Thank you.
I think we can take the lessons learned from the other international criminal tribunals, such as Rwanda—I lived in Rwanda for three years just after the genocide, so it's one I'm most familiar with—the Cambodia tribunals, the Yugoslavia tribunal, and now Sierra Leone. These tribunals did not have a mechanism to provide any support for victims during the judiciary process, nor at the end, when there was a conviction. There wasn't an ability to do so. So although justice may have been served, I think victims in those situations never felt necessarily directly recognized, and they never received either rehabilitation assistance or reparations as part of those tribunals.
This is the uniqueness of the Rome Statute. The drafters came together to learn from those lessons, and this will be the first time you have an international criminal tribunal that has this type of mechanism. I think this is why we have to measure the impact of it and how that is felt for victims. This will be the first time that, if the court orders reparations—for example, on the Lubanga case—we will be able to assess what that means for victims.
In the context of where we're working and what we've seen, certainly in the DRC, with the mass atrocities that have occurred, what we don't know is how many of these victims will really be able to receive redress. This is where meeting the expectations of victims in these communities and being realistic in terms of our ability to be able to fund either a reparations order or the ability of a convicted party to do so, with the amount of funding we have.... Just to give you the reality, we only obligate about three million euros per year for all of these activities. It's really all we have to set aside to do so.
I think this probably speaks a little to your question in terms of victims' expectations.