That's a very good question.
A reparations order would obviously come after there's a conviction at the ICC. What we have now is a first conviction on the Lubanga case. Primarily, a reparations award would be funded by the perpetrator, by the convicted party, through either fines or forfeitures, which could be liquidated and put through the trust fund for us to administer for reparations.
In the context of where you have someone who is convicted who is indigent, which looks like the context of Lubanga in this case, the board of directors of the trust fund can decide to complement that court order using our voluntary contributions. Now, if that happens, our rules dictate the use of the voluntary contributions, which means that we can provide a collective order, not individual, which is very different from if the convicted party were to provide individual compensation for victims.
We're yet to see, now, how this will play out on the Lubanga case. We are in the middle, right now, of specific filings with chambers on this issue, and the court itself, the ICC, is in the process of establishing reparations principles.
For a victim, what we've learned from the survivors in these communities is that being identified with a specific conviction and court order has specific meaning for victims, which is different from the rehabilitation assistance they are required to have. That isn't necessarily linked to a conviction.
We don't require a conviction to be able to implement support for victims in their setting, in this situation, which is very different from victims participating on a case.