Resolving Real Property Claims In Iraq: The CRRPD

This week I had the privilege to hear a remarkable presentation by Peter van der Auweraert of the International Organization for Migration discussing a little-known quasi-international tribunal. The tribunal, known as the Commission for Resolution of Real Property Disputes (formerly the Iraq Real Property Claims Commission) was designed to resolve claims by Iraqi nationals against the Hussein regime for the return or compensation of their expropriated property. You can read more about the tribunal here and here.



Here are a few highlights from an NGO report about the tribunal’s work:

The Iraq Property Claims Commission (IPCC), established in January 2004, was initially mandated to address disputes resulting from the wrongful confiscation and reallocation of properties under the former government between 17 July 1968 and 9 April 2003 (UNHCR, September 2004 and August 2004). Following a revision of the statute in June 2004, Arab settlers who lost the properties allocated to them by the former regime as a result of the return of the previous owners after 18 March 2003 were also enabled to submit claims to the IPCC by 30 June 2005 (IPCC, June 2005; Deutschlander, June 2005). The 30 June 2005 deadline for filing property claims was extended to 30 June 2007, to ensure that all displaced people as well as Iraqis outside the country are able to file a property claim.One principal concern with the commission has been the delays in provision of compensation. As of 30 April 2006, the commission had received over 132,000 claims and adjudicated … fewer than 22,000 (IOM, 17 May 2006)….

It is a commonly suggested that the main obstacle to durable solutions for the displaced in the Kirkuk area is linked to property disputes caused by hundreds of thousands of Kurds returning to the area and reclaiming property under control of the Arabs settled in their place by the former regime. However, recent research indicates that disputes between Kurds and Arabs over property rights may not be at the crux of ongoing displacement in Kirkuk (Sacco, 19 May 2006). Most displaced families living in camps and public buildings in Kirkuk appear not to have owned properties before displacement. Most of the claims in Kirkuk are related to government confiscation of land for public works. The study also found that most Arabs never made attempts to legally claim land in the area. These findings challenge the assumption that tensions over property are the main obstacle to return of IDPs in Kirkuk. The international community has been largely unwilling to support the return process in Kirkuk, in fear that assisting returnees would exacerbate ethnic tensions. The study may indicate a need to revise this approach (Sacco, 19 May 2006).

In March 2006, a new law came into force replacing the IPCC with the Commission for Resolution of Real Property Disputes (CRRPD). Two important changes are introduced by the new law (1) good faith secondary occupants now have a right to compensation from the government if the property they currently live in is restituted to the original owner (2) compensation amounts will now be calculated with reference to the value of the property on the date on which the claim was filed rather than the date of the wrongful taking by the former regime, a change which will often result in higher levels of compensation (IOM, 17 May 2006).

Based on the presentation from Mr. Auweraert, one could not help but be struck by the Herculian task of resolving tens of thousands of real property claims in Iraq on the basis of information that in many cases is decades old, using Iraqi judges who are overwhelmed and widely dispersed throughout the country, with the end result that any monetary award will be difficult to enforce given the limited Iraqi funds. It also seems somewhat curious (but laudatory) that the current government in Iraq has established a scheme to compensate victims for the transgressions of the old regime. Even more curious is the decision to focus exclusively on real property. If we are going to compensate for the sins of the past, I would suspect real property claims would not be on the top of the list for many victims of the Hussein regime.

I have been a student of mass claims processes for years, and therefore many of the difficulties this tribunal is encountering are familiar. But the normal struggles of resolving mass claims applied in this particular context leaves me regrettably doubtful that the tribunal will be able to provide the measure of justice that it is seeking for the internally-displaced people in Iraq.