Doing Justice for the Liberian

Victims of Mass Atrocity

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/13/2/219/896491 by InternationalCourtofJustice user on 29 June 2021

NGOs in Aid of Universal Jurisdiction

Olympia Bekou*

Abstract
The article takes the Belgian universal jurisdiction case against Martina Johnson, re-
cently arrested for her alleged involvement in the Liberian civil war, as an example
to analyse non-governmental organization (NGO) involvement in the processes of
international criminal justice in general and universal jurisdiction in particular.
According to the author, NGOs (still) play a significant role in ‘litigating universal
jurisdiction’ and fill a gap when states, either territorial or those able to take action
on grounds of universal jurisdiction, fail to do so. In this regard, they not only act
as advocates in support for international criminal justice, but also play a key role
as ‘service providers’, in particular by furnishing information necessary to launch
an investigation and acting as ‘evidence gatherers’. In addition, they play an import-
ant role in bringing the message of justice back to the affected communities.

1. The Liberian Civil War, NGOs and the Belgian Case

against Martina Johnson
The arrest of Martina Johnson by Belgian authorities on 17 September 2014
marks the first ever case to be brought in Europe against a Liberian alleged per-
petrator of crimes committed in the course of the first Liberian civil war.1
Situated in Western Africa, Liberia has been marred by bloody conflicts
between 1989^1997 and 1999^2003.2 Martina Johnson, a former commander

* Professor of Public International Law and Head, International Criminal Justice Unit, HRLC,
School of Law, University of Nottingham; Board Member, Civitas Maxima. I would like to
thank Daley Birkett for his research assistance. All errors and omissions are mine alone.
[olympia.bekou@nottingham.ac.uk]
1 See e.g. ‘Liberian female rebel Martina Johnson held for war crimes’, BBC News, 19 September
2014, available online at www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-29276925 (visited 20 November
2014).
2 See Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia, Volume II: Consolidated Final Report, 30 June
2009, available online at http://trcofliberia.org/resources/reports/final/volume-two_layout-1.pdf
............................................................................
Journal of International Criminal Justice 13 (2015), 219^227 doi:10.1093/jicj/mqv006
ß The Author (2015). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. Advance Access publication 15 March 2015
For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com
220 JICJ 13 (2015), 219^227

in Charles Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL), allegedly took

part in ‘Operation Octopus’, a major military attack targeting the Liberian cap-
ital Monrovia in October 1992.3 This case is also the first trial involving an in-
dividual so closely involved with the NPFL, one of the most brutal rebel
movements in the history of western Africa.4 Whilst Charles Taylor has not

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/13/2/219/896491 by InternationalCourtofJustice user on 29 June 2021

been held accountable for the crimes committed during the above operation
to date, and was convicted by the Special Court of Sierra Leone only for those
crimes committed within the territory of Sierra Leone,5 his son, Charles
‘Chuckie’ Taylor Jr was sentenced in the USA for acts of torture and other atroci-
ties committed in Liberia during the second Liberian civil war, 1999^2003.6 In
its Final Report submitted in 2009, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
created in accordance with decision taken during peace talks at Accra and
enacted by the Transitional Government in May 2005, lists Martina Johnson as
one of the ‘most notorious perpetrators’ recommended for prosecution.7
The case currently before the courts of Ghent has been brought by three
Liberian nationals who allege that Ms Johnson is criminally responsible for
the war crimes of murder and torture and crimes against humanity of
murder and persecution.8 Under Belgian law, these victims are now considered
parties civiles (civil parties) to the case and would be entitled to compensation
should Ms Johnson be convicted.9 Shortly after the complaint was filed, the
three victims were informed that it had been ‘endorsed’ by Belgian prosecutors,
meaning that even if all three plaintiffs were to die, proceedings would still
continue.

(visited 17 November 2014) (TRC Report), passim, esp. 18. Also see S. Ellis, The Mask of Anarchy
(Hurst & Company, 1999), at 31^190.
3 During ‘Operation Octopus’ many civilians belonging ç amongst others ç to the Mandingo
and Krahn ethnic groups were targeted because they were thought to oppose NPFL interests.
See generally, Human Rights Watch (HRW), ‘Waging War to Keep the Peace: The ECOMOG
Intervention and Human Rights’, June 1993, available online at www.hrw.org/reports/1993/
liberia/#5 (visited 17 November 2014) (HRW Liberia Report).
4 For an account of NPFL crimes, see also TRC Report, supra note 2, at 152. In a study published
by Benetech, which analysed all statements given before the TRC, it was found that 39% of all
violations committed during the two civil wars were caused by NPFL. This is remarkable,
given that NPFL was only active during the first civil war (1989^1996). See K. Cibelli, A.
Hoover and J. Kru«ger, Benetech Human Rights Program, Descriptive Statistics from Statements
to the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission, June 2009, available online at https://
hrdag.org/content/liberia/Benetech-TRC-descriptives-final.pdf (visited 17 November 2014), at
19.
5 Judgment, Charles Ghankay Taylor (SCSL-03-01-A), Appeals Chamber, 26 September 2013,
x 11070.
6 United States v. Belfast, 611 F.3d 783 (11th cir. 2010).
7 TRC Report, supra note 2, at 351.
8 Charging document (on file with the author).
9 See K. Fortin, ‘Interview with Luc Walleyn, victims’ representative in the case against Martina
Johnson’, Armed Groups and International Law blogpost, 7 October 2014, available online
at http://armedgroups-internationallaw.org/2014/10/07/interview-with-luc-walleyn-victims-
representative-in-the-case-against-martina-johnson (visited 24 November 2014) (Interview
with Luc Walleyn).
 Doing Justice for the Liberian Victims of Mass Atrocity 221

Bringing the case against Ms Johnson would not have been possible without
collaboration between Liberia and Swiss-based non-profit, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) to work with Liberian victims. The Global Justice and
Research Project (GJRP)10 and Civitas Maxima,11 respectively, joined forces in
2012 to bring cases on behalf of Liberian victims before suitable fora for trial.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/13/2/219/896491 by InternationalCourtofJustice user on 29 June 2021

Civitas Maxima works directly with victims of war crimes or crimes against
humanity where domestic or international authorities have failed to act or
have been unable to do so. Civitas Maxima seeks to preserve information,
which may later be introduced into evidence by relevant state authorities
during investigations and prosecutions, which are, in turn, often triggered by
the very submission of the information. Based on the information collected,
Civitas Maxima aims to evaluate the means through which accountability
might be sought for alleged perpetrators of international crimes. GJRP operates
using similar methods. With the Liberian conflict having claimed over 150,000
lives12 and despite the express recommendation of the Liberian Truth and
Reconciliation Commission in support of criminal accountability, no national
investigation or prosecution has occurred at the time of writing. Moreover,
whilst Liberia ratified the Rome Statute in 2004,13 the International Criminal
Court (ICC) does not have jurisdiction to try crimes committed prior to its
entry into force in July 2002.14 In addition, despite a further recommendation
by the TRC to that effect,15 Liberia has been unwilling to request the establish-
ment by the United Nations of an ad hoc tribunal akin to the Special Court for
Sierra Leone.16 Guided by the principle that priority should be given to situ-
ations where for political reasons there are no immediate avenues through
which the victims of international crimes might obtain justice, Civitas
Maxima opted to collect and preserve any pertinent information in a system-
atic manner. Together, GJRP and Civitas Maxima have consequently sought to
bring cases before the national courts of states outside Liberia.
Jurisdiction for such cases is often established on the basis of the principle of
universal jurisdiction, which acts as a vehicle for national prosecutions. This
piece aims to examine the contribution of NGOs to the ending of impunity for
core international crimes using universal jurisdiction abroad. It argues that
NGOs fill an important gap in that respect, and should be adequately supported
in their work. As the case against Martina Johnson in Belgium illustrates, des-
pite it being at an early stage at the time of writing, it was the concerted

10 See www.globaljustice-research.org (visited 24 November 2014).

11 See www.civitas-maxima.org (visited 24 November 2014).
12 See M. Utas, ‘Victimcy, Girlfriending, Soldiering: Tactic Agency in a Young Woman’s Social
Navigation of the Liberian War Zone’, 78 Anthropological Quarterly (2005) 402^430, at 411^412.
13 See ICC Legal Tools Project, National Implementing Legislation Database (NILD), Liberia, avail-
able online at http://iccdb.webfactional.com/data/country/77 (visited 1 December 2014).
14 See Art. 24(1) ICCSt.
15 See TRC Report, supra note 2, at 349.
16 HRW, World Report (2014), available online at www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2014_web_0.pdf
(visited 27 January 2015), at 137.
222 JICJ 13 (2015), 219^227

action of two NGOs that made it possible for the voice of the victims to be
heard, albeit outside their native country.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/13/2/219/896491 by InternationalCourtofJustice user on 29 June 2021

2. The Role of NGOs in International Criminal Justice
That NGOs form part of the sphere of general public international law has long
been recognized.17 The development of modern international criminal law
and policy has also benefitted from the work of many NGOs. It should not be
forgotten that NGOs played a vital role in the negotiations of the ICC Statute
both prior to and during the Rome Conference.18 Their contribution can be
categorized within the traditional realm in which NGOs operate, namely rais-
ing awareness, lobbying and networking,19 but can also be extended to provid-
ing expertise and information, authoring and distributing reports of the
proceedings, convening seminars and conferences. They also contributed sub-
stantially to the drafting of the Statute through seconding experts and interns
to a number of developing states, thus increasing their ability to fully take
part in the negotiations in Rome.20 It should not be overlooked that the NGOs
fiercely advocated in favour of (and succeeded in) granting the Prosecutor the
power to initiate proceedings proprio motu and contributed to the inclusion
and shaping of the gender-based provisions and use of indiscriminate weapons
in the ICC Statute.21 Similarly, NGOs played an important role at the first
Review Conference of the Rome Statute in Kampala, Uganda, which led to the
adoption of a definition on the crime of aggression.22
It has been argued that the partnership between international NGOs, or
‘international civil society’, sympathetic states, and international organizations
was forged during the Rome Statute process.23 Some authors go as far as

17 See S. Charnovitz, ‘Nongovernmental Organizations and International Law’, 100 American

Journal of International Law (2006) 348^372.
18 W.R. Pace and J. Schense,‘The Role of Non-Governmental Organisations’, in A. Cassese, P. Gaeta
and J.R.W.D. Jones (eds), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary
(Oxford University Press, 2002) 105^143.
19 Ibid., at 113^114.
20 W.R. Pace and M. Thieroff, ‘Participation of Non-Governmental Organisations’, in R.S. Lee (ed.),
The International Criminal Court: The Making of the Rome Statute: Issues, Negotiations, Results
(Kluwer Law International, 1999) 391^398.
21 M. Glasius,‘Expertise in the Cause of Justice: Global Civil Society Influence on the Statute for an
International Criminal Court’, in M. Glasius, M. Kaldor and M. Anheier (eds), Global Civil
Society Yearbook 2002 (Oxford University Press, 2002) 137^168, at 153^159.
22 Resolution RC/Res.6. The crime of aggression, available at www.legal-tools.org/doc/0d027b (vis-
ited 27 January 2015). On the role of NGOs at the Kampala Review Conference, see L. von
Braun and A. Micus, ‘Judicial Independence at Risk ç Critical Issues regarding the Crime of
Aggression Raised by Selected Human Rights Organizations’, 10 Journal of International
Criminal Justice (JICJ) (2012) 111^132.
23 K. Anderson, ‘The Ottawa Convention Banning Landmines, the Role of International
Non-governmental Organizations and the Idea of International Civil Society’, 11 European
Journal of International Law (2000) 91^120, at 109^110.
 Doing Justice for the Liberian Victims of Mass Atrocity 223

calling this partnership ‘the new diplomacy’.24 Moreover, given the recent em-
phasis on positive complementarity, NGOs are expected to assume a key role
in supporting national investigation and prosecution of core international
crimes cases.25 This move further contributes towards understanding the role
of NGOs as service providers rather than solely as advocates.26 Those NGOs in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/13/2/219/896491 by InternationalCourtofJustice user on 29 June 2021

support of international criminal justice therefore take centre stage in assisting
the delivery of such justice on the ground, serving the interests of victims and
affected communities in a direct way.
Moreover, NGOs are able to play the role of quasi-regulator, closely scrutiniz-
ing the function of both the ICC and national courts, monitoring trials and lob-
bying for the delivery of better and more efficient justice. NGO reports have
often been considered a useful tool, able to bring change, where needed, and
striving for improvement in both law and practice.

3. NGOs and Universal Jurisdiction: Justice for the

Victims of the Liberian Conflict?
In cases of universal jurisdiction, NGOs have been at the forefront of support-
ing individuals to bring core crimes cases before national courts,27 particularly
in those legal orders that have traditionally adopted the pure form of universal
jurisdiction, notably Belgium and Spain.28
Prior to discussing the Belgian provision applicable to Martina Johnson’s
case, it is important to recall the rationale behind exercising universal jurisdic-
tion in the first place.Whilst undeniably, territorial jurisdiction, i.e. jurisdiction
of the locus commissi delicti, offers some distinct advantages in terms of ease
of access to evidence, deterrence, reconciliation and victim participation,29 it
is not always possible to hold trials according to this principle. This might be
attributed, amongst others, to the unwillingness or inability of a state to pros-
ecute powerful individuals within its own national courts. In such an

24 See Pace and Schense, supra note 18, at 107, note 4, referring to L. Axworthy, ‘The New
Diplomacy: The UN, the International Criminal Court and the Human Security Agenda’, Notes
for an Address by the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, Minister of Foreign Affairs, to a conference
on UN reform at the Kennedy School, Harvard University, 25 April 1998.
25 Resolution ICC-ASP/8/Res.9. Review Conference, at x 17.
26 See W.R. Pace, ‘The Relationship between the International Criminal Court and
Non-Governmental Organizations’, in H.A.M. von Hebel, J.G. Lammers and J. Schukking (eds),
Reflections on the International Criminal Court: Essays in Honour of Adriaan Bos (T.M.C. Asser
Press, 1999) 189^211, at 203^204.
27 Recent examples include the role of Guatemalan NGO Centro Para la Accio¤n Legal en Derechos
Humanos (Centre for Human Rights Legal Action) in the case against General Efra|¤ n R|¤ os
Montt in Guatemala.
28 I. Brownlie, Principles of Public International Law (8th edn., Oxford University Press, 2008), at
305.
29 M. Bergsmo, O. Bekou and A. Jones,‘Complementarity and the Construction of National Ability’,
in C. Stahn and M.M. El Zeidy (eds), The International Criminal Court: From Theory to Practice,
Vol. II (Cambridge University Press, 2011) 1052^1070, at 1057^1058.
224 JICJ 13 (2015), 219^227

instance, universal jurisdiction offers an avenue through which the interests of

international community can be upheld.30
In Belgium, where the Johnson case is currently being heard, the Belgian uni-
versal jurisdiction legislation was amended in 2003.31 The decision to amend
the legislation and restrict the application of universal jurisdiction was taken

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/13/2/219/896491 by InternationalCourtofJustice user on 29 June 2021

following pressure from the USA in response to a number of complaints made
in Belgium against US nationals ç under the head of universal jurisdiction
ç in the context of the 2003 US^led invasion of Iraq.32
Belgian law now requires the suspect to have Belgian citizenship or ç at
least ç be resident in Belgium. According to Article 6, paragraph 18bis of the
Belgian Act containing the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal
Procedure,33 any Belgian, or any person with their principal residence in the
Kingdom of Belgium, can be investigated and prosecuted in Belgium for serious
violations of international humanitarian law, as defined in the Belgian
Criminal Code. It is pursuant to this provision that Ms Johnson was arrested
by the Belgian authorities: she had been resident in the Belgian city of Ghent
for several years at the time of her arrest.
Civitas Maxima does not pursue cases that have no link whatsoever to the
state in which they could be investigated or prosecuted, but are based either
in states where the perpetrator is located ç the forum deprehensionis ç or of
which the victim is a national. Civitas Maxima will also pursue cases in states
of which the accused is a national, rather than cases of pure universal jurisdic-
tion as such. In the instant case, Liberia is where the alleged crimes were com-
mitted and the alleged perpetrator is a Liberian national. However, Ms
Johnson resides in Belgium, which is equated to nationality for the purposes
of the amended law. Residency is a much stronger link than mere presence of
the accused on the territory of the state exercising jurisdiction, hence the diffi-
culty with definitively classifying this case as one of universal jurisdiction
rather than a demonstration of active personality.34 Regardless of whether
this case is characterized as falling under universal jurisdiction or based on
the exercise of active or passive personality, it is extraterritorial to the location
of the crimes and is likely to face practical and political obstacles, which can
be overcome more easily with NGO support.

30 Cf. G. Abi-Saab, ‘The Proper Role of Universal Jurisdiction’, 1 JICJ (2003) 596^602, at 599; G.P.
Fletcher, ‘Against Universal Jurisdiction’, 1 JICJ (2003) 580^584, at 583.
31 See Loi Contenant le Titre Pre¤liminaire du Code de Proce¤ dure Pe¤ nale, available online through NILD
at http://iccdb.webfactional.com/data/doc/116 (visited 3 December 2014).
32 See N. Roht-Arriaza, ‘Universal Jurisdiction: Steps Forward, Steps Back’, 17 Leiden Journal of
International Law (2004) 375^389, at 387^388; L. Walleyn, ‘Universal Jurisdiction: Lessons from
the Belgian Experience’, 5 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law (2002) 394^406, at
402^403.
33 See Loi Contenant le Titre Pre¤ liminaire du Code de Proce¤ dure Pe¤ nale, supra note 31.
34 Cf. Interview with Luc Walleyn, supra note 9; Redress, ‘The arrest of Martina Johnson in Ghent,
Belgium: Interview with Alain Werner of Civitas Maxima’, EU Update on Serious International
Crimes, Newsletter, 13^28 November 2014, available online at www.redress.org/downloads/eu-
update-on-serious-international-crimes13th-editionnov2014.pdf (visited 21 January 2015), at 2
(Interview with Alain Werner).
 Doing Justice for the Liberian Victims of Mass Atrocity 225

Indeed, the instant trial faces its own challenges: requiring national investi-
gators to travel to Liberia ç and other states in which evidence exists ç to
speak to the victims and witnesses. Obviously, this can only happen through
a ‘commission rogatoire’, but there is no guarantee as to how the Liberian
authorities would react to such a request. It is often not an option for govern-

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/13/2/219/896491 by InternationalCourtofJustice user on 29 June 2021

ment authorities of the territorial state to collect evidence in these cases.
Many victims and witnesses are reluctant to be interviewed by the national
police. Due to a lack of trust towards national state authorities, statements
that witnesses provide to national police can differ considerably from the infor-
mation that investigators from a third state or NGOs ç whose impartiality is
generally much more widely recognized ç could obtain.
Collection of evidence to assist the trial will be crucial for its success. It is not
easy for national authorities exercising extraterritorial jurisdiction to collect
such evidence in a post-conflict state. This requires certain experience and ex-
pertise that most national authorities understandably lack.35 Belgium is one
of only 13 states that have specialized war crimes units, which should increase
its ability to process cases more effectively. However, as there has not been an-
other case pertaining to Liberia in Belgium prior to the instant case, chal-
lenges cannot be precluded. In light of this background, much of the
information which leads to the production of evidence against Ms Johnson is
likely to come from sources either outside Liberia, or be provided by the NGOs
that have brought the case to the fore. It should be noted that the Liberian con-
flict has been fought without much paper trail.36 The relatively low life expect-
ancy in Liberia adds further pressure in that respect. Documenting atrocities
in a comprehensive and systematic manner is accordingly crucial for the suc-
cess of any trial, irrespective of whether such trial takes place within or outside
the afflicted country. NGOs are often at the forefront of such documentation
mechanisms. Civitas Maxima has chosen to adopt a ‘bottom up’ approach to-
wards gathering information.37 It is hoped that the evidence already collected
may prove useful to the proceedings, as they unfold.
In this regard, however, a caveat is in order: The collection of information by
NGOs can be problematic in many respects, especially when state authorities
rely heavily on such information without verifying the ethical standards, in-
vestigative practices or political agendas of the NGOs concerned. It should be
noted that, at the time of documentation, it is not always clear which forum

35 See HRW, The Long Arm of Justice: Lessons from Specialized War Crimes Units in France, Germany
and the Netherlands, 22 September 2014, available online at www.hrw.org/reports/2014/09/22/
long-arm-justice (visited 21 January 2015).
36 For example, in the trial of Charles Taylor, most of the evidence presented by the Prosecutor
came from 94 prosecution witnesses called because no exhibits could help prove the crimes
committed and clearly establish the link between Charles Taylor and the rebels of the
Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in Sierra Leone.
37 See www.civitas-maxima.org. This approach differs from the one which, for example, led to the
proceedings against former Algerian Minister of Defence General Khaled Nezzar in
Switzerland. The fact that Nezzar was passing through Geneva prompted another NGO ç
TRIAL ç to look for evidence. See e.g. www.trial-ch.org/en/activities/litigation/trials-cases-
in-switzerland/khaled-nezzar-algeria-2011.html (visited 27 January 2015).
226 JICJ 13 (2015), 219^227

will ultimately make use of the information collected, if any. As a result, such
information may not be presented in a format acceptable to prosecutorial
authorities. This difficulty is exacerbated by the fact that states differ widely
in their domestic rules on the admissibility of information submitted by outside
parties. Procedures in common law and civil law countries differ notably in

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/13/2/219/896491 by InternationalCourtofJustice user on 29 June 2021

this regard.
The final point to consider is the role played by NGOs as one of the actors
able to convey the message on the ground when universal jurisdiction proceed-
ings take place abroad. NGO involvement is crucial in that respect, as it is
often within their mandate to engage in direct outreach. In any case, NGOs
are regularly better positioned than the national authorities of the state
where the trial occurs because they are more at liberty to express their opin-
ions on ongoing proceedings. Having the best trial possible in a third jurisdic-
tion would almost be futile should it not have any impact, deterrent or
otherwise, on the people it concerns. Spreading the message as widely as pos-
sible, both within the affected country as well as amongst the diaspora, is of
paramount importance.38 Returning to the Johnson case, from the information
available at the time of writing, the overwhelming majority of people in
Liberia have welcomed the arrest.39 Maintaining this momentum throughout
the proceedings is key.

4. Concluding Remarks
This piece has shown that NGOs have a significant role to play in the field of
international criminal justice, including universal jurisdiction. This is because
they can take an active role in bringing cases to the fore which, for reasons of
ability, capacity or opportunity, would not have been possible without NGO in-
volvement. They also play a key role both in furnishing information that
might be necessary to prompt an investigation and, ultimately, to achieve a
conviction, but also, when universality proceedings do take place, to bring the
message of justice back to the national level, to the victims and affected com-
munities. The piece also aims to shed light on the ongoing case of Martina
Johnson before Belgian courts. Despite the early stage of proceedings, it is im-
portant to acknowledge the role that Civitas Maxima and GJRP have played to
date, instigating and supporting the use of Belgian jurisdiction as a first step
to bring justice to Liberia. Between January 2012 ç while the two organiza-
tions were in the process of establishing a formal partnership ç and

38 Perhaps encouraging an effective trial monitoring tool such as the International Justice
Monitor ç a project of the Open Society Justice Initiative ç might be beneficial. See www.
ijmonitor.org (visited 27 January 2015).
39 For an interview with GJRP’s Director on the response in Liberia to the news of Johnson’s arrest,
see Radio France Internationale, ‘Trial of Liberia ex-rebel Martina Johnson set to open in
Belgium’, available online at https://soundcloud.com/radiofranceinternationale/liberia-rebel-
martina-johnson-set-to-open-in-belgium (visited 21 January 2015). See also Interview with
Alain Werner, supra note 34.
 Doing Justice for the Liberian Victims of Mass Atrocity 227

September 2014, an investigating judge examined the initial complaints by the

victims. An indictment has now been issued and an arrest has been made.40
It may be that this is only the first step, but according to the victims’ lawyer,
being recognized as a victim is already an achievement and a form of
reparation.41

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/jicj/article/13/2/219/896491 by InternationalCourtofJustice user on 29 June 2021

Regardless of the outcome of the present case, when it comes to civil society
involvement in supporting universal jurisdiction cases, it should not be forgot-
ten that, ultimately, local NGOs should be empowered alongside local judicial
actors so that they might, one day, be in the position to investigate and pros-
ecute closer to the place of the commission of the offence(s). Strengthening
local NGOs, such as GJRP, leads to a stronger civil society. This can, in turn, ad-
vocate for prosecutions to take place at a local level when the necessary re-
forms have been implemented in the state concerned. Until that time,
exercising universal jurisdiction, as the Liberia case shows, may be the only
option to bring justice to the victims of mass atrocity.

40 A second arrest was made in January 2015. See e.g. Government of the Republic of Liberia,
Ministry of Information, Cultural Affairs and Tourism, ‘In Switzerland, Former
ULIMO Frontline Commander Arrested’, 19 January 2015, available online at www.micatli-
beria.com/index.php/blog/latest-news/news-flash/2316-in-switzerland-former-ulimo-frontline-
commander-arrested.html (visited 21 January 2015).
41 See Interview with Luc Walleyn, supra note 9.