Journal of International Criminal Justice Advance Access originally published online on May 24, 2005
Journal of International Criminal Justice 2005 3(3):721-748; doi:10.1093/jicj/mqi031
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Child Witnesses and the International Criminal Justice System
Does the International Criminal Court Protect the Most Vulnerable?
* Senior Legal Adviser, New Zealand Ministry of Justice. The views expressed herein are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Ministry [s.beresford{at}paradise.net.nz].
While warfare has always caused human suffering, modern armed conflicts have been synonymous for the deliberate and systematic attacks on non-combatants, many of whom are children. As they often possess the best and sometimes only evidence of a particular crime, it is likely that children will be asked to testify before the International Criminal Court. Given that they are the most vulnerable of all witnesses, the Rome Statute contains various provisions designed to protect the interests of children. While the Court's witness protection regime will help reduce the stress and trauma associated with giving evidence, various improvements could be made to ensure that children are provided with the necessary protection that their susceptible status requires.
1 See M. Price, ‘Children Testify in Kosovo Trial’, BBC News (9 July 2003), available online at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3051919.stm (visited 30 December 2004); for a detailed account of the massacre from one of the survivors, see I. Traynor, ‘In Cold Blood’, The Guardian (10 July 2003), available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,994957,00.html (visited 30 December 2004).
2 Cvjetan was indicted along with another member of the Scorpions, Dejan Demirovi
. However, before he could be arrested, Demirovi fled the country and settled in Canada. The Canadian authorities have, thus far, refused to extradite him back to Serbia. M. Saponja-Hadzic, Kosovo Children Testify, Institute for War and Peace Reporting (11–18 July 2003), available online at http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/tri/tri__320__5__eng.txt (visited 30 December 2004).
3 I. Traynor, ‘Massacre Children Testify in Serb Trial’, The Guardian (10 July 2003), available online at http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,995043,00.html (visted 30 December 2004).
4 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the United Nations Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court of 17 July 1998, UN doc. A/CONF. 183/9 (Rome Statute).
5 ICC Rules of Procedure and Evidence, UN doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.1 (2000) (ICC Rules), available online at http://www.icc-cpi.int/docs/basicdocs/rules(e).pdf, Rule 87(3)(c) (visited 30 December 2004).
7 See C. Hamilton and T. Abu El-Haj, ‘Armed Conflict: The Protection of Children under International Law’, 5 International Journal of Children's Rights 1, at 3 (attributing the rise in the number of fatalities to several new trends: (i) the abandonment of any semblance of compliance with humanitarian law; (ii) the move from transnational conflicts to civil wars in which the distinction between combatant and non-combatant is ignored and (iii) the rise in ‘ethnic cleansing’).
8 See S. O’Rourke von Struensee, ‘Violence, Exploitation and Children: Highlights of the United Nations Children's Convention and International Response to Children's Human Rights’, 18 Suffolk Transnational Law Review (1995), 589 at 621; and G. Machel, The Impact of Armed Conflict on Children: A Critical Review of Progress Made and Obstacles Encountered in Increasing Protection for War-Affected Children, available online at http://www.unifem.undo.undp.org/machelrep.html (visited 30 December 2004).
9 See Child and Armed Conflict, Report of the Secretary-General, UN doc. S/2000/712, 19 July 2000 (Secretary-General Report), at 
2.
10 Ibid., at 2; see also A.B. Abbot, ‘Child Soldiers: The Use of Children as Instruments of War’, 23 Suffork Transnat’l L. Rev. (2000), 499 and B. Fonseka, ‘The Protection of Child Soldiers in International Law’, 2 Asia-Pacific Journal on Human Rights and the Law (2001), 69.
12 S. Maslen, ‘Implementation and International Bodies: Relevance of the Convention on the Rights of the Child to Children in Armed Conflict’, 6 Transnational Law and Contemporary Problems (1996) 329, at 331.
15 Ibid., at 333 (referring to the Turkish situation at the start of the 1990s, where teachers were pressured by government officials to inform on their students and their families, which made their position in the local community untenable. At the same time, they were threatened by the PKK (the Kurdish armed opposition group) for continuing to teach the Turkish curriculum, which denied Kurdish identity).
16 Ibid., at 333. In Sudan, children as young as 12 have been seized from buses and cars and forcibly recruited, while, in Guatemala, youngsters have been rounded up from streets, homes and violently removed from churches. B. Fonseka, supra note 10, at 71. It is estimated that there are 300,000 child soldiers worldwide, more than half of them in Africa. A. Rentein, ‘The Child Soldier: The Challenge of Enforcing International Standards’, 21 Whittier Law Review (1999), at 191.
17 Fonseka, supra note 10, at 70; see also Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/crp/facts.htm (visited 30 December 2004).
18 Fonseka, supra note 10, at 70.
19 I. Cohn, ‘The Protection of Children in Peacemaking and Peacekeeping Processes’, 12 Harvard Human Rights Journal (1999) 129, at 134.
21 Fonseka, supra note 10, at 70.
22 Secretary-General Report, supra note 9, 38.
24 Machel, supra note 8, 97 (observing that young girls who have become sex slaves for armies may have no option but to become prostitutes after the conflict has ended, as they are often shunned when they try to return home).
25 Declaration of the Rights of the Child, Art. 3.
26 J. Kuper, International Law Concerning Child Civilians in Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 112, quoted in Fonseka, supra note 10, at 78.
27 Fonseka, supra note 10, at 79.
28 GA Res. 1386 (XIV), 14, UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 19, UN doc. A/4354 (1959).
29 The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, UN doc. A/44/49 (1989) (UNCROC) adopted by GA Res. 44/25, annex 44, UN GAOR Supp. (No. 49), at 167.
30 The Convention has become the most widely ratified of all human rights treaties, with 192 States Parties. As of 14 September 2004, only Somalia and the United States of America have not ratified the Convention. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Status of Ratifications of the Principal International Human Rights Treaties (2003), available online at http://www.unhchr.ch/pdf/report.pdf (visited 30 December 2004).
31 See UNCROC, supra note 29, Arts 5 and 20.
39 Ibid., Art. 27(3). For a more detailed analysis of the protections afforded by the Convention, see S. O’Rouke von Struensee, supra note 8.
40 UNCROC, supra note 29, Art. 38(4).
43 The report was based on two years of research, field visits and consultations. Machel, supra note 8, 10–19.
46 J.S. Vachachira, ‘Report 2002: Implementation of the Optional Protocol to the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict’, 18 New York Law School Journal of Human Rights (2002), at 543. The Special Representative has been quite successful in this endeavour. In 2002, it was reported that he had ‘sought and obtained important commitments for the protection and well-being of children in conflict and post-conflict situations, and for observing obligations under international law, in countries such as Columbia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sri Lanka, the Sudan and others’. Report of the Secretary-General on Children and Armed Conflict, UN doc. S/2002/1299, 26 November 2002.
47 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (Optional Protocol), GA Res. 54/263, Annex I, UN doc. A/54/49 (2000), entered into force 12 February 2002.
48 Ibid., Art. 4(1). For further information on the Optional Protocol, see amongst others C. Revaz, ‘The Optional Protocol to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child on Sex Trafficking and Child Soldiers’, 9 Human Rights Brief 13 (2001); Vachachira, supra note 46; and S. Abraham, ‘Child Soldiers and the Capacity of the Optional Protocol to Protect Children in Conflict’, 10 Human Rights Brief 15 (2003).
49 Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 75 UNTS 287 entered into force 21 October 1950. The first three Geneva Conventions are also of relevance for captured or rescued child soldiers, as they regulate the protection of members of armed forces who are hors de combat, because they are sick, wounded, shipwrecked or prisoners of war.
52 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 12 December 1977, reprinted in 16 International Legal Materials (ILM) 1391 (1977) (Additional Protocol I). See M. Happold, ‘Child Soldiers in International Law: The Legal Regulation of Children's Participation in Hostilities’, 47 Northern Ireland Law Reports 27 (2000), at 34 (warning that Additional Protocol I only protects those persons (including child combatants) who are taking a direct part in hostilities. Consequently, since this does not include such activities as the gathering and transmission of military information, children who engage in these activities may, if they fall into enemy hands, be accused of espionage and treated as spies).
53 L.C. Green, The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict (New York: Manchester University Press, 1993), 149 (explaining that although they may be military objects, Art. 56 of Additional Protocol I prohibits any attack upon dams, dykes and nuclear generating stations if the result would be to release dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population).
54 Additional Protocol I, supra note 52, Art. 54(2).
56 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 12 December 1977, reprinted 16 ILM 1442 (1977) (Additional Protocol II).
61 Rome Statute, supra note 4, Art. 6. In this context, ‘forcible’ is not restricted to physical force but may include the treat of force or coercion, such as that caused by fear of violence, duress, detention, psychological oppression or abuse of power. Elements of Crimes, UN doc. PCNICC/2000/1/Add.2 (2000) available online at http://www.icc-cpi.int/docs/basicdocs/elements(e).pdf, Art. 6(e) (visited 30 December 2004).
62 Ibid., Arts 8(2)(b)(xxvi) and (e)(vii).
63 S. Valentine, ‘Trafficking of Child Soldiers: Expanding the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict’, 9 New England International and Comparative Law Annual (2003) 109, at 114.
64 Rome Statute, supra note 4, Arts 7(1)(g) and 8(2)(b)(xxii) and (e)(vi).
68 A. Cassese, International Criminal Law (Oxford: OUP, 2002), 229.
69 No Peace Without Justice and UNICEF, ‘International Criminal Justice and Children’ (2002), at 53.
70 See D. Shoemaker, International Handbook on Juvenile Justice (London: Greenwood Press, 1996).
71 For a discussion on the role played by children in the Rwandan genocide, see C. Reis, ‘Trying the Future, Avenging the Past: The Implications of Prosecuting Children for Participation in Internal Armed Conflict’, 28 Columbia Human Rights Law Review (1997) 629; Save the Children Federation, USA, ‘Children, Genocide and Justice: Rwandan Perspectives on Culpability and Punishment for Children Convicted of Crimes Associated with Genocide’ (unpublished paper, 1995) referred to in I. Cohn, ‘The Protection of Children in Peacemaking and Peacekeeping Processes’, 12 Harv Hum Rts J 129 (1999), at note 238; for Sierra Leone, see D. Amann, ‘Calling Children to Account: The Proposal for a Juvenile Chamber in the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, 29 Pepperdine Law Review (2001) 167; I. Zarifis, ‘Sierra Leone's Search for Justice and Accountability of Child Soldiers’, 9 Hum Rts Br (2002) 18.
72 Rome Statute, supra note 4, Art. 26.
73 No Peace Without Justice and UNICEF, supra note 69, at 54–55 (noting that by focusing on leadership figures, rather than the ‘trigger-pullers’, the deterrent effect of international prosecutions will be increased. In addition, as resources available to the court will be limited, there is a financial rationale for the limitation).
74 ICC Rules, supra note 5, Rule 65.
76 See W. Schabas, An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 127.
77 ICC Rules, supra note 5, Rule 140.
80 L. Ellison, The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable Witness (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 11.
81 ICC Rules, supra note 5, Rule 86.
82 No Peace Without Justice and UNICEF, supra note 69, at 84.
83 Rome Statute, supra note 4, Art. 68(2).
84 ICC Rules, supra note 5, Rule 87(3)(a).
89 See, e.g. s. 80 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (UK), abolishing the common law privilege attaching to marital communications in England and Wales.
90 Rome Statute, supra note 4, Art. 75(2); see C. Ferstman, ‘The Reparation Regime of the International Criminal Court: Practical Considerations’, 15 Leiden Journal of International Law (2002) 667 (discussing, in detail, the procedure of making a claim for reparation and the likelihood of success).
91 Rome Statute, ibid., Arts 75(4) and 93(1)(k). States are required to give effect to such forfeiture orders. Art. 109.
92 Ibid., Art. 79. For further information on the ICC Trust Fund, see T. Ingadottir, ‘The Trust Fund for Victims’, Project on International Courts and Tribunals (PICT), ICC Discussion Paper no. 3 (February 2001), available online at http://www.pict-pcti.org/publications/ICC__paprs/Trust__Fund.pdf (visited 30 December 2004) and C. Lasco, ‘Repairing the Irreparable: Current and Future Approaches to Reparations’, 10 Hum Rts Br (2003), at 18 (noting that child victims may receive support from the Victims’ Trust Fund, even if they do not appear before the ICC).
93 Rome Statute, ibid., Art. 43(6). For further information on the role of the VWU, see T. Ingadottir, F. Ngendahayo and P. Viseur Sellers, The International Criminal Court: The Victims and Witnesses Unit, Project on International Courts and Tribunals, ICC Discussion Paper no. 1 (March 2000), available online at http://www.pict-pcti.org/publications/ICC__paprs/VWU.pdf (visited 7 February 2005).
94 No Peace Without Justice and UNICEF, supra note 69, at 87.
96 Ingadottir and others, supra note 92, at 25.
97 ICC Rules, supra note 5, Rule 17(2)(iii). This mandate is further emphasized by Rule 19, which requires the VWU to include staff with expertise in trauma, including trauma related to crimes of sexual violence; see also Ingadottir and others, supra note 92, at 32 (noting that the provision of counselling services will be particularly important for children, especially those who are victims of sexual assault. Consequently, in its counselling work, the VWU must act in the best interests of the witness and not the prosecution and defence).
98 ICC Rules, ibid., Rule 17(3).
99 No Peace Without Justice and UNICEF, supra note 69, at 87.
100 See Ingadottir et al., supra note 92, at 33 (recommending that the VWU should establish a systematic monitoring programme for the post-trial stage to ensure the continued necessary support for child witnesses. This should include liaising with relevant national bodies and non-governmental groups that provide such services for child witnesses in their countries of residence).
101 International Association of Prosecutors, Model Guidelines for the Effective Prosecution of Crimes Against Children, IAP Best Practice Series No. 2 (1999), available online at http://www.iap.nl.com/children.html (Model Guidelines) (visited 7 February 2005).
102 See K. Breckenridge, ‘Justice Beyond Borders: A Comparison of Australian and US Child-Sex Tourism Laws’, 13 Pacific Rim Law and Policy (2004) 405, at 430.
103 See Rome Statute, supra note 4, Art. 68.
104 Model Guidelines, supra note 101.
105 See also, Child Victims’ and Child Witnesses’ Rights, 18 USCS 3509 (2004) (Child Witnesses’ Rights), at clause (j).
106 Ellison, supra note 80, at 23–24.
107 Model Guidelines, supra note 101.
108 J. Hamblen and M. Levine, ‘The Legal Implications and Emotional Consequences of Sexually Abused Children Testifying as Victim-Witnesses’, 21 Law and Psychology Review (1997) 139, at 178.
109 Rome Statute, supra note 4, Art. 69(1).
110 ICC Rules, supra note 5, Rule 66(2).
111 J. Meyer, Inaccuracies in Children's Testimony (New York: Haworth Press, 1997), 10.
112 S. Hewitt, ‘Assessing Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Preschool Children: Understanding Small Voices in Child Victims’, in G. Goodman and B. Bottoms (eds), Child Witnesses: Understanding and Improving Testimony (New York: Guildford Press, 1998).
113 J. Myers et al., ‘Hearsay Exceptions: Adjusting the Ratio of Intuition to Psychological Science’, 65 Law and Contemporary Problems 3 (2002), at 23.
115 New Zealand Law Commission, ‘The Evidence of Children and Other Vulnerable Witnesses: A Discussion Paper’ (October 1996), at 8.
116 Myers, supra note 113, at 25.
117 NZ Law Commission, supra note 115, at 8 (commenting that many adults also have difficulties explaining the difference between truth and lies).
118 Myers, supra note 113, at 25.
119 Rome Statute, supra note 4, Art. 70(1)(a).
120 Ontorio Law Reform Commission, Report on Child Witnesses (Toronto: OLRC, 1991), 37.
121 This test has been adopted in a number of countries and federal legal systems—e.g. Australia, Ireland, California and Ontario—to examine the competence of a child witness. NZ Law Commission, supra note 115, at 10–14; see also Child Witnesses’ Rights, supra note 105, clause (c)(4).
122 See Y. Featherstone, ‘The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: Recent Developments in Witness Protection’, 10 LJIL 179 (1997), at 181.
123 See comments by US Supreme Court Justices Burger and Rehnquist in Globe Newspaper Co v. Superior Court, 457 United States Supreme Court Reports 596 (1982).
124 For a discussion of the various ways that a witness may testify before the ad hoc Tribunals, see Featherstone, supra note 122, at 188; see also A. Rydberg, ‘The Protection of the Interests of Witnesses: The ICTY in Comparison to the Future ICC’, 12 LJIL (1999) 455, at 465–467; and P. Wald, ‘Dealing with Witnesses in War Crime Trials: Lessons from the Yugoslav Tribunal’, 5 Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal (2002) 217, at 221–222.
125 Decision on Prosecution Motion for Modification of Protective Measures for Witnesses, Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon & Gbao, case no. SCSL-04-15-T, 5 July 2004.
126 See Rydberg, supra note 124, at 468 (noting that the ICTY's Rules of Procedure and Evidence provide that in order to apply for certain protective measures, the Prosecutor must demonstrate that a witness is ‘in danger or at risk’).
127 NZ Law Commission, supra note 115, at 31.
128 Rydberg, supra note 124, at 470.
129 M. Cunneen, ‘Preparing the Child Witness’, in J. Vernon (ed.), AIC Conference Proceedings no. 8: Children as Witnesses (Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology, 1988), 75.
130 P. Byrne, ‘Children as Witnesses: Legal Aspects’, in Vernon, ibid., at 11.
131 J. Szwarc, Improving the Court Environment, in Vernon, supra note 129, at 131.
132 J. Myers, ‘A Decade of International Reform to Accommodate Child Witnesses: Steps Towards a Child Witness Code’, in B. Bottoms and G. Goodman (eds), International Perspectives on Child Abuse and Children's Testimony: Psychological Research and Law (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publishers, 1996), at 225 (noting that in addition to lowering stress, preparation may increase a child's memory and reduce suggestibility).
133 P. Byrne, ‘Children as Witnesses: Legal Aspects’, in Vernon, supra note 130, at 11.
134 See G. Nice, ‘Trials of Imperfection’, 14 LJIL 383 (2001), at 388–389; I. Nizich, ‘International Tribunals and Their Ability to Provide Adequate Justice: Lessons from the Yugoslav Tribunal’, 7 ILSA Journal of International and Comparative Law (2001) 353, at 366; and P. Wald, ‘The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Comes of Age: Some Observations on Day-to-day Dilemmas of an International Court’, 5 Journal of Law & Policy (2001) 87, at 107.
135 See P. Hill and S. Hill, ‘Videotaping Children's Testimony: An Empirical View’, 85 Michigan Law Review (1987) 809, at 824 (commenting that because many interviewers are ignorant of or insensitive to the special needs and abilities of children, their testimony may appear to be, at best, not wholly reliable and, at worst, totally unusable).
136 J.F. Nijboer, ‘Children and Young Persons in the Criminal Justice System: The Council of Europe Recommendations on Witness Protection and Rights of the Defence’, 10 Criminal Law Forum (1999) 443, at 458.
137 A. Warren and D. Marsil, ‘Why Children's Suggestibility Remains a Serious Concern’, 65 Law and Contemporary Problems (2002), at 127; see also Nijboer, ibid., at 458 (noting that ‘the degree to which ... suggestibility plays a role depends on the severity of the offence and the effects on the witness, the personality of the child and the way the examination is conducted’).
138 For a discussion of the approaches taken in England, Canada and the United States, see Hill and Hill, supra note 135; and J. Myers, ‘A Decade of International Legal Reform Regarding Child Abuse Investigation and Litigation: Steps Toward a Child Witness Code’, 28 Pacific Law Journal (1996) 169, at 204–205.
139 NZ Law Commission, supra note 115, at 25.
140 N. Perry and L. Wrightsman, The Child Witness (London: Sage Publications, 1991), 164.
141 NZ Law Commission, supra note 115, at 26; see also Perry and Wrightsman, ibid., at 165.
142 G. Goodman et al., Testifying in Criminal Court: Emotional Effects on Child Sexual Assault Victim (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992), 121.
143 D. Weintraub, ‘The Use of Videotaped Testimony of Victims in Cases Involving Child Sexual Abuse: A Constitutional Dilemma’, 14 Hofstra Law Review (1985) 261, at 293–295 (noting that videotaped testimony of children taken in accordance with appropriate guidelines would not violate an accuseds’ right to confrontation).
144 For a discussion on the use of intermediaries, see notes 153–157 below and accompanying text.
145 See Child Witnesses’ Rights, supra note 121, at clause (b)(2)(D).
146 Perry and Wrightsman, supra note 140, at 100. For a discussion on the psychological effects of testifying on children, see Hamblen, supra note 119, at 154–172.
147 See, for example s. 106E of the Evidence Act (Western Australia).
148 Goodman, supra note 142, at 85.
149 See ICC Rules, supra note 5, Rule 17(3).
150 NZ Law Commission, supra note 115, at 43.
151 See Perry and Wrightsman, supra note 140, at 160–161.
152 See Child Witnesses’ Rights, supra note 121, at clause (i).
153 NZ Law Commission, supra note 115, at 44.
154 See Perry and Wrightsman, supra note 140, at 163 (noting that the accused's fair trial rights are protected by the use of this procedure, as counsel will have the ability to object to the intermediary's rephrasing of the question).
155 See, e.g. s. 29 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (United Kingdom), s. 170A of the Criminal Procedure Act 1977 (South Africa), s. 106F(2) of the Evidence Act 1906 (Western Australia) and s. 23E(4) of the Evidence Act (New Zealand).
156 M.-E. Pipe and M. Henaghan, ‘Accommodating Children's Testimony: Legal Reforms in New Zealand’, 23 Criminal Justice and Behaviour (1997) 377, at 382 (commenting that some judges are reluctant to allow intermediaries to put questions to vulnerable witnesses, as this mode of questioning leads to a loss of the flavour of questions, such as sternness of voice, thus lessening their possible effect on the witness).
157 This alternative will address concerns that may arise regarding the use of an intermediary, particularly the lack of party control over the interpretation of the questions that are put to a child witness by the intermediary. NZ Law Commission, supra note 115, at 46.
158 Slobodan Milo
evi is the only person, so far, who has chosen to waive the right to be assisted by counsel and defend himself in person before the ad hoc Tribunals during the entire trial proceedings. However, other individuals have represented themselves at various times. For instance, Jean-Paul Akayesu, who dismissed his counsel after being convicted, represented himself before the ICTR during the sentencing proceedings. S. Beresford and H. Lahiouel, ‘The Right to be Defended in Person or Through Legal Assistance and the International Criminal Court’, 13 Leiden J. Int’l L. (2000) 947, at 965.
159 Ellison, supra note 80, at 123.
161 Croissant v. Germany (1992) 16 European Human Rights Reports (EHRR) 135.
162 Doorson v. The Netherlands (1996) 22 EHRR 330.
163 UNCROC, supra note 29, Art. 39.
164 See L. Berliner and M.K. Barbieri, ‘The Testimony of the Child Victim of Sexual Assault’, 40 Journal of Social Issues (1984) 125 (who took a different view, concluding that the experience of testifying in court may have some therapeutic effect for child victims. Children may learn that social institutions take them seriously. Some report feeling empowered by their participation in the process. Similarly, some complain when the defendant pleads guilty that they do not have an opportunity to be heard in court).