Refusal to Grant Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment in the Case of Maxime Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka at the International Criminal Court and Comparison with Other Criminal Practices

Abstract

This work

delves deeply into an analysis of the decision of the International Criminal

Court dated the second day of September in the year two thousand twenty-five

regarding the refusal to satisfy the claim for compensation to Maxime Jeoffroy

Eli Mokom Gawaka for wrongful imprisonment, drawing parallels with similar

practices of compensation for judicial errors in criminal proceedings in the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Italian Republic, the

Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Swiss Confederation, the United

States of America, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Court of Justice of the

European Union, the European Court of Human Rights, and Ukraine. Particular

emphasis is placed on the criteria of "serious and manifest judicial

error" (grave and manifest miscarriage of justice) in accordance with

article eighty-five of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, as

well as on practices of detention and surrender of persons pursuant to warrants

of the International Criminal Court. The analysis is based on legislation,

judicial practice, and international standards, illustrating differences in

approaches to the protection of the rights of persons who have become victims

of wrongful criminal prosecution, as if unveiling the fragile fabric of justice

woven from threads of law and human experience, and enriched with quotations

from statements of persons commenting on these judicial cases.

Introduction

International

criminal justice, embodied in the activities of the International Criminal

Court, aims to ensure inevitable accountability for the most serious crimes,

such as war crimes and crimes against humanity, which wound the very essence of

the human race. However, similar to national judicial systems, it is not immune

to errors that may lead to wrongful imprisonment, like a shadow falling upon

the sun of justice. The case of Maxime Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka, former leader

of the anti-Balaka in the Central African Republic, serves as a vivid example

of such a dramatic turn of fate: after nineteen months of imprisonment, the

charges were withdrawn, yet the claim for compensation was rejected due to the

absence of a "serious judicial error." This decision awakens profound

questions about the delicate balance between the efficiency of criminal

prosecution and the inviolable protection of human rights, as if the scales of

Themis are swaying in search of equilibrium.

In this

work, we conduct a comparison of the decision of the International Criminal

Court with practices of compensation for wrongful imprisonment in selected

states, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human

Rights, and Ukraine, and also examine practices of detention pursuant to

warrants of the International Criminal Court. The analysis is grounded in

legislation and judicial practice, highlighting differences in criteria for

compensation and mechanisms of international cooperation.

Essence of

the Case of Maxime Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka

Maxime

Jeoffroy Eli Mokom Gawaka was arrested on the fourteenth day of March in the

year two thousand twenty-two in the Republic of Chad pursuant to a warrant of

the International Criminal Court dated the tenth day of December in the year

two thousand eighteen on suspicion of committing war crimes and crimes against

humanity, which allegedly took place in the years two thousand thirteen to two

thousand fourteen in the Central African Republic. He spent approximately

nineteen months in pretrial detention at the International Criminal Court until

the seventeenth day of October in the year two thousand twenty-three. On the

sixteenth day of October in the year two thousand twenty-three, the prosecutor

of the International Criminal Court withdrew all charges due to changes in the

evidence that rendered a reasonable prospect of conviction impossible, and the

following day, Pretrial Chamber number two terminated the proceedings and

released him from custody.

Following

his release, Mokom Gawaka submitted a request for compensation in accordance

with article eighty-five of the Rome Statute, demanding approximately two

million eight hundred thousand euros for himself and five hundred thousand

euros for his family, citing harm caused to his reputation, finances, and

health. The hearing on compensation took place on the ninth to tenth days of

September in the year two thousand twenty-four. On the thirty-first day of

January in the year two thousand twenty-five, a specially formed Chamber

pursuant to article eighty-five (composed of judges Miatta Maria Samba, Kibong

Pek, and Betty Hohler) rejected the request, reasoning that the arrest was

lawful at the time of the warrant's issuance, the release does not automatically

render the imprisonment unlawful (ex post facto), a "serious and manifest

judicial error" was not proven, and the period after release (forty-three

days in a hotel in the Kingdom of the Netherlands) was voluntary. Mokom Gawaka

filed an appeal, which the Appeals Chamber rejected on the second day of

September in the year two thousand twenty-five, confirming the absence of

grounds for compensation.

Boundaries

of Compensation at the International Criminal Court (Article Eighty-Five of the

Rome Statute)

Article

eighty-five of the Rome Statute provides for compensation for wrongful arrest,

imprisonment, or conviction, but only on the condition of a "serious and

manifest judicial error" (grave and manifest miscarriage of justice). This

high threshold, as if a fortress guarding the judicial system, requires not

merely the withdrawal of charges, but proof of a gross violation of rights,

similar to habeas corpus – protection against unlawful detention. In the case

of Mokom Gawaka, the court emphasized that the warrant was based on sufficient

grounds at the time of issuance, and the withdrawal of charges does not

indicate an error per se.

Similar

precedents, such as in the case of Jean-Pierre Bemba, demonstrate that the

International Criminal Court rarely satisfies such requests, emphasizing

procedural legality ultra vires.

As noted by

Mokom Gawaka's lawyer, Philippe Larochelle, "The court has ruined this

man’s life," underscoring the destructive consequences of the process,

whereas the judges emphasized that "a period of lawful detention does not

become unlawful simply because the person was ultimately not convicted,"

and "Mokom voluntarily remained at the hotel and therefore cannot be

considered to have been ‘detained’ within the meaning of article 85(1) of the

Statute."

Comparative

Analysis of Compensation for Wrongful Imprisonment in Selected Jurisdictions

United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, compensation for judicial

errors is regulated by section one hundred thirty-three of the Criminal Justice

Act of the year one thousand nine hundred eighty-eight, as amended by the

Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act of the year two thousand fourteen.

Compensation is granted only if a "miscarriage of justice" is proven,

which since the year two thousand fourteen requires proof of innocence beyond a

reasonable doubt. Many applications are rejected: since the year two thousand

fourteen, only sixteen persons have received compensation. Unlike the

International Criminal Court, where the threshold of a "serious

error" is higher, here the emphasis is on proving innocence, but similarly,

release does not guarantee compensation ex gratia. The European Court of Human

Rights confirmed the legality of this system in the year two thousand

twenty-four, although a minority of judges noted that "most European

states provide for compensation after a miscarriage of justice,"

underscoring differences in European approaches.

Politicians

in parliament also discussed that "It is essential that proper

compensation payments are made so that victims of miscarriages of justice can

recover the costs they have incurred," reflecting societal pressure for

reforms.

Italian

Republic

The Italian

Code of Criminal Procedure provides for two regimes of compensation: for

revoked detention (articles three hundred fourteen to three hundred fifteen)

and for unjust imprisonment. Compensation is granted for material and moral

harm if innocence is proven or the absence of grounds for detention is

established. Unlike the International Criminal Court, the Italian system is

more flexible, allowing compensation even without a "serious error,"

but requiring proof of harm.

In cases of

errors, such as in the case of Mokom Gawaka, compensation is possible if the

detention is deemed "unjust," with fixed rates (for example, up to

five hundred sixteen euros per day).

Political

figures, such as Minister Matteo Salvini, reacted sharply to similar decisions,

stating: "Let the judges pay and welcome the illegal immigrants, if they

care so much," illustrating the tension between judicial independence and

political interests.

Kingdom of

Spain

In the

Kingdom of Spain, compensation for judicial errors is regulated by the Organic

Law on the Judiciary and administrative liability of the state. It is granted

for annulled sentences or wrongful detention through an administrative

procedure before the Ministry of Justice. The threshold is lower than at the

International Criminal Court: proof of judicial error or absence of guilt is

sufficient.

The

Constitutional Court of the Kingdom of Spain since the year two thousand

nineteen recognizes the right to compensation for any wrongful detention in

criminal cases. In similar cases, compensation is often granted, with emphasis

on proportionality of harm, as if an echo of the principle of restitutio in

integrum.

The Supreme

Court of Spain, excluding "additional" compensation in some cases,

emphasizes adherence to statutory frameworks, stating that "The decision

restores consistency and reinforces the statutory framework for compensation

for unfair dismissal," although this pertains to a broader context of

judicial errors.

Republic of

Austria

Austrian

criminal law provides for compensation for detention at the pretrial stage if

the person is acquitted (Criminal Compensation Act). Fixed compensation

(approximately one hundred to two hundred euros per day), but only for unlawful

detention.

The

European Court of Human Rights in the case of Sekanina versus the Republic of

Austria (the year one thousand nine hundred ninety-three) criticized the

refusal of compensation without clear grounds, emphasizing that "the

absence of public delivery of judgments of an appellate court in two stages of

proceedings regarding a claim for compensation for detention" violates

fairness.

Compared to

the International Criminal Court, the Austrian system is less strict, allowing

compensation for simple acquittal, without the need for a "serious

error."

Swiss

Confederation

In the

Swiss Confederation, compensation for wrongful convictions is rare, regulated

by general norms of tort law (article four hundred twenty-nine of the Criminal

Code). It is granted for material harm if the state's fault is proven.

Unlike the

International Criminal Court, the focus is on systemic errors, such as

erroneous testimony, but the threshold is high, similar to "grave

miscarriage."

Known cases

of errors in summary proceedings, where, as researchers note, "The risk of

wrongful conviction is an inevitable part of any criminal justice system,"

underscoring the vulnerability of expedited processes.

United

States of America

In the

United States of America, compensation varies: federal law provides for fifty

thousand dollars per year of imprisonment for wrongful federal convictions

(section two thousand five hundred thirteen of the United States Code, title

twenty-eight). In thirty-five states, there are compensation statutes, with

caps (for example, fifty thousand to one hundred thousand dollars per year),

but fifteen states do not provide.

Criterion

for application: proof of innocence or gross error, similar to the

International Criminal Court, but with greater emphasis on civil lawsuits for

rights violations (section one thousand nine hundred eighty-three of the United

States Code, title forty-two).

Activists

and politicians emphasize that "For the exonerated, compensation is a

battle for stability and dignity," underscoring prolonged processes and

inequality.

Federal

Republic of Germany

German law

provides for compensation for material and non-material harm after review of a

sentence (Act on Compensation for Criminal Prosecution). It is granted if the

sentence is annulled due to new evidence.

The

threshold is lower than at the International Criminal Court: proof of error is

sufficient, without a "manifest" element.

In the

context of historical cases, such as war crimes, commentators emphasize

"Compensation Without Recognition," criticizing the lack of

acknowledgment in German-Italian disputes.

Court of

Justice of the European Union

The Court

of Justice of the European Union is not a criminal court, but through

integration of the European Convention on Human Rights, it regulates

compensation for wrongful detention in the context of the European Arrest

Warrant. Compensation is granted for violations of European Union rights if the

detention is unlawful.

In cases

similar to the International Criminal Court, the Court of Justice of the

European Union refers to the European Court of Human Rights, requiring proof of

violation of article five of the European Convention on Human Rights, but the

threshold of "unjustified detention" is lower than "grave

miscarriage."

European

Court of Human Rights

The

European Court of Human Rights, as the body of the European Convention on Human

Rights, considers complaints of violations of article five, paragraph five of

the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to

compensation for arrest or detention contrary to the Convention. Compensation

is granted for unlawful detention or judicial error if a violation of rights is

proven, such as the absence of lawful grounds for detention.

The

threshold is lower than at the International Criminal Court: establishment of a

Convention violation is sufficient, without the need for a "grave and

manifest" error.

In cases

such as Nealon and Hallam versus the United Kingdom of Great Britain and

Northern Ireland (the year two thousand twenty-four), the European Court of

Human Rights confirmed that national compensation systems may have high

thresholds, but if they do not violate the Convention, they are lawful,

although a minority of judges emphasized that "most European states

provide for compensation after a miscarriage of justice."

The

European Court of Human Rights often awards just satisfaction, including

compensation for non-pecuniary damage, and may require states to pay for

wrongful detention even if national courts refused.

Compared to

the International Criminal Court, the practice of the European Court of Human

Rights is more oriented toward human rights, allowing compensation for any

unlawful deprivation of liberty, and influences national systems through the

execution of judgments.

Ukraine

In Ukraine,

compensation for wrongful imprisonment is regulated by the Law "On the

Procedure for Compensation for Harm Caused to a Citizen by Unlawful Actions of

Inquiry Bodies, Pretrial Investigation, Prosecutor's Office, and Court."

It is granted for unlawful detention or wrongful conviction, including material

and moral harm, with fixed rates (for example, from one hundred to two hundred

euros per day in the year two thousand ten, with updates).

Threshold:

proof of unlawfulness of state actions, similar to the European Court of Human

Rights, but with an administrative procedure.

In cases

such as Tymoshenko versus Ukraine, the European Court of Human Rights

criticized the Ukrainian system for inefficiency but confirmed the right to

compensation.

Unlike the

International Criminal Court, Ukrainian practice is more accessible to victims,

with emphasis on reparations for rights violations, especially in the context

of criminal cases.

Ukraine, as

a party to the European Convention on Human Rights, is obligated to execute

decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, which strengthens protection.

Practice of

Detention Pursuant to Warrants of the International Criminal Court and

Subsequent Proceedings

The

majority of the analyzed states (except the United States of America) are

parties to the Rome Statute and are obligated to arrest and surrender persons

pursuant to warrants of the International Criminal Court.

In the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, this is regulated by the

International Criminal Court Act of the year two thousand one. In the Italian

Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria, the Federal Republic

of Germany, and the Swiss Confederation, national legislation ensures prompt

surrender.

The United

States of America, not being a party, is not obligated but may cooperate

selectively.

In the

European Union, cooperation is enhanced through the European Arrest Warrant,

but compensation for errors is very rare.

Ukraine, as

a party to the Rome Statute, actively cooperates with the International

Criminal Court.

The

European Court of Human Rights does not directly regulate the International

Criminal Court but influences European states regarding the lawfulness of

detentions. In the case of Mokom Gawaka, the detention in the Republic of Chad

(not a party) underscores challenges similar to national extraditions, as if a

labyrinth of international law.

Conclusion

The

decision of the International Criminal Court in the case of Mokom Gawaka

illustrates a strict approach to compensation, compared to more flexible

systems in the Italian Republic, the Kingdom of Spain, the Republic of Austria,

Ukraine, and the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, where simple

acquittal or rights violation is often sufficient for restitutio.

In the

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Swiss Confederation,

the United States of America, and the Federal Republic of Germany, thresholds

are higher, similar to the International Criminal Court.

The Court

of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights

emphasize human rights through standards of the European Union and the European

Convention on Human Rights.

These

differences underscore the need for harmonization of international norms for

better protection against judicial errors, especially in the context of the

International Criminal Court, as if a call to a symphony of justice in a world

of disharmony. Further research may focus on the effectiveness of these

mechanisms in preventing abuses, illuminating the path to more perfect justice.

List of

References

1.

International Criminal Court Judges reject Mister Mokom’s request for

compensation -

https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/icc-judges-reject-mr-mokoms-request-compensation

2. The

Mokom fiasco, part 2: everybody did their job, no one needs to know -

https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/135629-mokom-fiasco-part-2-everybody-did-their-job-no-one-needs-to-know.html

3.

Miscarriage of Justice Compensation - Hansard - United Kingdom Parliament -

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-03-19/debates/87474AB8-1654-4292-BA2E-F65AEB2392B8/MiscarriageOfJusticeCompensation

4. United

Kingdom system for wrongful conviction payouts is lawful, European court rules

-

https://www.theguardian.com/law/article/2024/jun/11/uk-system-wrongful-conviction-payouts-lawful-european-court-rules

5. Italy

government furious as court orders compensation for sea migrant -

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/italy-must-compensate-sea-migrants-top-court-orders-2025-03-07/

6. The

Spanish Supreme Court rules out 'additional' compensation for unfair dismissal

-

https://www.osborneclarke.com/insights/spanish-supreme-court-rules-out-additional-compensation-unfair-dismissal-0

7. Case of

Szücs versus Austria - Human Rights Documentation -

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-58113

8. Wrongful

Convictions in Switzerland: A Problem of Summary Proceedings -

https://scholarship.law.uc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1136&context=uclr

9. For the

exonerated, compensation is a battle for stability and dignity -

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/11/1147443227/for-the-exonerated-compensation-is-a-battle-for-stability-and-dignity

10.

Compensation Without Recognition - Verfassungsblog -

https://verfassungsblog.de/compensation-without-recognition/

11.

Compensation for Unjustified Detention and the European Arrest Warrant -

https://eucrim.eu/articles/compensation-for-unjustified-detention-and-the-european-arrest-warrant/

12.

Rejection of claims for compensation for miscarriage of justice did not breach

the European Convention -

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-7969895-11113776&filename=Judgment%2520Nealon%2520and%2520Hallam%2520v.%2520the%2520United%2520Kingdom%2520-%2520Rejection%2520of%2520claims%2520for%2520compensation%2520for%2520miscarriage%2520of%2520justice%2520did%2520not%2520breach%2520the%2520European%2520Convention.pdf