DOCSLIB.ORG

Afrc Government

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Afrc Government o SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE TRIAL CHAMBER II Before: Justice Julia Sebutinde, Presiding Judge Justice Richard Lussick Justice Teresa Doherty Registrar: Herman von Hebel, Acting Registrar Date: 20 June 2007 Case No.: SCSL-04-16-T PROSECUTOR Against Alex Tamba BRIMA Brima Bazzy KAMARA Santigie Borbor KANU JUDGEMENT Office of the Prosecutor: Defence Counsel for Alex Tamba Brima: Karim Agha Kojo Graham Christopher Staker Glenna Thompson Charles Hardaway Lesley Taylor Defence Counsel for Brima Bazzy Kamara: Melissa Pack Andrew Daniels Vincent Wagona Mohamed Pa-Momo Fofanah Shyamala Alagendra Defence Counsel for Santigie Borbor Kanu: Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops Agibola E. Manly-Spain Carry Knoops Case No. SCSL-2004-16-T 2 20 June 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................21 II. ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE FORM OF THE INDICTMENT .......................................25 III. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ...................49 IV. CONTEXT OF THE ALLEGED CRIMES ...........................................................................65 V. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ARTICLES 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE STATUTE ..........80 VI. POLITICAL STRUCTURE OF THE AFRC GOVERNMENT .........................................98 VII. ROLE OF THE ACCUSED .................................................................................................108 VIII. MILITARY STRUCTURE OF THE AFRC FIGHTING FORCE ................................167 IX. APPLICABLE LAW ..............................................................................................................195 X. FACTS AND FINDINGS ........................................................................................................248 XI. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ACCUSED ............................................................................451 XII. CUMULATIVE CONVICTIONS .......................................................................................565 XIII. DISPOSITION .....................................................................................................................569 SEPARATE CONCURRING OPINION OF THE HON. JUSTICE JULIA SEBUTINDE APPENDED TO JUDGEMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 88 (C) ......................................574 PARTLY DISSENTING OPINION OF JUSTICE DOHERTY ON COUNT 7 (SEXUAL SLAVERY) AND COUNT 8 (‘FORCED MARRIAGES’) ................................................582 ANNEX A: PROCEDURAL HISTORY ....................................................................................597 ANNEX B: GLOSSARY ..............................................................................................................619 ANNEX C: MAP OF SIERRA LEONE .....................................................................................631 Case No. SCSL-2004-16-T 3 20 June 2007 DETAILED TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................21 A. THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE ..................................................................................21 B. PROCEDURAL HISTORY ..............................................................................................................21 C. THE ACCUSED ............................................................................................................................23 D. SUMMARY OF THE CHARGES ......................................................................................................23 II. ALLEGED DEFECTS IN THE FORM OF THE INDICTMENT........................................25 A. HISTORY OF INDICTMENTS .........................................................................................................25 B. SCOPE OF REVIEW ......................................................................................................................26 C. APPLICABLE PLEADING PRINCIPLES ...........................................................................................27 D. DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................29 1. Particulars of Victims and Locations.....................................................................................29 (a) Victims ................................................................................................................................... 29 (b) Locations................................................................................................................................ 30 (c) Offences of a Continuous Nature ........................................................................................... 31 2. Alleged Failure to Plead that Crimes were Committed by the Accused................................32 (a) Pleading Principles When the Mode of ‘Committing’ is Alleged.......................................... 32 (b) Findings.................................................................................................................................. 35 3. Objections Relating to Joint Criminal Enterprise (“JCE”) ....................................................36 (a) Submissions of the Parties...................................................................................................... 36 (b) Pleading Principles................................................................................................................. 37 (c) Deliberations .......................................................................................................................... 39 (d) Findings.................................................................................................................................. 43 4. Alleged Failure to Specify Factual Foundation of Responsibility Pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute........................................................................................................................45 5. Alleged Failure to Distinguish Between Individual Criminal Responsibility Under Article 6(1) and 6(3) of the Statute .................................................................................................46 6. Pleading of Count 7: Sexual Slavery and Any Other Form of Sexual Violence (Article 2(g) of the Statute)...............................................................................................................46 (a) Submissions of the Parties...................................................................................................... 46 (b) Findings.................................................................................................................................. 47 III. CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING THE EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE ....................49 A. LAW APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE ...............................................................49 1. Burden and Standard of Proof................................................................................................49 2. Admission of Evidence..........................................................................................................50 B. FORMS OF EVIDENCE UNDER REVIEW ........................................................................................50 1. Witness Testimony.................................................................................................................51 (a) Discrepancies Between the Evidence of Various Witnesses, or Between the Evidence of a Particular Witness and a Previous Statement........................................................................ 53 (b) Crimes Involving Sexual Violence ........................................................................................ 54 (c) Names of Locations................................................................................................................ 54 (d) Testimony of Accused in his own Defence............................................................................ 55 (e) Alibi of Accused Brima.......................................................................................................... 55 (f) Witnesses Implicated in the Commission of the Crimes ........................................................ 57 (g) ‘Incentives’ for Witnesses...................................................................................................... 57 (h) Putting the Defence Case to Prosecution Witnesses.............................................................. 58 2. Documentary Evidence..........................................................................................................59 (a) Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 59 Case No. SCSL-2004-16-T 4 20 June 2007 (b) Copies and Internet Sources................................................................................................... 60 (c) Radio Broadcasts and Transcripts Thereof ............................................................................ 61 (d) Documents Used in Cross-Examination by the Prosecution.................................................. 61 3. Expert Testimony and Reports...............................................................................................62 4. Facts of which Judicial Notice was Taken.............................................................................63 5. Agreed Facts ..........................................................................................................................64
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 26 May 2005 Dear Madam President, I Have The
    THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 26 May 2005 Dear Madam President, I have the honour to refer to General Assembly resolution 58/284 (2004) of 8 April 2004 in which the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to invite the Special Court for Sierra Leone to adopt a completion strategy and also requested the Secretary-General to inform both the Security Council and the General Assembly at its 59th session about this matter. In accordance with the above-mentioned resolution, I am pleased to forward to the Security Council the final completion strategy which has been prepared by the Special Court and endorsed by the Management Committee of the Court which is responsible for advising me on the non-judicial aspects of the Court's work. Please accept, Madam President, the assurances of my highest consideration. -KofVA. Annan Her Excellency Ms. Ellen Margrethe L0j President of the Security Council New York THE SECRETARY-GENERAL 26 May 2005 Dear Mr. President, I have the honour to refer to General Assembly resolution 58/284 (2004) of 8 April 2004 in which the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to invite the Special Court for Sierra Leone to adopt a completion strategy and also requested the Secretary-General to inform both the Security Council and the General Assembly at its 59th session about this matter. In accordance with the above-mentioned resolution, I am pleased to forward to the General Assembly the final completion strategy which has been prepared by the Special Court and endorsed by the Management Committee of the Court which is responsible for advising me on the non-judicial aspects of the Court's work.
    [Show full text]
  • BRIMA BRIMA BAZZY KAMARA SANTIGIE BORBOR KANU (Case No
    O SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before : Justice George Gelaga King, Presiding Judge Justice Emmanuel Ayoola Justice Renate Winter Justice Raja Fernando Justice Jon M. Kamanda Registrar : Herman von Hebel Date : 22 February 2008 PROSECUTOR Against ALEX TAMBA BRIMA BRIMA BAZZY KAMARA SANTIGIE BORBOR KANU (Case No. SCSL-2004-16-A) JUDGMENT Office of the Prosecutor : Defence Counsel for Alex Tamba Brima: Dr. Christopher Staker Kojo Graham Mr. Karim Agha Mr. Chile Eboe-Osuji Ms. Anne Althaus Defence Counsel for Brima Bazzy Kamara : Andrew Daniels Defence Counsel for Santigie Borbor Kanu : Ajibola E. Manly-Spain PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/4420ef/ Silas Chekera Case No. SCSL-2004-16-A CONFIDENTIAL2 DRAFT 24/06/2009 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/4420ef/ CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 5 A. THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE ..................................................................................... 5 B. THE ARMED CONFLICT IN SIERRA LEONE .................................................................................... 6 C. THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ............................................................................................................. 8 1. The Indictment ......................................................................................................................... 8 2. The Accused..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Law Reports of the Special Court for Sierra Leone Volume I
    The Law Reports of the Special Court for Sierra Leone Volume I - Book I The Law Reports of the Special Court for Sierra Leone Volume I Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu (The AFRC Case) Book I Edited by Charles Chernor Jalloh Simon M. Meisenberg ᆕ 2012 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The law reports of the Special Court for Sierra Leone / edited by Charles C. Jalloh, Simon M. Meisenberg. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-90-04-18911-9 (hardback : alk. paper) -- ISBN 978-90-04-22398-1 (e-book) 1. Special Court for Sierra Leone. 2. International criminal law--Sierra Leone--Cases. 3. International criminal courts--Netherlands. I. Jalloh, Charles. II. Meisenberg, Simon M. KZ1208.S53A253 2012 341.6’90268664--dc23 2012010697 Suggested (sample) citation: Judgement, Brima, Kamara and Kanu (‘AFRC’) (SCSL-2004-16-T), Trial Chamber II, 20 June 2007, para. 80 in Jalloh/Meisenberg, SCSL Law Reports - AFRC, Vol. I/2, p. 1229. ISBN 978 90 04 18911 9 (hardback, set) ISBN 978 90 04 22561 9 (hardback, book I) ISBN 978 90 04 22562 6 (hardback, book II) E-ISBN 978 90 04 22398 1 (e-book) ISBN 978 90 04 22161 1 (hardback, complete set) E-ISBN 978 90 04 22162 8 (e-book, complete set) Copyright 2012 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. ƺƹƫƹƴƶƫưƴƣƽƫƶƶƫƹơƺƽƻƺƽƞƿƣƾƿƩƣƫƸƻƽƫƹƿƾƽƫƶƶᄕ ƶƺƟƞƶƽƫƣƹƿƞƶᄕ ƺƿƣƫǀƟƶƫƾƩƫƹƨᄕ IDC Publishers and Martinus Nijhofff Publishers. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Leone Trial Monitoring Program Weekly Report
    Page 1 of 4 U.C. Berkeley War Crimes Studies Center Sierra Leone Trial Monitoring Program Weekly Report Special Court Monitoring Program Update #45 Trial Chamber II - AFRC Trial Covering week ending June 17, 2005 by Michelle Staggs, Senior Researcher Evidence at trial Cross examination by counsel for the first and third accused The prosecution continued to lead the evidence of Witness TF1-334 this week. The primary focus of the witness’s testimony was the AFRC/RUF attack on Freetown on 6 January 1999 and their subsequent occupation of the country’s capital until the end of January. After testifying in examination in chief for over ten days, the defense began cross-examining the witness on Thursday. Cross-examination will continue through the course of next week. Evidence at trial The prosecution alleges that on 6 January 1999, a large group of AFRC/RUF forces, as well as a significant number of civilians, entered Freetown bypassing ECOMOG resistance. The 6 January 1999 attack and the weeks that followed it forms one of the most notorious periods of the conflict, when AFRC forces are alleged to have committed a large number of atrocities, including the wide-scale amputation of a number of civilians beginning around 19 January 1999. According to the prosecution’s pre-trial brief, during the invasion of Freetown and the subsequent retreat, AFRC/RUF forces killed approximately 3,000 ? 5,000 civilians, including women and children [1]. Meeting and Colonel Eddie Town, death of SAJ Musa and subsequent entrance into Freetown The week began with the witness describing the AFRC’s movement from Colonel Eddie Town in September 1998, down through Benguema and Allen Town and into Freetown on 6 January 1999.
    [Show full text]
  • C-. SL --~4- - \To - PT C 6,:~ ~ B3-=:> ~SCSL~
    OOl(- ~C-. SL --~4- - \to - PT C 6,:~ ~ b3-=:> ~SCSL~ ~~ SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE JOMO KENYATTA ROAD. FREETOWN. SIERRA LEONE P H 0 N E: + 1 ~: 1 2 9 6 3 9 9 1 5 Ext ens ion: 1 78 70 0 0 0 r + 3 9 0 8 3 1 2 5 7 0 0 0 0 r + 2 3 2 2 2 2 9 5 9 9 5 FAX: Extension: 178 7001 or +39 0831257001 Extension: 174 6996 or +232 22 295996 THE REGISTRY Registrar: Robin Vincent Date: 3rd day of February, 2004 Prosecutor against Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu (Case No.SCSL-2003-016-PT) DECISION FOR THE ASSIGNMENT OF A NEW CASE NUMBER Office of the Prosecutor: Defence Counsel for Alex Tamba Brima: Luc Cote Terrence M. Terry Robert Petit Defence Office Boi-Tia Stevem Defence Counsel for Brima Bazzy Defence Counsel for Santigie Borbor Kamara: Kanu: Ken Fleming Geert-Jan Alexander Kn C.A. Osho Will iams PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/6f7bb3/ THE REGISTRAR, NOTING the Decision and Order on Prosecution Motions for Joinder by the Trial Chamber, dated 27 January 2004; NOTING the order of the Trial Chamber that the indictments Prosecutor against Alex Tamba Brima, Prosecutor against Brima Bazzy Kamara and Prosecutor against Santigie Borbor Kanu be consolidated and jointly tried; CONSIDERING the order of the Trial Chamber that the Registry assign a new case number to the consolidated indictment; HEREBY DECIDES that the case of Prosecutor against Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara ond Santigie Borbor Kanu shall be assigned the new case number SCSL- 2004-16-PT, and that all documents filed from the date of 3 February 2004 in the joined case shall bear this new number.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Court for Sierra Leone: Achieving Justice?
    Michigan Journal of International Law Volume 32 Issue 3 2011 Special Court for Sierra Leone: Achieving Justice? Charles Chernor Jalloh University of Pittsburgh School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil Part of the Courts Commons, Criminal Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Charles C. Jalloh, Special Court for Sierra Leone: Achieving Justice?, 32 MICH. J. INT'L L. 395 (2011). Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjil/vol32/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Michigan Journal of International Law at University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Michigan Journal of International Law by an authorized editor of University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE: ACHIEVING JUSTICE? Charles Chernor Jalloh* INTRODUCTION ......................................... ...... 396 1. THE INTENDED ROLE OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE ........................................ 398 A. Sierra Leone's Request for U.N. Supportfor a Special Tribunal .................... ........ 398 B. The Security Council Endorses Sierra Leone's Request... 399 C. U.N. -Sierra Leone Agreement and Key Features of SCSL Jurisdiction .......................... 401 II. BACKGROUND TO THE CASES PROSECUTED BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE .................. 404 A. The Revolutionary United Front Case............................... 405 B. The Armed Forces Revolutionary Council Case................ 406 C. The Civil Defense Forces Case................. 407 D. The Charles Taylor Case........... ................ 410 Ill. SOME LIMITATIONS OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE.. ....................................... 412 A. Excessively Narrow Interpretationof "Greatest Responsibility" ..............
    [Show full text]
  • Eighth Annual Report of the President of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
    Eighth Annual Report of the President of the Special Court for Sierra Leone June 2010 to May 2011 Eighth Annual Report of the President of the Special Court for Sierra Leone June 2010 to May 2011 contents Foreword 5 outreach and Public Affairs 43 significant Media events 43 Introduction 9 Video screening of trial summaries 43 Public Lectures 43 Judicial Proceedings 11 Legacy specific Activities 44 Trial chamber II 11 civil society Visits to the Hague 44 The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor 11 school Visits and other Programmes 44 The Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara & Kanu 14 court Visits and tours 45 Appeals chamber 14 townhall Meetings 45 Interlocutory Appeals in the Hague sub-office 45 Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor 14 office of the President 18 Legacy 47 other Activities of the chambers 18 Principal Legacy Initiatives of the Registry Activities of the President 19 sections 47 site Projects 48 office of the Prosecutor 22 Principal Legacy Initiatives of the office Residual Issues 51 of the Prosecutor 23 Update on the Residual Activities of the special court 51 office of the Registrar 25 Annexes 52 servicing of the Judicial Proceedings 29 Annex I 52 The Hague sub-office 29 significant fundraising and diplomatic Legal Unit 29 meetings held during the reporting period 52 Witness and Victims support 30 Personnel 30 Annex II 54 Interns and seconded Personnel 31 significant presentations of the special court’s Court Management 32 Jurisprudence 54 Office of the Principle Defender (Defence office) 32 Annex III 57 completion strategy organograms
    [Show full text]
  • Special Court for Sierra Leone in The
    SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE IN THE APPEALS CHAMBER Before : Justice George Gelaga King, Presiding Judge Justice Emmanuel Ayoola Justice Renate Winter Justice Raja Fernando Justice Jon M. Kamanda Registrar : Herman von Hebel Date : 22 February 2008 PROSECUTOR Against ALEX TAMBA BRIMA BRIMA BAZZY KAMARA SANTIGIE BORBOR KANU (Case No. SCSL-2004-16-A) JUDGMENT Office of the Prosecutor : Defence Counsel for Alex Tamba Brima: Dr. Christopher Staker Kojo Graham Mr. Karim Agha Mr. Chile Eboe-Osuji Ms. Anne Althaus Defence Counsel for Brima Bazzy Kamara : Andrew Daniels Defence Counsel for Santigie Borbor Kanu : Ajibola E. Manly-Spain Silas Chekera CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................5 A. THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE .....................................................................................5 B. THE ARMED CONFLICT IN SIERRA LEONE ....................................................................................6 C. THE TRIAL PROCEEDINGS .............................................................................................................8 1. The Indictment.........................................................................................................................8 2. The Accused...........................................................................................................................10 3. Judgment................................................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • F TAMBE ENDOH Orcid.Org 0000-0002-2813-3636
    Selective morality in the pursuit of international criminal justice with particular reference to Article 13 of the Rome Statute F TAMBE ENDOH orcid.org 0000-0002-2813-3636 Thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Laws at the North-West University Supervisor: Prof. MLM MBAO Graduation: July 2019 Student number: 26485834 TABLE OF CONTENTS DECLARATION BY CANDIDATE ..................................................................... viii DECLARATION BY PROMOTER ....................................................................... ix DEDICATION ................................................................................................... x ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................... xii LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................ xiii TABLE OF STATUTES ................................................................................... xxiv TABLE OF CASES .......................................................................................... xxv ABSTRACT ............................................................................................... xxxiv CHAPTER ONE ................................................................................................. 1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 1.1 BACKGROUND
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Leone Trial Monitoring Program Weekly Report Special Court
    Page 1 of 9 U.C. BerkeleyWar Crimes Studies Center Sierra Leone Trial Monitoring Program Weekly Report Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 90 Trial Chamber II – AFRC Trial Week ending 13 October 2006 Thea Wauters Thyness Senior Researcher Summary This week saw five defence witnesses appearing on behalf of the second Accused (Kamara) and two appearing on behalf of the third Accused (Kanu). The witnesses heard this week were all subject to special protection measures pursuant to Trial Chamber II’s decision of 9 May 2006.1 They were consequently shielded from view from the public gallery while they testified and their identities have not been recorded in any court records or transcripts. Witness Testimonies The testimonies heard this week again sought to paint a different picture of the events covered by the indictment than that presented by the prosecution. Firstly, witnesses claimed that a number of atrocities attributed by the prosecution to AFRC-controlled SLA troops were in fact committed by RUF soldiers. Secondly witnesses sought to dispel the prosecution clam that the three Accused were in effective command over troops committing many of the prohibited acts charged in the indictment. Witnesses testified that the three Accused had been prisoners at the relevant times, and could therefore not have been in command of any troops. Many witnesses give accounts indicating that other SLA commanders were in fact in charge at times and in places covered by the indictment. As the Accused were allegedly held captive at the material times the witnesses also denied that the Accused could personally have carried out any of the crimes they are charged with.
    [Show full text]
  • Sierra Leone: Guilty Verdicts Not the End of the Story for Victims of War Crimes
    AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE Sierra Leone: Guilty verdicts not the end of the story for victims of war crimes Amnesty International said that today's guilty verdicts by the Special Court for Sierra Leone against three senior members of Sierra Leone's feared Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) -- while a positive step -- should not be the closing chapter in the struggle to achieve justice for the terrible crimes committed against the people of that country during the 11 years of violent conflict. The organization based its comments on preliminary reports of the verdicts, which have not yet been published. Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Borbor Kanu, all senior commanders of the AFRC, were convicted of crimes against humanity and war crimes committed in a non-international armed conflict, including unlawful killings, extermination, rape, acts of terrorism, collective punishment, and mutilation. They were acquitted of sexual slavery and other inhumane acts. "These verdicts send a positive signal to the people of Sierra Leone that someone will be held responsible for the brutal crimes perpetrated against them and members of their families -- but there are many others who carried out terrible acts during the country's 11 years of conflict," said Hugo Relva, Amnesty International Legal Adviser. "Thousands of others can and must be held criminally responsible. Reparations must also be provided to the victims in order for justice to begin to prevail throughout Sierra Leone." Remarkably, today's decision by the Special Court marks the first time in history that individuals have been convicted of war crimes for conscripting and enlisting children under the age of fifteen into armed forces or groups and using them to participate actively in hostilities.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Court for Sierra Leone, AFRC Trial, Update 89
    Page 1 of 9 U.C. BerkeleyWar Crimes Studies Center Sierra Leone Trial Monitoring Program Weekly Report Special Court Monitoring Program Update # 89 Trial Chamber II – AFRC Trial Week ending 6 October 2006 Thea Wauters Thyness Senior Researcher Summary This week saw the conclusion of the individual defence case for the first Accused, Tamba Brima, with the cross examination of two witnesses who gave evidence last week. Two final common witnesses were also heard, and the common defence case has now drawn to a close. The individual defence case for the second Accused, Brima Bazzi Kamara was initiated on Tuesday, and three of Kamara’s individual witness were heard at the end of the week. The witnesses heard this week were all subject to special protection measures pursuant to Trial Chamber II’s decision of 9 May 2006.1 They were consequently shielded from view from the public gallery while they testified and their identities have not been recorded in any court records or transcripts. Witness testimonies The testimonies heard this week sought to paint a different picture of events covered by the indictment than that presented by the prosecution. Firstly, witnesses claimed that a number of atrocities attributed by the prosecution to AFRC-controlled SLA troops were in fact committed by RUF soldiers. Secondly witnesses sought to dispel the prosecution clam that the three Accused were in effective command over troops committing many of the prohibited acts charged in the indictment. Witnesses testified that the three Accused had been prisoners at the relevant times, and could therefore not have been in command of any troops.
    [Show full text]