Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) is used in many conflicts as a weapon, often targeting vulnerable women. Being required to testify about this crime in person before the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Netherlands can be deeply traumatizing. Victim-witnesses may suffer additional mental harm due to the process – known as secondary victimization, caused by the criminal process. This can result from confronting the perpetrator in court, lengthy processes and the fact that there are no permanent convictions in sexual violence. Getting reparations is also challenging. For the above reasons, this study examines whether existing mental protections are sufficient and recommends reforms where they are found lacking. Using a doctrinal approach and incorporating qualitative and critical analysis of relevant legislation and court practices, this research employs interdisciplinary sciences to form a holistic picture of the traumatizing factors for SGBV victims.
Although the current mental protection measures at the ICC may appear sufficient, victim experiences vary: some testify bravely, but others are retraumatized. Moreover, the protection is conditional, and the defendant’s fair trial rights work against the victim-witnesses. With revised rules, protections could become more effective. Requiring an in-person testimony in The Hague is also unreasonable for SGBV victim-witnesses; instead, a single videotaped testimony should suffice. Streamlining victim scope and participation, as well as widening the use of videotaped first testimony in SGBV cases, would benefit the victim-witnesses. It would also secure the testimony, as well as the Court´s future, as streamlining processes would save its resources, namely money.
Keywords: International Criminal Court, prevention of secondary victimization, Rome Statute, SGBV victim-witnesses, sufficiency evaluation, suggestions for improvement.
Citation: Brink, R. R. (2025). Secondary Victimization of SGBV Women at the ICC: Are Sexually Assaulted Victim-Witnesses Adequately Protected? J Psychol Neurosci; 7(3):1-9. DOI : https://doi.org/10.47485/2693-2490.1115