The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views

The Victim in the Dock: The Paradox of Justice at the International Criminal Court

Document Type : Research/Original/Regular Article

Authors
1 Assistant Professor of Public International law, Department of Law, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
2 M.A in Criminal Law & Criminology, Faculty of Humanity and Social Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran.
Abstract
Despite progress in human rights during the 21st century, the phenomenon of child soldiers remains a serious challenge for the international community. There is no consensus on the criminal prosecution of child soldiers, as their dual status—both as victims and perpetrators—lies at the heart of determining their criminal responsibility for war crimes. Using a descriptive-analytical method and focusing on the case of Dominic Ongwen, this study examines whether the provisions of the Rome Statute are sufficient to address the crimes committed by child soldiers. Can they be exempt from punishment by invoking grounds excluding criminal responsibility or general defenses? How can a balance be struck between their victimization and criminal accountability?

Although the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Rome Statute prohibit the recruitment of children under 15, the practice of the Special Court for Sierra Leone demonstrates that children over 15 may still face prosecution. This contradiction, along with ambiguities in defining "active participation" in armed conflicts and the criteria for attributing criminal responsibility (such as criminal intent, coercion, age, and mental development), poses major challenges for international criminal justice.

The Dominic Ongwen case highlights the legal confusion surrounding the dual role of child soldiers (both offenders and victims). Findings indicate that traditional standards of criminal responsibility are ineffective in such cases. Moreover, while the ICC has emphasized the prohibition of recruiting children under 15, it has failed to establish clear criteria for determining the criminal responsibility of child soldiers above that age. Substantive defenses such as duress, necessity, and mental incapacity were applied restrictively and inadequately in Ongwen’s case, given his unique circumstances. Thus, the current approach requires revision. A more integrated policy is needed—one that balances fair prosecution of primary perpetrators with the protection of child victims.
Keywords

Subjects


Volume 31, Issue 114
Spring 2026
Pages 23-52

  • Receive Date 01 July 2025
  • Revise Date 31 October 2025
  • Accept Date 20 October 2025