rome Statute.drawal of the Philippines is due to take effect in March 2019.Decisions to withdraw from the Rome Statute have mainly been influenced by questioned legitimacy of ICC action, particularly if the action wasperceived as likely to target the government. This includes primarily ICCproceedings against Heads of State and the opening of Preliminary Examinations. For instance, the withdrawal notifications from both Burundi andthe Philippines were issued shortly after the opening of an ICC PreliminaryExamination of the respective countries.3The perceived lack of legitimacy is further fueled by allegations that theCourt is targeting Africa. Notably, three of the four States that have initiatedwithdrawal processes are African nations. However, it is important to notethat, of the 11 ongoing ICC investigations into Situations in African States,five were self-referred by the Government of the respective countries, two121Article 127(1), Rome Statute.2‘Withdrawals from the Rome Statute: Continuing the saga of institutional (il)legitimacy’, MJIL Online, April 2017.3‘Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, on opening a PreliminaryExamination into the situation in Burundi’, 25 April 2016; ‘Statement of the President of the Assembly of StatesParties on the process of withdrawal from the Rome Statute by Burundi’, ICC-CPI-20161014-PR1244, 18 October2016; ‘ICC Statement on The Philippines’ notice of withdrawal: State participation in Rome Statute system essential to international rule of law’, ICC-CPI-20180320-PR1371, 20 March 2018.Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice
StateDate of WithdrawalNotificationSouth Africa19 October 2016Withdrawal revokedon 7 March 2017NoBurundi27 October 2016Effective withdrawalon 27 October 2017Preliminary Examination since 25 April 2016; Situationunder investigation since 25 October 2017The Gambia10 November 2016Withdrawal revokedon 10 February 2017NoPhilippines17 March 2018Will effectively withdrawon 17 March 2019Preliminary Examination since 8 February 2018Situation Under PreliminaryExamination or Investigation?Other Key DatesThe data used for this graph is from the UN Treaties website on the Rome Statute and the ICC website.were referred by the UN Security Council, andfour were opened by the ICC Prosecutor propriomotu with Pre-Trial Chamber approval.African States, such as Zambia and Kenya, havepublicly considered withdrawing but have nottaken any action in this regard or ultimatelydecided against it. In Zambia, the idea of withdrawing from the Rome Statute was discardedafter a national consultative process in whichover 91% of the population reportedly votedagainst it.4 Since then, Zambia has expressedits intention to strengthen the national judicialsystem in order to effectively fulfill its RomeStatute obligations.5 Kenya had indicated itsintentions to withdraw from the Statute. According to the Attorney-General however, there areno current plans to withdraw, but a more constructive relationship between the Court and theAfrican continent is needed.6 Dissatisfaction withthe Court has been voiced by further countries,including Uganda, Rwanda, and the DemocraticRepublic of the Congo (DRC).7The African Union (AU) played a critical role inthe recent withdrawal movement. In February2017, the AU adopted a collective strategy document providing its members with an analysis ofpotential implications of a collective withdrawalfrom the Rome Statute by African States, as wellas a list of possible reforms to the Rome Statuteand the Court. The resolution is non-binding andmainly political in nature,8 and, importantly, notall African States supported the motion. States4AllAfrica, ‘Zambia: ”We Stay in ICC”’, 1 July 2017; Daily Nation, ‘Kenya has no plans to pull out of ICC, says AG Githu Muigai’, 27 February 2018.5AllAfrica, ‘Zambia: ”We Stay in ICC”’, 1 July 2017.6Daily Nation, ‘Kenya has no plans to pull out of ICC, says AG Githu Muigai’, 27 February 2018.7Africa Renewal Online, ‘ICC: Beyond the threats of withdrawal’, April-May 2017; VOA Afrique, ‘Kinshasa menace de quitter la CPI a deux jours d’une décisionconcernant Bemba’, 15 September 2018.8African Union (AU), Withdrawal Strategy Document, 12 January 2017, para 9.Gender Report Card on the International Criminal Court13
such as Nigeria, Senegal, Malawi, and Cape Verdeissued reservations to the resolution.9 The recentinitiation of withdrawal procedures and the AUstrategy document highlight the need for the ICCto strengthen its relationship with many Stateson the continent.States may feel empowered to leave the RomeStatute system when faced with decisions bythe Court that may be against the interests ofgovernments but desired by their people.State withdrawal does not affect the ability of theProsecutor to investigate crimes allegedly committed while the State in question was still party tothe Rome Statute.10 In this regard, the Prosecutorhas emphasised that the Office of the Prosecutor(OTP) retains authority to examine, and potentiallyinvestigate, the Situations in Burundi and thePhilippines.11 However, the fact that jurisdiction ismaintained over a specific Situation after the Statein question has withdrawn may not be sufficientdeterrence for further States from leaving theRome Statute system.The recent withdrawal movement underlinesthe importance of a strategy by the ICC and theASP to reinforce the commitment of States tothe Court. While individual cooperation effortsare important, a strong overarching strategy tocombat potential withdrawals and remind Statesof the significance of the Court is needed. Unlessthe ICC undertakes a robust communicationsstrategy against potential future withdrawals,149Mark Kersten, ‘Not All It’s Cracked Up to Be — The African Union’s “ICC Withdrawal Strategy”’, Justice in Conflict, 6 February 2017. See also Africa RenewalOnline, ‘ICC: Beyond the threats of withdrawal’, May – July 2017.10Withdrawals also do not impact the status of any Court staff from the withdrawing State already working at the Court nor any existing financial obligationstowards the Court. Article 127(2), Rome Statute.11‘Statement of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Fatou Bensouda, following judicial authorisation to commence an investigation into theSituation in Burundi’, 9 November 2017; ‘ICC Statement on The Philippines’ notice of withdrawal: State participation in Rome Statute system essential tointernational rule of law’, ICC-CPI-20180320-PR1371, 20 March 2018.Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice
The data used for this graph is from the UN Treaties website on the Rome Statute.Gender Report Card on the International Criminal Court15
Amendments to theRome StatuteICC Jurisdiction Over the Crime of AggressionIn December 2017, the ASP unanimously passed a historic This historicresolution activating the ICC’s jurisdiction beyond war crimes, criminalisationcrimes against humanity and genocide to include the crime of the crimeof aggression as of 17 July 2018, the 20th anniversary of the of aggressionRome Statute.12 The crime of aggression is defined in Arti- is importantcle 8 bis of the Statute as the planning, preparation, initiation as it expandsor execution, by a person in a position effectively to exercise internationalcontrol over or to direct the political or military action of a State, criminal justiceof an act of aggression which, by its character, gravity and scale, and constitutesconstitutes a manifest violation of the UN Charter. An act of a significantaggression refers to the use of armed force by a State against step towardsthe sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of creating a moreanother State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the UNpeaceful, secureCharter. This historic criminalisation of the crime of aggressionand accountableis important as it expands international criminal justice andenvironmentconstitutes a significant step towards creating a more peaceful,for all.secure and accountable environment for all.While the Court now has the ability to exercise jurisdiction over all core international crimes listed in Article 5 of the Statute, its reach over this particularcrime is not without limitations. In case of a State referral or a proprio motuinvestigation by the Prosecutor, States Parties are able to opt out of theCourt’s jurisdiction over this crime by previously lodging a declaration to thiseffect with the Registrar.13 A UN Security Council referral, however, imposesno jurisdictional limitations on the Court.141612ICC-ASP/16/Res.5, para 1.13Article 15 bis (4)-(5), Rome Statute.14Article 15 ter, Rome Statute.Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice
Criminalisation of Three NewWar CrimesProposed Amendment on the Use ofAnti-personnel MinesIn addition to activating the ICC’s jurisdiction overthe crime of aggression, the ASP adopted threeimportant amendments to Article 8 of the Statute.Specifically, the use of the following weaponswas criminalised:Along with the three new war crimes, Belgiumproposed an additional amendment to Article 8 ofthe Statute relating to antipersonnel mines.18 Theproposal arose from the use of these weapons incontemporary conflicts, with a view to complementing the wide ratification of internationaltreaties on the matter, notably the Convention onthe Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and ontheir Destruction (Ottawa Convention).19 Despitethe Ottawa Convention being one of the most ratified international treaties,20 the proposal was notadopted, as several States Parties to the Convention voted against its adoption within the ICC legalframework.21 Reasons against adoption includedthe view that the proposed amendment wouldfurther fragment the international communityand deter non-States Parties from ratifying theRome Statute, and that the amendment wouldincrease the challenges already facing the Court,including non-cooperation, withdrawals, andthreats of withdrawals.22 Weapons which use microbial or other biological agents, or toxins; Weapons the primary effect of which is toinjure by fragments undetectable by x-raysin the human body; and Blinding laser weapons.15The criminalisation of these weapons applies toboth international and non-international armedconflicts.16 However, these amendments applyonly to States Parties a year after they haveaccepted the relevant amendment. 17 Theseamendments reflect the changing nature ofweapons and warfare over time and acceptanceor ratification of these amendments by all StatesParties is strongly encouraged as it wouldresult in the broader criminalisation of meansof warfare causing excessive suffering throughunnecessary injuries.15ICC-ASP/16/Res.4; ICC-ASP/16/Res.4, Annexes I-III.16See ICC-ASP/16/Res.4, Annexes I-III.17Article 121(5), Rome Statute.18‘Belgium: Proposal of Amendments’, C.N.480.2017.TREATIES-XVIII.10 (Depository Notification).19See ibid; Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, C.N.163.2003TREATIES-2, 3 March 2003.20See International Campaign to Ban Landmines, ‘Treaty Status’.21See Amnesty International, ‘ASP16: States Parties miss a key opportunity to criminalise Anti-Personnel Landmines in the Rome Statute’, 16 December2017.22ICC-ASP/16/22, p 3-4.Gender Report Card on the International Criminal Court17
The IndependentOversight MechanismThe IOM, established on 26 November 2009, became operationalin 2017.23 The IOM’s mandate is to “ensure [ ] the effective andcomprehensive oversight of the Court in order to enhance itsefficiency and economy”, by conducting inspections, evaluations, and investigations.24 In pursuit of these aims, the IOM: Conducts unscheduled and confidential inspections of any premises orprocesses at the request of the Bureau or a head of organ;25 Provides confidential evaluations of any programme, project or policyas requested by the ASP or the Bureau;26 Receives and investigates reports of misconduct or serious misconduct,including possible unlawful acts by key leadership positions, other staff,and contractors.27“Misconduct” and “serious misconduct” are defined as acts harming thestanding of the Court to a varying degree.28 While sexual misconduct is notexplicitly mentioned, there is nothing in the resolutions governing the IOMthat precludes it from falling within the investigative powers of the IOM.According to its 2017 annual report, the IOM received 15 complaints ofmisconduct.29 The report is silent on the nature of the conduct that triggered investigation activities, and thus no information is available regardingpotential issues of sexual misconduct within the Court. The report furtherstates that 12 out of 15 reports of alleged misconduct were not pursuedto full investigation.1823‘Independent Oversight Mechanism (IOM)’, ICC website.24ICC-ASP/12/Res.6, Annex, paras 3, 5. See also ICC-ASP/8/Res.1, Annex, para 6(a); ICC-ASP/9/Res.5, Annex, para 1.25ICC-ASP/12/Res.6, Annex, paras 6-7, 12-15.26Ibid, paras 17, 23-26.27Ibid, para 28. The investigative unit may exercise its powers proprio motu. ICCASP/8/Res.1, Annex, para 6(b).28Resolution ICC-ASP/8/Res.1, referring to Rules 25.1.b and 24.1.b of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE).29ICC-ASP/16/8, p 3.Women's Initiatives for Gender Justice
The IOM is an important mechanism to providemeaningful oversight of the Court and its independence from each organ of the Court is crucialfor its effectiveness. In this respect, confidentiality is of utmost importance to create a safeenvironment for potential victims of misconductto come forward. Nonetheless, it can make it difficult at times for third parties to evaluate the workand effectiveness of the IOM. The IOM is requiredto balance confidentiality with transparency andhas expressed interest in having a communications policy setting out when information mustbe kept confidential.30 Such an initiative wouldfacilitate a more detailed analysis by thirdparties of the IOM’s activities while complyingwith important confidentiality requirements. Awelcome full review of the work and mandateof the IOM is scheduled to take place during the2018 ASP.3130Ibid, para 17.31ICC-ASP/16/Res.6, para 15; ICC-ASP/15/Res.5, Annex, para 16(b).Gender Report Card on the International Criminal Court19
ICC Budget for 2019The annual budget for the ICC is proposed by the Court and Over a thirdapproved by the ASP in the lead-up to the relevant year. The of all Statesproposed programme budget for 2019 is 147,548,900, repParties areresenting a 2.6% increase ( 3.7 million) from the approvedallocating theirprogramme budget of 2018.32 The proposed budget for thenational budgetsOTP increased 4.6% (2.1 million); the proposed budget for thein a genderJudiciary decreased 2.6% ( 334,200); and the proposed budgetresponsivefor the Registry nominally decreased 0.0% ( 16,200).33The 2019 proposed budget reflects anticipated judicial and prosecutorialactivities for the following year, agreed upon by the organs of the Court as ofJuly 2018.34 These activities include nine anticipated Preliminary Examinations, eight active investigations,35 and three cases in the trial phase.36 Italso includes reparations proceedings in three cases.37The proposed budget of the Court does not appear to explicitly take gendermainstreaming or gender responsiveness into account. The goal of genderresponsive budgeting is to review the impact of budget allocations from agendered perspective, ensure a gender equitable distribution of resources,and contribute to equal opportunity for all. Despite the apparent absence ofgender responsive budgeting at this stage, it does not prevent the possibilityof spending the 2019 budget in a gender responsive manner.The Committee on Budget and Finance (CBF) is encouraged to request futurebudgets with gender specific allocations for outreach, victim participation,witness engagement, investigations, recruitment, and training. Additionally,the CBF could consider whether allocations for each organ have taken gender mainstreaming priorities into account, and review budget development2032ICC-ASP/17/10, para 5.33Ibid, Table 1.34Ibid.35Ibid, para 19.36These include the Laurent Gbagbo and Blé Goudé, Ongwen, and Al Hassan cases.37ICC-ASP/17/10, para 10. The cases at the reparations stage are those against Lubanga, Katanga, and Al Mahdi.Women's Initiatives for Gender Justicemanner or havetaken first stepstowards this goal.
practices to ensure that gender considerationsare taken when determining resource allocation.Office of the ProsecutorThe proposed budget for the OTP for 2019 ( 48.1million) represents a 4.6% increase ( 2.1) fromthe 2018 approved budget. 38 The OTP indicated that this increase is due to the need toadequately support active investigations andPreliminary Examinations, including increasedoperational support such as travel and new language requirements.39 The requested resourcesare said to correct a historical imbalance in thetravel budget and to meet the needs of an additional two new active investigations.40The resources requested for the OTP’s Investigation Division amount to 19.92 million, anincrease of 27.2 thousand (0.1%) from the 2018approved budget, with staff costs comprising86% of the total costs.41 In line with its StrategicPlan,42 and its Case Selection and PrioritisationPolicy, the OTP will focus on 11 Situations, including eight active investigations.43 The OTP notedin the budget proposal that such prioritisation isneeded given the “limited resources available tothe OTP and the Registry and the need to avoidspreading these resources too thin.”4438ICC-ASP/17/10, Table 1.39Ibid, para 22.40Ibid.41Ibid, para 286.42‘OTP Strategic Plan’, June 2012, para 4(a).43ICC-ASP/17/10, para 19.44Ibid, para 22.45Ibid, para 289.46Ibid, para 289.47Ibid, para 335.48Ibid, paras 224, 309.In its proposed budget, the OTP requested sevenadditional positions in the Investigation Division,including two new Situation-specific investigationassistants.45 According to the OTP, these positionshave proven very effective in the Uganda, Georgiaand Darfur Situations, however, additional positions were not requested beyond the two in orderto limit budgetary growth.46 With respect to Prosecution teams, it is noted that this is a conservativebudget proposal focused on positions “absolutelycrucial to achieving the budget assumptions”.47This position by the OTP, while understandablewith view to avoid antagonising States Parties byrequesting a budget that may be perceived as toolarge, limits the OTP’s upcoming and necessaryactivities. The Court needs to be able to requestfunds in accordance with real needs in order toconduct effective investigations.Encouragingly, the OTP budget request includesa notable increase with view to strengthening theOffice’s field presence. This is visible in the travelbudgets for the Support Services Division andthe Investigation Division, noting the increasedneed for interpreters on field missions and theinvestigative need to place teams in the field.48The budget requested by the OTP addressessome historically underfunded divisions, includ-Gender Report Card on the International Criminal Court21
ing the Investigations Division, which couldsupport effective investigations of sexual andgender-based crimes. However, repeated references to conservative requests for other staffand resources given the budget parameterssuggests that the OTP will be constrained byresources, with potential consequences inconductive gender sensitive investigations andbuilding effective cases for sexual and genderbased crimes, depending on how the approved2019 budget will be allocated and prioritised.As indicated above, the 2019 proposed budget,despite some increases, does not explicitlyallocate funds in a gender responsive manner.While efforts to efficiently manage resources andto shift resources within the various organs arecommendable, it must not result in OTP investigations, particularly of sexual and gender-basedcrimes, being approached from a resourcedriven approach, rather than from a needs-basedapproach. Without specific allocation of funds forinvestigating sexual and gender-based crimes,which is likely to cost more as it may take longerto identify victims, build rapport, and conductpsychosocial assessments of witnesses of thesecrimes, it is doubtful that these investigations willbe prioritised or consistently included withininvestigation plans as they should be. In general,strict adherence to a policy of zero nominal2249Ibid, Table 29.50Ibid, paras 373, 377.51Ibid, para 352.52Ibid, paras 362, 540, 544, 546, 548, 550, 552.growth across the Court may hamper importantefforts to achieve gender m
Central African Republic 46 At the ICC 48 Charges in cases of the CAR Situation 49 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo 50 The Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo et al 58 Côte d'Ivoire 62 At the ICC 64 The Prosecutor v. Laurent Gbagbo and Charles Blé Goudé 66 Democratic Republic of the Congo 71 At the ICC 72
accessible and diverse gender information. It is one of a family of knowledge services based at IDS . Other recent publications in the Cutting Edge Pack series: Gender and Care, 2009 Gender and Indicators, 2007 Gender and Sexuality, 2007 Gender and Trade, 2006 Gender and Migration, 2005 Gender and ICTs, 2004 . 6.3.1 Gender mainstreaming .
keywords: gender identity bill - gender identity - gender discrimination – equality - human rights - european union law - national law. malta’s gender identity, gender expression and sex characteristics act – a shift from a binary gender to a whole new spectrum?
Brief 1.Gender and countering transnational organized crime and trafficking Brief 2.Gender and countering corruption Brief 3.Gender and terrorism prevention Brief 4.Gender and justice Brief 5.Gender and health and livelihoods Annexes Checklists for gender mainstreaming
7 In order to effectively mainstream gender in an organisation, the staff should be able to: n Identify gender inequalities in their field of activity; n Define gender equality objectives; n Take account of gender when planning and implementing policies and programmes; n Monitor progress; n Evaluate programmes from a gender perspective. Principles of gender mainstreaming
Gender Rather than biological gender (sex), this refers to gender in the social and cultural sense. Gender based violence (GBV) Violence based on sex and gender. It refers to physical, sexual, psychological harm and pain, as well as threat to do so, and force or arbitrary actions that lead to deprivation of one's freedom, or that has
connectivity and gender. The Gender Flagship is rallying coalition members to work together to highlight and address the gender dimensions of the COVID-19 school crisis and safeguard progress made on gender equality in education in recent decades. This report presents the work of the Gender Flagship in 2020, and its plans for 2021.
responsif gender - advokasi /sosialisasi ttg hiv aids - pameran publikasi ttg kegiatan ttg gender pug , kegiatan responsif gender - pelatihan/pendampingan pprg (perencanaan. penganggaran responsif gender - pembentukan pokja, fokal point - penyusunan data terpilah - publikasi gender melalui media cetak website pameran
The school quality measurement method used in this study is the Malcolm Baldrige Education Criteria for Performance Excellence (MBECfPE), which is one part of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award / MBNQA assessment criteria. Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award / MBNQA is a formal quality management system that applies in the United States. MBNQA was first created by U.S. Congress .
