The Victim–Perpetrator Cycle: the Paradoxical Case of Dominic Ongwen

The Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a group that has gained notoriety for its use of child soldiers, is widely regarded as one of the oldest and most prominent terrorist organisations. The LRA’s origins can be traced to Uganda in 1987, where it has been accused of abducting children and coercing them into serving as soldiers. The issue of child soldiers has been the focus of extensive research and analysis. Empirical studies have been conducted to comprehensively examine various aspects of these children’s experiences, including their abduction, their behaviour, the legal processes involved and their reintegration into society. Nevertheless, the case of Dominic Ongwen, a former abducted child who subsequently ascended to a high-ranking position within the Lord’s Resistance Army, represents a distinctive instance that necessitates thorough examination. Ongwen was subsequently prosecuted before the International Criminal Court (ICC). In essence, it is imperative that we engage in a deliberative discourse concerning the potential avenues available to an individual who was abducted in childhood and the implications of their subsequent engagement as a member and leader of the organisation.

Dominic Ongwen, born in 1975, was abducted by the LRA in 1988. Despite his initial status as a victim, he ascended through the organisation’s military hierarchy due to his strategic, military and survival capabilities. Following a decade of evasion under an ICC arrest warrant issued in 2005, the former child soldier surrendered to United States military forces in the Central African Republic in January 2015. In 2021, the ICC convicted him on 61 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Ongwen is currently serving a 25-year prison sentence (International Criminal Court, n.d.).

The crimes committed included murder, torture, enslavement, rape, forced pregnancy and the conscription of child soldiers under the age of 15 (International Criminal Court, 2021). These events transpired primarily between 2002 and 2005 during attacks on internally displaced persons’ camps in northern Uganda. On 6 May 2021, Ongwen received a sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment. During the sentencing process, the Court took into consideration his unique personal history, including his abduction as a child. The defendant’s legal counsel contended that his actions were committed under conditions of duress and mental illness (Miragall Mas and Zilionyte, 2021). It is noteworthy that he was the first ICC defendant to employ these particular defences under the Rome Statute. This development underscores the intricate moral dynamics involved when a victim becomes a perpetrator.

The aforementioned elements serve to augment the legal inquiries, thereby engendering a moral understanding. It is evident that a child who is abducted at a very young age and subsequently placed in a highly stressful environment is likely to manifest aggressive behaviour attributable to that environment. Furthermore, survival under such conditions may become predicated on a single capacity: the ability to survive and execute orders given by the organisational hierarchy. A final point of consideration is whether a child growing up in such a hostile environment will be capable of distinguishing between right and wrong.

According to scientific research, there is a strong likelihood that a child will exhibit aggressive behaviour if their environment provides positive reinforcement for aggression, actively models aggressive behaviour or subjects the child to aggressive situations. Extensive psychological research indicates that, while genetics account for approximately 50 per cent of a child’s tendency towards aggression, the environment influences whether those biological predispositions are triggered or suppressed (Tuvblad and Baker, 2011).

A process known as gene–environment interaction has been observed, whereby a supportive environment may have the capacity to counteract genetic predispositions towards aggression. Conversely, an abusive or high-stress environment may activate or intensify these predispositions (Tuvblad and Baker, 2011).

This occurrence could be understood through what is known as the victim–perpetrator cycle. This concept suggests that individuals who have experienced trauma, human rights violations or the loss of loved ones may become susceptible to radicalisation. The aspiration for retribution has the potential to precipitate additional acts of political violence (Argomaniz and Lynch, 2018).

Conversely, the victim’s perspective is of paramount importance. It is evident that, irrespective of the perpetrator’s mental or moral capacities, restitution and justice for victims remain indispensable considerations. In the context of legal proceedings, the International Criminal Court could have established an unparalleled legal precedent by accepting the defence’s plea. Nevertheless, it is also conceivable that perpetrators could attempt to use their upbringing to justify or diminish their responsibility for later crimes.

In accordance with international human rights frameworks, victims of terrorism possess fundamental rights to justice, truth, recognition and comprehensive assistance. In the areas of justice and protection, the following principles are of paramount importance: ensuring that victims are informed of criminal proceedings; protecting their privacy; safeguarding them from retaliation; and preventing secondary victimisation (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2018).

In summary, although the legal aspects of the Ongwen case have been resolved, its ethical implications remain a subject of substantial debate. At the outset, the former child soldier could be regarded as a victim of his environment. However, it would be unfeasible to disregard the atrocities committed against innocent civilians by him and his peers. It would be worthwhile to examine this distinctive precedent through the lens of a case study, with the objective of empirically addressing the questions it raises and formulating more coherent and enduring solutions.

References

Argomaniz, J. and Lynch, O. (2018) ‘Introduction to the special issue: The complexity of terrorism—victims, perpetrators and radicalisation’, Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, 41(7), pp. 491–506.

International Criminal Court (2021) ‘Dominic Ongwen declared guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Uganda’, 4 February. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/news/dominic-ongwen-declared-guilty-war-crimes-and-crimes-against-humanity-committed-uganda

International Criminal Court (n.d.) The Prosecutor v. Dominic Ongwen, case no. ICC-02/04-01/15. Available at: https://www.icc-cpi.int/uganda/ongwen

Miragall Mas, J. and Zilionyte, K. (2021) ‘Child soldiers and the case of Dominic Ongwen’, Centre for African Justice. Available at: https://centreforafricanjustice.org/child-soldiers-and-the-case-of-dominica-ongwen/

Tuvblad, C. and Baker, L.A. (2011) ‘Human aggression across the lifespan: Genetic propensities and environmental moderators’, Advances in Genetics, 75, pp. 171–214. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-380858-5.00007-1.

United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (2018) ‘International and regional instruments governing victims of terrorism’, in University Module Series: Counter-Terrorism, Module 14: Victims of Terrorism. Available at: https://www.unodc.org/e4j/en/terrorism/module-14/key-issues/legal-framework/instruments-for-victims-of-terrorism.html