This study examines the evolution of the reparations regime for crimes against cultural heritage within the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court (ICC), focusing on two landmark cases: Al Mahdi and Al Hassan. Under Article 75 of the Rome Statute, the Court’s shift from retributive justice to restorative justice has transformed reparations from a discretionary measure into a binding legal obligation. Given the dual and multifaceted nature of cultural heritage—encompassing physical, economic, and psycho-identitarian dimensions—the central question is how the Court assesses and remedies these distinct layers of harm. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and judicial case analysis, this research addresses this inquiry.
The findings indicate that in the Al Mahdi case, the Court laid the foundation for an innovative model of restorative justice by distinguishing between various layers of harm and adopting a threefold reparative approach comprising individual, collective, and symbolic reparations. Conversely, the Al Hassan case revealed that when addressing contextualized crimes intertwined with religious and gender-based persecution, the Court’s doctrine in identifying “eligible victims” encounters notable structural ambiguities and limitations.
Beyond conceptual challenges, several practical obstacles undermine the sustainability of this regime, including the lack of standardized benchmarks for quantifying moral and intangible harms, the structural indigence of convicted persons, heavy reliance on the Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) for the implementation of awards, and the ad-hoc nature of institutional cooperation with UNESCO. Consequently, this study suggests that to enhance the effectiveness of the reparations regime, it is essential to formulate clear guidelines for assessing identity-based harms, foster meaningful local community participation, and institutionalize cooperation with UNESCO, thereby establishing a sustainable and universally applicable model in international criminal law.