Common use of Sentencing Clause in Contracts

Sentencing. Having now dealt with the substantive and the personal jurisdiction, we come to another crucial feature, namely sentencing. The whole purpose of the Juba exercise was to “lure” ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Kony and his rebels out of the ▇▇▇▇, and the negotiators therefore agreed that the available sentences should not be too harsh. Sentences for the acts concerned here are quite severe in existing Ugandan penal law, and include the death penalty. Clauses 6.3-4 of the Agreement, however, privilege the LRA by prescribing “a regime of alternative penalties and sanctions” for the non-state actors. These penalties and sanctions shall reflect various factors. One of them is “the gravity of the crime”, but that is to be weighed against the other considerations, namely to “promote reconciliation between individuals and within communities; promote the rehabilitation of offenders; take into account an individual’s admissions or other cooperation with proceedings; and, require perpetrators to make reparations to victims.”87 Unfortunately, this difficult issue of sentencing is not regulated further in the annexure, but is left to the legislators. They have a balancing act to look forward to, because it is not likely that the ICC will accept a proceeding that ends up in a symbolic penalty, since that would be thought of as a measure to “shield” the perpetrators or as being “inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice”.88 On the same note, and with the same purpose to allow milder sentences for the LRA indictees, the accords contain provisions regarding the cooperation of individuals with the formal criminal and civil proceedings. Clause 3.6 indicates that cooperation could be rewarded with a mitigated sentence, while the preceding Clause

Sentencing. Having now dealt with the substantive and the personal jurisdiction, we come to another crucial feature, namely sentencing. The whole purpose of the Juba exercise was to “lure” ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Kony ▇▇▇▇ and his rebels out of the ▇▇▇▇, and the negotiators therefore agreed that the available sentences should not be too harsh. Sentences for the acts concerned here are quite severe in existing Ugandan penal law, and include the death penalty. Clauses 6.3-4 of the Agreement, however, privilege the LRA by prescribing “a regime of alternative penalties and sanctions” for the non-state actors. These penalties and sanctions shall reflect various factors. One of them is “the gravity of the crime”, but that is to be weighed against the other considerations, namely to “promote reconciliation between individuals and within communities; promote the rehabilitation of offenders; take into account an individual’s admissions or other cooperation with proceedings; and, require perpetrators to make reparations to victims.”87 ” Unfortunately, this difficult issue of sentencing is not regulated further in the annexure, but is left to the legislators. They have a balancing act to look forward to, because it is not likely that the ICC will accept a proceeding that ends up in a symbolic penalty, since that would be thought of as a measure to “shield” the perpetrators or as being “inconsistent with an intent to bring the person concerned to justice”.88 On the same note, and with the same purpose to allow milder sentences for the LRA indictees, the accords contain provisions regarding the cooperation of individuals with the formal criminal and civil proceedings. Clause 3.6 indicates that cooperation could be rewarded with a mitigated sentence, while the preceding Clause