Prosecuting male sexual violence at the ICC: Idealism Or Realism?

By Irene Garofalo


From the 1970s onward, the international community has increasingly given consideration to sexual violence in wartime. In most recent conflicts, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Rwanda, and Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, sexual violence has been used as a weapon of war aimed at destroying the enemy both physically and mentally, and asserting domination on the individuals and their community. However, attention has been centred around sexual and gender based violence (SGBV) against women and girls, conversely ignoring the ever-present occurrence of male sexual violence.

Even today, sexual violence against males in wartime remains mostly hidden and underreported, despite being a widespread phenomenon with a long history. In Liberia, 32.6 percent of surveyed male combatants reported being subjected to some form of sexual violence. In a camp in the Sarajevo canton, eighty percent of 5,000 male detainees reported being raped.1 In 2017, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) published an alarming study showing that a significant percentage of  refugee boys in countries of asylum suffer sexual violence at the hands of older boys and men from their community, as well as by host communities.2

The silence surrounding sexual abuse is mostly connected to the risk of stigmatisation and social exclusion many men are afraid of. Once a sexual attack on a man has occurred, the man is perceived as emasculated because he has not been able to protect himself like a real man.3 Moreover, in most conflict settings, the sexual violence conduct consists of forcing the male victim to commit rape against another man. This behaviour is societally perceived as ‘tainting’ the victim with homosexuality, causing the victim to lose his perceived sense of masculinity.4

This tendency to neglect the harm inflicted upon men is also reflected in the practice of international criminal courts and tribunals. While, in the last few years, we have observed the development of a body of international criminal jurisprudence addressing sexual violence against women and girls, sexual violence directed against men and boys in armed conflict and other forms of mass atrocities has rarely been prosecuted.

As with the general trend of underreporting, sexual violence of males in conflict situations has been left on the margins of international jurisprudence due to the subversion of masculinity, which is inconsistent with the hegemonic and heteronormative framework that international criminal courts and tribunals still rely on. 5There is in fact a reliance on the general misconception that men are immune from sexual violence, owing to the gender stereotypes of women being weak and therefore victims, while men are either the powerful protector or perpetrators of violence.6  There is a pattern where “men appear to testify to conflict and women testify to rape”.7

Furthermore, while prosecutors have sometimes charged male rape, they have mostly failed to recognise and prosecute other forms of sexual violence commonly directed against men and boys. Aside from rape, male sexual violence appears in the form of genital mutilation, sexual slavery, forced sterilization, forced masturbation, and forced nudity. In addition, other common forms of sexual violence men experience in wartime include when they are forced to sexually assault another person (‘enforced rape’), often a family member, or when they are forced to witness the sexual torture of their female relatives. In fact, just as women are deeply harmed by the loss of male relatives in time of war, and just as parents may be victimised by watching their children suffer, the psychosocial impact for an adult male who has witnessed a female relative being raped and/or killed can be understood itself as a form of secondary torture, stemming from the manipulation of gender-based roles and identities as a form of psychological warfare.8

Male Sexual Crimes under the Jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court

The International Criminal Court (ICC), just like the other international courts and tribunals, still struggles to recognise and truly understand the harm inflicted upon male victims. Even though there has been an increasing amount of attention directed towards sexual violence of men and boys, the approach adopted by the Court is still generally inconsistent and tends to obscure the sexual nature of the violence. Decisions taken by the ICC Chambers in 2018 have revealed that the road to recognising justice for male victims is still long and may merely represents an unobtainable ideal.

Potentially, the ICC is better equipped than other international courts and tribunals to label and prosecute male sexual violence as a gender-based crime. The Rome Statute, together with the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, are the only international criminal statutes which explicitly refer to forms of sexual violence other than rape. Articles 7 (1) (g) regarding sexual crimes as crimes against humanity, 8 (2) (b) (xxii) and 8 (2) (e) (VI) referring respectively to sexual crimes as violations of the laws and customs of war applicable to international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts, all list six different crimes: rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, and any other forms of sexual violence. 9In addition, by including the residual category of “any other forms of sexual violence”, the ICC Statute ensures that all crimes of a sexual nature are recognised and prosecuted as such. This guarantees the possibility of charging also other forms of sexual violence commonly directed against men and boys, such as forced circumcision, penile amputation, castration, genital mutilation and genital electrocution. In line with this interpretation, article 7 (3) of the Rome Statute clarifies that “for the purpose of this Statute, it is understood that the term ‘gender’ refers to the two sexes, male and female, within the context of society”.10

Likewise, the crime of rape is defined in a gender-neutral manner as it is worded so as to apply to either a man or a woman as the victim or the perpetrator of the crime. The ICC Elements of Crimes refers to the rape victim using the gender-neutral words “person” and “victim” and defines the crime as the invasion of “the body of a person by conduct resulting in penetration, however slight, of any part of the body of the victim or of the perpetrator with a sexual organ, or of the anal or genital opening of the victim with any object or any other part of the body”11. Furthermore, footnote n. 15 to the word “invaded” specifies that “the concept of “invasion” is intended to be broad enough to be gender-neutral”.

Even the prohibition of enforced sterilization, recognised for the first time by the Rome Statute as war crime and crime against humanity, protects female, as well as male victims. The provision, according to which “the perpetrator deprived one or more persons of biological reproductive capacity”12, is formulated broadly enough to include castration and other forms of genital mutilation.13 This clause is of great importance if we consider the perpetrator’s potential reason for depriving a person of his reproductive capacity. Indeed, for a man the loss of his reproductive capacity causes a loss of masculinity.

Despite the progressive gender-neutral language of these provisions, the ICC has mostly failed so far to successfully charge and prosecute a broad range of male sexual violence matters.

In the ICC’s first case, Prosecutor v. Lubanga, the Prosecutor failed to demonstrate that sexual violence can be an integral part of other crimes like the recruitment of child soldiers. Indeed, no charge of sexual violence was included in the original indictment against Mr. Lubanga, and a subsequent request to include sexual violence charges was denied by the Appeals Chamber, despite the large amount of evidence provided by witnesses and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) about these types of misconduct.14  Trial Chamber I held that sexual violence was not included within the scope of “using children under the age of 15 to participate actively in hostilities” because facts relating to sexual violence were not included in the Decision on the Confirmation of Charges.15

In issuing this judgement, the Trial Chamber did not take into consideration the written submission by Ms. Coomaraswamy – Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict at the Secretary General of the United Nations – who suggested that the use of boys and girls for sexual exploitation by armed forces or groups constitutes an “essential support function” and therefore it is part of the notion to “participate actively in hostilities”. 16

In her dissenting opinion, Judge Odio Benito expressed her criticism and affirmed that “sexual violence is an intrinsic element of the criminal conduct of “use to participate actively in the hostilities” and therefore the adoption of an approach inclusive of sexual violence is a duty for the Chamber”17. “By failing to deliberately include within the legal concept of “use to participate actively in the hostilities” the sexual violence and other ill treatment suffered by girls and boys, the Majority of the Chamber is making this critical aspect of the crime invisible”18. She then continued arguing that the main reason why children are protected from child recruitment is because they can be subject to brutal violence by, first of all, their “own” armed group.19

Ultimately, the judgment in Lubanga highlights the significant failure of the Office of the Prosecutor to effectively investigate crimes of SGBV and gather substantive and reliable evidence in relation to these charges. Furthermore, Lubanga illustrates the broader problem of SGBV charges ‘not making it’ to the indictment or, if charges are successfully confirmed, not forming a ground for conviction.20

The same challenges appeared in the Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana case. Although the Prosecution charged the defendant with eight counts of war crimes and five counts of crimes against humanity, including, “forcing family members to witness the perpetration of rape, sexual violence and atrocities on their loved ones” under cruel treatment21, Pre-Trial Chamber I decided by Majority to decline to confirm all charges due to the failure by the Prosecution to present reliable and strong evidence.22

In counts 5 and 6 of the Amended Document Containing the Charges, the Prosecutor sought to charge cases of forcible circumcision and penile amputation against Luo men as the crime against humanity of ‘other forms of sexual violence’ under article 7 (1) (g).23  Instead, the Pre-Trial Chamber II moved these charges to ‘other inhuman acts’ under article 7 (1) (k), arguing that “not every act of violence which targets parts of the body commonly associated with sexuality should be considered an act of sexual violence”.24

As a result, not only did the Pre-Trial Chamber mischaracterize the nature of these crimes, it also failed to recognise the whole range of the harm suffered by the victims and did not take into account the role played by the cultural norms surrounding circumcision within the socio-political reference context. Indeed, as explained by the Prosecutor, “these weren’t just attacks on men’s sexual organs as such but were intended as attacks on men’s identities as men within their society and were designed to destroy their masculinity”.25

With the election of Fatou Bensouda as the Prosecutor, a change in the prosecutorial policy of the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) with regard to SGBV occurred. The prosecution of these type of crimes became in fact a priority for the OTP, leading to a significant increase in the rate of successful confirmation of SGBV.

An example of this renewed attention for sexual violence crimes is displayed by the Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda case, which is considered to be a cornerstone in the legal framework fighting against wartime sexual violence. Mr. Ntaganda, alleged Deputy Chief of Staff and commander of operations of the Forces Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo (FPLC), was originally not charged with any sexual violence crimes in 2006. 26 However, learning from the ultimate decision in the Lubanga case, the Prosecution presented new evidence and filed new charges against him, including counts of sexual war crimes committed against FPLC child soldiers. In response to these allegations, the Defence, during the pre-trial phase, responded that International Humanitarian Law (IHL) prohibits the use of child soldiers but does not address issues of violence between members of the same military. Therefore, IHL is not applicable in cases of child soldier sexual abuse by their commanders which, consequently, did not constitute war crimes under the ICC’s jurisdiction.\

Trial Chamber VI, agreeing with the Prosecution, ruled that sexual violence against child soldiers committed by their commanding officers is a matter of IHL and thus subject to protections established by Articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute. It argued that “it is clear that not all victims of war crimes listed in Article 8(2)(e) need to be protected persons for the purposes of Common Article 3”.27  It then recalled that the prohibitions of rape and sexual slavery also form a part of customary international humanitarian law, applicable both in times of international and non-international armed conflicts.28 Thereby “limiting the scope of protection in the manner proposed by the Defence is contrary to the rationale of international humanitarian law, which aims to mitigate the suffering resulting from armed conflict”29

After another appeal by the Defence, the Appeals Chamber upheld the Trial Chamber’s decision, thus extending the Rome Statute’s application and the ICC’s jurisdiction to victims of rape, sexual assault, or sexual slavery during armed conflicts, regardless of their relationship to their perpetrator. By adopting a parallel view of the abuses suffered by child soldiers and recognising these crimes under the Rome Statute, the ICC has contributed to raising the level of accountability for SGBV under international law.30

The Prosecution’s commitment to investigating and prosecuting sexual violence crimes also materialized in the form of the Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in 2014. The Policy Paper adopts a holistic understanding of gender through three means: a definition of the term “gender,” the adoption of a gender perspective in all of the Office’s work, and the inclusion of gender analysis at every stage of the Office’s efforts. 31

Specifically, the document begins by defining SGBV as “those committed against persons, whether male or female, because of their sex and/or socially constructed gender roles”.32 Worded as such, the Policy Paper attempts to avoid a narrow and restrictive approach to defining gender by conceiving it as a constructed norm, rather than a biological state.  It then affirms the Prosecution’s commitment to integrating a gender perspective into all of its work in order to “enable the Office to gain a better understanding of the crimes, as well as the experiences of individuals and communities in a particular society”.33 Such a perspective “requires an understanding of differences in status, power, roles, and needs between males and females, and the impact of gender on people’s opportunities and interactions”.34 Indeed, past experiences showed that it is not possible to successfully prosecute and convict sexual violence crimes without a full understanding of the socio-cultural background of the region under investigation. Finally, the Policy Paper stresses the necessity of applying a gendered analysis by the OTP. “ “Gender analysis” examines the underlying differences and inequalities between women and men, girls and boys, and the power relationships and other dynamics which determine and shape gender roles in a society, and give rise to assumptions and stereotypes”.35For the OTP, applying a gender analysis therefore “involves a consideration of whether, and in what ways, crimes, including sexual and gender-based crimes, are related to gender norms and inequalities.”36

The influence of the Policy Paper has been, at least in the immediate sense, positive. As mentioned before, the Prosecutor successfully charged Bosco Ntaganda for the sexual violence of FPLC child soldiers, and in March 2016, with an historic judgement, the ICC convicted Bemba Gombo, President and Commander-in-chief of the Mouvement de libération du Congo (“MLC”), for male rape.

In the Amended Document Containing the Charges, the Prosecution stated that “men, women and children were raped by multiple MLC perpetrators in their homes, raped in front of family members, forced to watch rapes of family members, and raped in public locations including streets, fields and farms”.37“Men were also raped as a deliberate tactic to humiliate civilian men, and demonstrate their powerlessness to protect their families”.38

In the confirmation of charges, Pre-Trial Chamber II explicitly asserted that “civilian women and men were raped from on or about 26 October 2002 to 15 March 2003 by MLC soldiers on the CAR territory”.39To support its decision, the Pre-Trial Chamber reported the testimony of Witness 23, the first male rape victim in the history of international criminal law whose deposition specifically supported a rape charge. The Pre-Trial Chamber II referred that “Witness 23 was ordered to lie down in the position of a horse and was raped in succession by three MLC soldiers in the garden of his house in PK 12 on 8 November 2002 in the presence of his three wives and children”.40 At least two of his daughters were also raped by MLC soldiers on the same day in his presence.41Besides being the first rape testimony by a male victim, this evidence also clearly shows that male and female sexual violence are interlinked. Indeed, the rape of the male head of household was interconnected with the rape of his two daughters, likely to have been a form of expression for the domination of the household by the perpetrators.42

On 21 March 2016, the Trial Chamber III found Bemba guilty of, among other counts, rape as a war crime and as a crime against humanity, expressly convicting him for male rape.43 The conviction of Bemba represented a landmark judgement for the ICC, since he is the first person convicted by the ICC as a military commander for crimes committed by his troops, as well as the first person convicted for SGBV.

Nonetheless, on 8 June 2018, the Appeals Chamber overturned Bemba’s conviction. It held that the Trial Chamber III had erred in convicting Mr. Bemba as he had been convicted for specific criminal acts falling outside the scope of the charges laid down in the Confirmation of Charges.44 The Appeals Chamber also stated that it is not possible to hold Mr. Bemba criminally liable under article 28 of the ICC Rome Statute for the remaining crimes committed by MLC troops, as the Trial Chamber had made serious errors in finding that Bemba did not take “all necessary and reasonable” measures to prevent or repress the crimes perpetrated by them.

Bemba definitely signaled a change in direction for the ICC as it represented the first time in which a majority Appeals Chamber based its acquittal decision on evidentiary inconsistencies, highlighting the importance of a necessary balance between procedural and substantive justice. As stated by Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert and Judge Howard Morrison, the acquittal is “the price that must be paid in order to uphold fundamental principles of fairness and the integrity of the judicial process”.45 “Ending impunity is only meaningful if it happens in full accordance with the values and principles that underpin the criminal justice process in an open and democratic society”.46 As pointed out by several experts, now the fear is that the acquittal and new standard of review increase the risk of impunity for crimes of SGBV.47

The year 2018 registered another failed opportunity for the ICC to address SGBV against men. Again, considerations related to the rights of the accused to be informed of the charges and their factual basis and to have adequate time to prepare a defence prevailed.

On 2 February 2018, the legal representatives for victims (LRV) in the trial of Dominic Ongwen sought leave to present evidence of acts of sexual violence committed against men and boys by the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA). However, on 6 March 2018, the Trial Chamber IX declined this request, stating that “since the acts described by the anticipated testimony would fall under the category of sexual crimes and such acts are not mentioned in the facts confirmed by the decision on the confirmation of charges, the Chamber considers them to be beyond the scope of the charges”. 48

In response to the Trial Chamber ruling, the LRV requested the judges to reconsider their decision, arguing that the allegations of sexual violence against men and boys were relevant to other charges faced by Mr. Ongwen. Trial Chamber IX once more decided to reject the LRV’s request for reconsideration of the matter since “presenting such evidence would exceed the facts and circumstances of the sexual and gender based crimes in this case” and it “does not consider that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the reconsideration of the Decision”.49

According to the Director of the Refugee Law Project, Dr Chris Dolan, “the request to reconsider the scope of the charges to include sexual violence against men and boys within the LRA gave the judges of the ICC a golden opportunity to further demonstrate the progressive and inclusive potential of the Rome Statute’s provisions on sexual violence, and an opportunity, through the testimonies, to create a more truthful and accurate account of sexual violence that occurred within the LRA. Instead, they chose to pass up that opportunity. (…) the judges’ decision entrenches impunity for crimes of sexual violence committed against men and thus undermines the very purpose of the ICC, namely the ending of impunity”.50


The development of the International Criminal Court’s jurisprudence over the recent years has shown that, although a few advances have been made in the investigation and prosecution of male SGBV, international criminal law is still at an early stage in understanding and addressing sexual violence against men and boys in conflict settings. A deeper understanding of this type of sexual violence would help international criminal law’s understanding of all forms of sexual violence, including against women and girls, and would improve the potential for positive expressivism in international criminal law.51

Moreover, fully recognising the harm male victims can suffer as a result of SGBV will help mobilise them in addressing the causes and consequences of sexual violence in conflict as a whole.52 In order to reach this goal it is necessary, on one side, to properly equip domestic legal systems, particularly those operating in post-conflict contexts, in order to enable them to adequately prosecute crimes of SGBV committed during and after wars; on the other side, to interpret, apply, and enforce international law in ways that delegitimize the prejudicial and discriminatory conceptions of gender, sex and (homo) sexuality.53

  1.  Anne-Marie de Brouwer, ‘The Importance of Understanding Sexual Violence in Conflict for Investigation and Prosecution Purposes’ (2015) 48 ILJ 640.
  2. UNHCR, ‘Sexual Violence against Men and Boys in the Syria Crisis’ (October 2017) ˂˃
  3. Maike Isaac, ‘The Prosecution of Sexual Violence against Men in Armed Conflict in International Criminal Law: Past Omissions and Future Prospects for the Enhancement of the Visibility of Male Victimhood’ (L.L.M. Dissertation, Brandeis University 2015).
  4.  Sandesh Sivakumaran, ‘Male/Male Rape and the “Taint” of Homosexuality’ (2005) 27 HRQ 1274.
  5. Laetitia Ruiz, ‘Gender Jurisprudence for Gender Crimes?’ (2016) 20 ICD Brief ˂˃
  6. Héloïse Goodley, ‘Ignoring Male Victims of Sexual Violence in Conflict Is Short-sighted and Wrong’ (Chatham House, 10 January 2019) ˂˃
  7. Kirsten Campbell, ‘The Gender of Transitional Justice: Law, Sexual Violence and the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia’, (2007) 1 IJTJ 41
  8. R. Charli Carpenter, ‘Recognising Gender-Based Violence Against Civilian Men and Boys in Conflict Situations’ (2006) 37 Security Dialogue 83.
  9. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, arts. 7 (1) (g), 8 (2) (b) (xxii) and 8 (2) (e) (VI).
  10. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, art. 7 (3).
  11.  ICC Elements of Crimes, arts. 7 (1) (g), 8 (2) (b) (xxii)- 1 and 8 (2) (e) (vi) – 1.
  12.  ICC Elements of Crimes, arts. 7 (1) (g) – 5, 8 (2) (b) (xxii) – 5 and 8 (2) (e) (vi) – 5.
  13. Sandesh Sivakumaran, ‘Sexual Violence Against Men in Armed Conflict’ (2007) 18 EJIL 253.
  14. Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 14 May 2007 and Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Appeals Judgement, 8 December 2009.
  15. Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgement pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 14 March 2012, para. 630.
  16. Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC 01/04-01/06, Written submissions of Ms Coomaraswamy (CHM-0003), paras 23 and 24-26.
  17. Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Case No. ICC 01/04-01/06, Judgement pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, Separate and Dissenting Opinion of Judge Odio Benito, paras 17 and 20.
  18.  Ibid, para. 16.
  19. Ibid, para. 19.
  20.  Olga Jurasz, ‘Gender-based Crimes at the ICC: Where is the Future?’, 108th Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, 7-12 Apr 2014, Washington DC, pp. 429–432.
  21. Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10, Document Containing the Charges, para. 110.
  22. Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/10, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 16 December 2011.
  23.  Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Case No. ICC-01/09-02/11, Document Containing the Charges, 2 September 2011.
  24. Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Case No. ICC-01/09-02/11, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, 23 January 2012, para. 265.
  25. Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, Case No. ICC-01/09-02/11, 22 September 2011 Transcript, page 88, lines 12-15.
  26. Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Warrant of Arrest, 22 August 2006.
  27. Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Case No. ICC-01/04-02/06, Second decision on the Defence’s challenge to the jurisdiction of the Court in respect of Counts 6 and 9, 4 January 2017, para. 37.

  28. Ibid, para. 46.
  29. Ibid, para. 48.
  30. Heidi Smucker, ‘Expanding Protections of the Rome Statute: The International Criminal Court Affirms Charges of Sexual Assault of Child Soldiers Against Bosco Ntaganda’ (Human Rights Brief, 10 November 2017) ˂˃
  31. Valerie Oosterveld, ‘The ICC Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes: A Crucial Step for International Criminal Law’ (2018) 24 Wm. & Mary J. Women & L. 443.
  32. ICC Office of the Prosecutor, Policy Paper on Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes, June 2014, page 3.
  33. Ibid, page 3.
  34. Ibid.
  35.  Ibid, page 4.
  36.  Ibid.
  37. Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Amended Document Containing the Charges filed on 30 March 2009, 30 March 2009, para. 39.
  38. Ibid, para. 41.
  39. Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009, para. 286.

  40. Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, 15 June 2009, para. 286.
  41.  Ibid, para. 172.
  42. Valerie Oosterveld, ‘Sexual Violence Directed Against Men and Boys in Armed Conflict or Mass Atrocity: Addressing a Gendered Harm in International Criminal Tribunals’ (2014) 10 JILIR 107.
  43. Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, 21 March 2016.
  44. Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Judgment on the appeal of Mr Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo against Trial Chamber III’s “Judgment pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute”, 8 June 2018.
  45. Prosecutor v. Jean-Pierre Bemba, Case No. ICC-01/05-01/08, Separate opinion Judge Christine Van den Wyngaert and Judge Howard Morrison, 8 June 2018.
  46. Susana Sacouto, ‘The Impact of the Appeals Chamber Decision in Bemba: Impunity for Sexual and Gender-Based Crimes?’ (International Justice Monitor, 22 June 2018) ˂˃
  47. Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/15, Decision on the Legal Representatives for Victims Requests to Present Evidence and Views and Concerns and related requests, 6 March 2018, para. 57.
  48. Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, Case No. ICC-02/04-01/15, Decision on the Legal Representative Request for Reconsideration of the Decision on Witnesses to be Called by the Victims Representatives, 26 March 2018, paras 9 and 13.
  49. Lino Owor Ogora, ‘Sexual Violence against Men and Boys and its Relevance to the Trial of Dominic Ongwen’ (International Justice Monitor, 24 April 2018) ˂˃
  50. Valerie Oosterveld, ‘Sexual Violence Directed Against Men and Boys in Armed Conflict or Mass Atrocity: Addressing a Gendered Harm in International Criminal Tribunals’ (2014) 10 JILIR 107.
  51. Héloïse Goodley, ‘Ignoring Male Victims of Sexual Violence in Conflict Is Short-sighted and Wrong’ (Chatham House, 10 January 2019) ˂˃
  52.  Dustin A. Lewis, ‘Unrecognized Victims: Sexual Violence Against Men in Conflict Settings under International Law’ (2009) 27 WILJ 1.