Ongwen and Mental Health Defenses at the International Criminal Court

Abstract

The International Criminal Court (ICC) case against Lord's Resistance Army commander and former child soldier Dominic Ongwen of Uganda resulted in a guilty verdict and 25-year prison sentence. Mr. Ongwen unsuccessfully raised defenses based on mental health. These included fitness to stand trial, insanity under Article 31(1)(a) of the Rome Statute (a first at the ICC), mitigation in sentencing based on diminished mental capacity, duress (also a first), and the cumulative effects of mental health and duress. These defenses were hampered by limited and ambiguous textual support, which occurs in a politico-legal context that is cautious regarding such defenses. Another group of challenges comes from the inherent difficulty of international forensic practice. In regard to how mental health affects the duress defense, the text of the Rome Statute and the Ongwen decision create a burdensome legal framework for defendants, particularly where mental illness limits but does not “destroy” decision-making, as Article 31(1)(a) requires for an insanity acquittal. Going forward, defense teams may attempt to address the court's all-or-nothing conception of mental illness, perhaps arguing a diminished mental capacity theory that accounts for psychiatric function that is reduced but not destroyed.