with parents, education, and the opportunity to grow up learning about right and wrong in a way that would make clear to him what is, and what is not allowed. Abduction, sexual slavery, fighting and death of children in armed groups is, presumably, not something he was taught was morally abhorrent and illegal.

For some observers of the trial, the issue that he is himself a victim means that he should not be prosecuted for his alleged crimes, but rehabilitated. Some activists and community leaders in Uganda seem to be proponents of this idea. Others, and among them is ICC Prosecutor Fatou Bensouda, presents the position that he had broken the law, harmed numerous people and that he should be held accountable. According to this perspective, it is then for the judges to determine if Ongwen’s particular circumstances mean that his responsibility is somewhat diminished or that he deserves it to be taken into account as a mitigating factor during sentencing.

The defense has been arguing that the accused was a victim of indoctrination and duress, something the prosecution is strongly disputing. For the prosecutor, each human being has a choice, and Ongwen had a choice too. That is why Ongwen has been charged only with crimes he allegedly committed as an adult not those prior to being 18 years of age. In sum, this case has raised questions that go to the very core of criminal trials, and presents a situation like no other before in The Hague.

Debates in the civil society exposed these divides, and the gap between those who would favor a conciliatory approach and amnesty as opposed to prosecution. The situation in Uganda is complex, and scars of years of LRA crimes run deep. In that context, amnesties were precisely the tools used to demobilize individuals and work towards them rejoining society and giving up fighting. According to official figures, as many as 13 000 LRA members have been granted amnesty since the year 2000. Thousands of ex-child soldiers live in the country, and questions are raised if the ICC, a distant criminal court, is indeed the best place to address alleged crimes committed by men like Ongwen. There is more agreement surrounding Kony, who many claim should be the primary target of judicial proceedings.

Other observes criticize the uneven approach of the Prosecutor’s office of the ICC for focusing on the rebels but ignoring the government and abuses committed by the regular army.

Advocates of prosecution on the other hand argue that, as much as Ongwen’s personal history is relevant for the case, he allegedly committed a series of violent crimes and his victims deserve a measure of justice. 4,107 victims have been granted the right to participate in the ICC proceedings against Dominic Ongwen. The victims are represented by two different groups of lawyers – the first group consists of 2,601 victims, and the second, of 1,502. Their lawyers have been key in representing those that suffered in the communities attacked by the LRA, particularly focusing on Ongwen’s alleged inhumanity and apparent joy in inflicting harm.  

Apart from the challenges of the case itself, the Ongwen trial comes at a time of particularly strained relationships between the ICC and a number of African states. As it has been widely discussed elsewhere, the ICC has been accused of being a neo-imperialist institution, a neo-colonialist instrument focusing on Africa, and black Africans, while failing to address violations of international law by powerful, developed states. That is the context in which the Ongwen trial is being conducted. Significant pressure is on the Court to succeed in rendering some justice in this complicated case, aiming to build a better relationship with constituent communities.