A critical aspect of the judgment was the consideration of Ongwen’s own history as a child soldier. Ongwen was abducted by the LRA at around the age of nine and was forced to commit atrocities as he rose through the ranks. The court balanced this background against the gravity of his crimes, ultimately ruling that his personal history did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions as an adult commander. The judgment is also notable for its comprehensive approach to reparations for victims. The ICC ordered collective reparations, including symbolic measures like memorials, physical and psychological rehabilitation, and financial compensation to support the victims and their communities. This case reinforces the ICC’s commitment to addressing serious international crimes, particularly those involving vulnerable populations such as children and women and underscores the principles of justice and reparation in international criminal law.
(This extract is taken from Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen (ICC, 2021))
Which principle of international criminal law ensures that individuals, regardless of their position or rank, can be held accountable for committing serious international crimes?
- Sovereign immunity
- Command responsibility
- Diplomatic immunity
- Universal jurisdiction
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
In the context of international criminal law, what does the principle of “individual criminal responsibility” entail?
- Only states can be held accountable for international crimes
- Individuals can be held personally liable for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide
- Individuals are immune from prosecution if they act under state orders
- Only military personnel can be held responsible for international crimes
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The principle of "individual criminal responsibility" in international criminal law entails that individuals, regardless of their official position or role, can be held personally liable for committing serious international crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. This principle underscores the accountability of persons who commit such offenses, irrespective of whether they act as private individuals or in a capacity as government officials or representatives of a state.
According to the options provided, the correct interpretation of this principle is: Individuals can be held personally liable for committing war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. This means that individuals do not have immunity from prosecution for these crimes, even if they were ordered by a state or acted in an official capacity.
The case of Dominic Ongwen exemplifies the application of this principle. Ongwen, a former commander of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) in Uganda, was held accountable by the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2021 for 61 counts of crimes against humanity and war crimes, demonstrating the enforcement of individual criminal responsibility regardless of his previous status as a child soldier or the commands he may have acted under. The ICC's verdict highlights that such crimes committed during armed conflict are subject to legal scrutiny, and the individuals perpetrating them can and will be prosecuted to ensure justice and reparation for victims, reinforcing the commitment to address violations that impact vulnerable populations.
The concept of “crimes against humanity” includes which of the following acts, as exemplified in the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen case?
- Piracy and terrorism
- Enslavement, forced marriage, and sexual violence
- Espionage and sabotage
- Intellectual property theft
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
- Enslavement
- Forced marriage
- Sexual violence
What is the significance of the principle of “complementarity” in the context of the International Criminal Court (ICC)?
- The ICC can prosecute cases only when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to do so
- The ICC has primary jurisdiction over all international crimes
- The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed within its member states
- The ICC shares jurisdiction equally with national courts
The Correct Option is A
Solution and Explanation
The principle of "complementarity" in the context of the International Criminal Court (ICC) is a fundamental aspect that defines the ICC's jurisdiction over cases of international crimes. This principle emphasizes that the ICC acts as a court of last resort, intervening only when national jurisdictions are either unwilling or unable to prosecute criminals of severe international crimes. This mechanism ensures that the ICC respects the sovereignty of states, allowing them the first opportunity to handle prosecution.
The significance of complementarity is reflected in its role in maintaining a balance between national and international judicial systems. By allowing domestic courts to take precedence, it fosters national accountability and builds trust in domestic legal frameworks. However, in situations where a state's judicial system fails due to incapacity or unwillingness, the ICC can step in, ensuring that justice is served and international legal standards are upheld.
Let's consider the options provided:
The ICC can prosecute cases only when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to do so.
The ICC has primary jurisdiction over all international crimes.
The ICC can only prosecute crimes committed within its member states.
The ICC shares jurisdiction equally with national courts.
The correct answer is:
The ICC can prosecute cases only when national jurisdictions are unwilling or unable to do so.
This choice precisely captures the essence of complementarity, underscoring the ICC's role in global justice and accountability, as seen in cases such as Dominic Ongwen's, where issues of national inability to prosecute inform the ICC's intervention in the pursuit of justice and reparations.
Which of the following statements best describes the significance of the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen case in the context of international criminal law?
- It was the first case to address environmental crimes in international conflicts
- It marked a milestone in addressing sexual and gender-based violence and the exploitation of children in armed conflicts
- It was the first case to involve cybercrimes committed by international armed groups
- It primarily focused on the financial aspects of running an armed group
The Correct Option is B
Solution and Explanation
The significance of the Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen case in international criminal law can be best described by the following key points:
- Focus on Sexual and Gender-Based Violence: The case was a landmark in addressing offenses related to sexual and gender-based violence. It was one of the first instances where the International Criminal Court (ICC) highlighted these issues in armed conflicts.
- Exploitation of Children: Ongwen was found guilty of the recruitment and use of child soldiers. The case brought attention to the severe impact and criminality of abducting children for warfare.
- Comprehensive Judgment: Ongwen faced 61 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including forced marriage, rape, and murder. The judgment reinforced the importance of holding leaders accountable for exploiting vulnerable groups such as women and children.
- Consideration of Perpetrator’s Background: The court acknowledged Ongwen's own history as a child soldier but balanced it against his responsibilities and actions as an adult commander, concluding that his background did not absolve him of guilt.
- Reparations for Victims: The ICC's decision included reparations, focusing on symbolic measures, rehabilitation, and financial support for victims, demonstrating the court’s commitment to providing justice and reparations.
The correct answer to the significance of this case is: It marked a milestone in addressing sexual and gender-based violence and the exploitation of children in armed conflicts.
Top Questions on Criminal Law
- Which of the following statement regarding the application of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is not true?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
- Which of the following communication does not come within the meaning of ‘Electronic communication’ as defined under the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
- Which relief is not among those that may be sought in a class-action or oppression/mismanagement application to the Tribunal?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
- Under the Companies Act, 2013, which combination of liabilities attaches to a person who authorised the issue of a prospectus containing a material untrue statement?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
- A company creates a charge on plant and machinery on Day 1 but files particulars with the Registrar on Day 60. Meanwhile, the company defaults and the chargeholder seeks to enforce the security. Under the Companies Act, 2013, which is most likely?
- AILET LLM - 2026
- Legal Studies
- Criminal Law
Questions Asked in CLAT PG exam
The document presents a critique of the United Nations (UN) organization, arguing that it has failed to carry out its charter-mandated tasks, specifically to ”maintain international peace and security” and ”to achieve international cooperation” in solving global problems. The author notes growing public frustration with catastrophic humanitarian situations and the failure of peace-keeping operations, leading to widespread scepticism about the possibility of ”revitalization”.
UN Reform Approaches
Discussions on UN reform are divided into two main categories: the conservative approach and the radical approach.
1. Conservative Approach:
The conservative view considers the existing Charter ”practically untouchable” and believes in improving ”collective security” as defined in Chapter VII. Key positions include:
- US Position: Prioritizes its own interests, supports better management and the creation of an Inspector General, favours enlarging the Security Council (to include Germany and Japan, mainly for financing peace-keeping), and associates the UN with regional organizations like NATO for peace enforcement. The US remains reluctant to allow full application of Chapter VII and views collective security restrictively.
- Secretary-General’s Position (Boutros Ghali): Advocated for the full implementation of ’collective security’ as envisaged in 1945, including the use of the Military Staff Committee (Article 47) and the conclusion of special agreements (Article 43) for providing armed forces. He also proposed ’peace enforcement units’ under the command of the Secretary-General and wider use of ’preventive diplomacy’. The report candidly recognized the Security Council’s incapacity to deal with threats from a major power.
2. Radical Approach:
The radical approach criticizes the principles of the present system and proposes an overhaul. It reflects increasing doubts about the value of the Charter’s collective security system, especially in intra-State conflicts. Radical proposals include:
- Establishing an Economic Security Council.
- Modifying the Charter with less reluctance.
- Reforming the IMF and World Bank.
- Developing a new global security system .
- The creation of a consultative parliamentary assembly at the world level.
Future Outlook:
The author asserts that no major or minor reform has any chance of being implemented now, primarily because the Charter’s amendment procedures (requiring a two-thirds majority including all five permanent Security Council members) preclude agreement. However, he concludes that the continuing deterioration of the global situation, driven by economic integration, rising inequality, and intra-State conflicts, will inevitably lead the political establishment to define a new global institutional structure. This future debate will become highly political.
- CLAT PG - 2026
- International Law
“Section 55 of the Indian Contract Act says that when a party to a contract promises to do a certain thing within a specified time but fails to do so, the contract or so much of it as has not been performed, becomes voidable at the option of the promisee if the intention of the parties was, that time should be of the essence of the contract. If time is not the essence of the contract, the contract does not become voidable by the failure to do such thing on or before the specified time but the promisee is entitled to compensation from the promisor for any loss occasioned to him by such failure. Further, if in case of a contract voidable on account of the promisor’s failure to perform his promise within the time agreed and the promisee accepts performance of such promise at any time other than that agreed, the promisee cannot claim compensation for any loss occasioned by the non-performance of the promise at the time agreed, unless, at the time of such acceptance he gives notice to the promisor of his intention to do so.
Sections 73 and 74 deal with consequences of breach of contract. Heading of Sec tion 73 is compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract. When a contract is broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive from the party who has broken the contract compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach or which the parties knew when they made the contract to be likely to result from the breach of it. On the other hand, Section 74 deals with compen sation for breach of contract where penalty is stipulated for. When a contract is broken, if a sum is mentioned in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled whether or not actually damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or the penalty stipulated for.”
tracted from: Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited v Software Technol ogy Parks of India 2025 INSC 574- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
“Law treats all contracts with equal respect and unless a contract is proved to suffer from any of the vitiating factors, the terms and conditions have to be enforced regardless of the relative strengths and weakness of the parties.
Section 28 of the Contract Act does not bar exclusive jurisdiction clauses. What has been barred is the absolute restriction of any party from approaching a legal forum. The right to legal adjudication cannot be taken away from any party through contract but can be relegated to a set of Courts for the ease of the parties. In the present dispute, the clause does not take away the right of the employee to pursue a legal claim but only restricts the employee to pursue those claims before the courts in Mumbai alone.
... the Court must already have jurisdiction to entertain such a legal claim. This limb pertains to the fact that a contract cannot confer jurisdiction on a court that did not have such a jurisdiction in the first place.”
Extracted from: Rakesh Kumar Verma v HDFC Bank Ltd 2025 INSC 473- CLAT PG - 2026
- Contract Law
- “The law is well settled that a constitutional court can award monetary compen sation against the State and its officials for its failure to safeguard fundamental rights of citizens but there is no system or method to measure the damages caused in such situations. Quite often the courts have a difficult task in determining dam ages in various fact situations. The yardsticks normally adopted for determining the compensation payable in private tort claims are not as such applicable when a constitutional court determines the compensation in cases where there is a viola tion of fundamental rights guaranteed to its citizens.
... In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416], a Constitution Bench of this Court held that there is no straitjacket formula for computation of damages and we find that there is no uniformity or yardstick followed in awarding damages for violation of fundamental rights. In Rudul Sah case [Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar, (1983) 4 SCC 141] this Court used the terminology ’palliative’ for measuring the damages and the formula of ’adhoc’ was applied. In Sebastian Hongray case [Se bastian M. Hongray v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 82] the expression used by this Court for determining the monetary compensation was ’exemplary’ costs and the formula adopted was ’punitive’. In Bhim Singh case [Bhim Singh v. State of J & K, (1985) 4 SCC 677], the expression used by the Court was ’compensation’ and the method adopted was ’tortious formula’. In D.K. Basu v. State of W.B. [(1997) SCC 1 416] the expression used by this Court for determining the compensation was ’monetary compensation’. The formula adopted was ’cost to cost’ method. Courts have not, therefore, adopted a uniform criterion since no statutory formula has been laid down.”
tracted from: Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Delhi v Uphaar Tragedy Victims Association (2011) 14 SCC 481- CLAT PG - 2026
- Constitutional Laws
- It is well recognized that actionable negligence in context of medical profession involves three constituents (i) duty to exercise due care; (ii) breach of duty and (iii) consequential damage. However, a simple lack of care, an error of judgment or an accident is not sufficient proof of negligence on part of the medical professional so long as the doctor follows the acceptable practice of the medical profession in discharge of his duties. He cannot be held liable for negligence merely because a better alternative treatment or course of treatment was available or that more skilled doctors were there who could have administered better treatment.
A medical professional may be held liable for negligence only when he is not pos sessed with the requisite qualification or skill or when he fails to exercise reasonable skill which he possesses in giving the treatment. None of the above two essential conditions for establishing negligence stand satisfied in the case at hand as no ev idence was brought on record to prove that Dr. Neeraj Sud had not exercised due diligence, care or skill which he possessed in operating the patient and giving treatment to him. When reasonable care, expected of the medical professional, is extended or rendered to the patient unless contrary is proved, it would not be a case for actionable negligence.
tracted with edits and revisions from Neeraj Sud v Jaswinder Singh 2024 INSC 825- CLAT PG - 2026
- Law of Torts