The following remarks were presented by Susana SáCouto, Director of the War Crimes Research Office, on February 1, 2012, at a conference hosted by the the War Crimes Research Office and the Women and International Law Program at American University entitled "Addressing Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings: National and International Strategies."

I. Introduction

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established to end impunity for serious international crimes around the world.[1] Yet the Court’s broad mandate, jurisdiction over an increasing number of territories – there are now 120 States Parties to the Rome Statute that established the Court[2] – and limited resources[3] means that the Court must be selective in the situations it chooses to investigate and the cases it chooses to prosecute. Since the Rome Statute came into force more than a decade ago, the Court has formally initiated investigations in seven different situations,[4] commenced fourteen cases against twenty-five accused and confirmed charges in six cases against ten accused.[5] Gender-based crimes have been investigated in six of the seven situations now before the Court, namely: Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Central African Republic (CAR), Darfur, Kenya and the Ivory Coast.[6] In addition, gender-based charges have been brought in eight of the fourteen cases currently before the Court.[7] In light of the historic failure to prosecute acts of sexual and gender-based violence committed in the context of conflict, mass violence or repression until relatively recently,[8] these statistics appear to indicate significant progress in the effort to seek accountability for such crimes.

The following remarks were presented by Laura Seay on February 1, 2012, at a conference hosted by the the War Crimes Research Office and the Women and International Law Program at American University entitled "Addressing Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings: National and International Strategies."

Today I want to discuss the question of legal responses to sexual and gender-based violence in the Congolese context, with a particular focus on the latest research on the crisis and what it tells us about who is committing these crimes, who the victims are, and what needs to be done to address the problem. In doing so, I will first discuss the latest research on the rape crisis in the Congo, then problematize some of what we think we know about it. I will close by raising challenges for our response to the crisis.

The following remarks were presented by Harvard University's Jocelyn Kelly on February 1, 2012, at a conference hosted by the the War Crimes Research Office and the Women and International Law Program at American University entitled "Addressing Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Conflict and Post-Conflict Settings: National and International Strategies."

Good afternoon. My name is Jocelyn Kelly and I'm the Director of the Women in War Program at the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative. I just got back from DRC about 40 hours ago, and it's such an honor to be here and so extraordinarily inspiring to see this groundswell of interest and support, literally half a world away and a really wonderful opportunity for discussion.

On this last trip I was struck anew at a deep underlying truth of conflict which is this; even modest amounts of violence can create lasting ripple effects, often outside of the area where it happens. And the violence in Congo hasn't occurred in modest amounts. Two decades of war have seen an exponentiation of violence, fear and insecurity. And no one knows better the effect of even one act of rape, murder or pillage can have on communities than those who are affected. And what they've told us is, even modest amounts of violence can affect families, regions and social structures for generations. And while communities know this truth deeply because they've lived it, we as programmers, responders, policy makers and academics still struggle; first to understand and second to holistically respond to the problems that destabilized communities face.