DOCSLIB.ORG

BRIMA BRIMA BAZZY KAMARA SANTIGIE BORBOR KANU (Case No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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........................................................................................................................... 10 3. Judgment ................................................................................................................................ 11 4. Verdict.................................................................................................................................... 11 5. Sentence ................................................................................................................................. 12 II. THE APPEALS ........................................................................................................................... 13 A. THE PROSECUTION ’S GROUNDS OF APPEAL ............................................................................... 13 B. BRIMA ’S GROUNDS OF APPEAL .................................................................................................. 13 C. KAMARA ’S GROUNDS OF APPEAL .............................................................................................. 14 D. KANU ’S GROUNDS OF APPEAL ................................................................................................... 14 E. COMMON DEFECTS IN THE BRIMA AND KAMARA GROUNDS OF APPEAL .................................... 15 III. COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE INDICTMENT ................... 15 A. ISSUES ARISING FROM THE COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL ...................................................... 15 1. Applicable Principles ............................................................................................................. 16 (a) Specificity............................................................................................................................... 16 (b) Exception to Specificity ......................................................................................................... 16 2. Challenges to an Indictment on Appeal ................................................................................. 17 B. PROSECUTION ’S SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL : LOCATIONS NOT PLEADED IN THE INDICTMENT 18 1. Trial Chamber’s Findings ...................................................................................................... 18 2. Submissions of the Parties ..................................................................................................... 19 (a) Prosecution’s Submissions ..................................................................................................... 19 (b) Response of the Accused ....................................................................................................... 21 3. Discussion: Reversal of a Previous Interlocutory Decision ................................................... 22 C. PROSECUTION ’S FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL AND KANU ’S TENTH GROUND OF APPEAL : JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE ................................................................................................... 23 1. Trial Chamber’s Findings ...................................................................................................... 23 2. Submission of the Parties ....................................................................................................... 24 3. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 26 4. Disposition ............................................................................................................................. 31 D. PROSECUTION ’S SIXTH GROUND OF APPEAL : THE DUPLICITY OF COUNT 7 ............................... 31 1. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 35 E. KANU ’S SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL : WAIVER OF INDICTMENT DEFECTS ............................... 38 Discussion .................................................................................................................................. 39 IV. COMMON ISSUES OF FACT: EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE AND WITNESS CREDIBILITY .......................................................................................................................... 40 A. BRIMA ’S NINTH , TENTH AND ELEVENTH GROUNDS OF APPEAL : EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE .... 40 1. Brima’s Ninth Ground of Appeal .......................................................................................... 40 (a) Submissions of the Parties ...................................................................................................... 40 (b) Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 41 2. Brima’s Tenth and Eleventh Grounds of Appeal: Failure to Consider the Rivalry Between Brima and Witness TF1-334 ............................................................................................... 42 1 Case No. SCSL-2004-16-A 3 March 2008 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/4420ef/ B. KAMARA ’S EIGHTH GROUND OF APPEAL : CREDIBILITY OF PROSECUTION WITNESSES .............. 42 1. Submissions of the Parties ..................................................................................................... 42 2. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 43 (a) The Trial Chamber’s Approach to Accomplice Evidence ..................................................... 43 (b) Evaluation of the Evidence of Prosecution Witnesses ........................................................... 46 C. KANU ’S THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL : EVALUATION OF DEFENCE EVIDENCE .............................. 49 1. Submissions of the Parties ..................................................................................................... 49 2. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 49 D. KANU ’S FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL : EVIDENCE OF ACCOMPLICE WITNESSES ....................... 52 1. Submissions of the Parties ..................................................................................................... 52 2. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 53 V. THE PROSECUTION’S APPEAL ........................................................................................... 53 A. PROSECUTION ’S FIRST AND THIRD GROUNDS OF APPEAL : THE “B OMBALI -FREETOWN CAMPAIGN ” AND KAMARA ’S ALLEGED RESPONSIBILITY UNDER ARTICLE 6(1) FOR CRIMES COMMITTED IN PORT LOKO DISTRICT ...................................................................................... 53 B. PROSECUTION ’S FIFTH GROUND OF APPEAL : THE “E NSLAVEMENT CRIMES ” AS ACTS OF TERROR AND COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT .................................................................................. 55 1. Trial Chamber Findings ......................................................................................................... 55 2. Submissions of the Parties ..................................................................................................... 55 3. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 55 C. PROSECUTION ’S SEVENTH GROUND OF APPEAL : FORCED MARRIAGE ........................................ 56 1. The Trial Chamber’s Findings and Submissions of the Parties ............................................. 56 2. Discussion .............................................................................................................................. 58 (a) The Nature of “Forced Marriage” in the Sierra Leone Conflict and its Distinction from Sexual Slavery ...................................................................................................................... 61 (b) Does Forced Marriage Satisfy the Elements of “Other Inhumane Acts”? ............................
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • The Special Court for Sierra Leone Case No. Scsl
    THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE CASE NO. SCSL – 2004-16-PT The PROSECUTOR Against ALEX TAMBA BRIMA also known as TAMBA ALEX BRIMA also known as GULLIT BRIMA BAZZY KAMARA also known as IBRAHIM BAZZY KAMARA also known as ALHAJI IBRAHIM KAMARA AND SANTIGIE BORBOR KANU also known as 55 also known as FIVE- FIVE also known as SANTIGIE KHANU also known as SANTIGIE KANU also known as S. B. KHANU also known as S.B. KANU also known as SANTIGIE BOBSON KANU also known as BORBOR SANTIGIE KANU INDICTMENT The Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra Leone, under Article 15 of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (the Statute) charges: ALEX TAMBA BRIMA also known as (aka) TAMBA ALEX BRIMA aka GULLIT BRIMA BAZZY KAMARA aka IBRAHIM BAZZY KAMARA aka ALHAJI IBRAHIM KAMARA and SANTIGIE BORBOR KANU aka 55 aka FIVE-FIVE aka SANTIGIE KHANU aka SANTIGIE KANU aka S. B. KHANU aka S.B. KANU aka SANTIGIE BOBSON KANU aka BORBOR SANTIGIE KANU with CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, VIOLATIONS OF ARTICLE 3 COMMON TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND OF ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL II and OTHER SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, in violation of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute as set forth below: THE ACCUSED 1. ALEX TAMBA BRIMA aka TAMBA ALEX BRIMA aka GULLIT was born 23 November 1971 at Yaryah Village, Kono District, Republic of Sierra Leone. 40 part i 2. He joined the Sierra Leone Army (SLA) in April 1985 and rose to the rank of Stafff Sergeant. 3. BRIMA BAZZY KAMARA aka IBRAHIM BAZZY KAMARA aka ALHAJI IBRAHIM KAMARA was born on 7 May 1968 at Wilberforce Village in the Western Area in the Republic of Sierra Leone.
    [Show full text]
  • ("":S"I"I - 1..,$2.1.1-) •
    312 Sc.S"" _ O\t-- '''' • T ("":S"I"I - 1..,$2.1.1-) • SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR FREETOWN - SIERRA LEONE TRIAL CHAMBER II Before: Justice Teresa Doherty, Presiding Judge Justice Richard Brunt Lussick Justice Julia Sebutinde Registrar: Mr. Robin Vincent Date filed: 12 August 2005 THE PROSECUTOR Against ALEX TAMBA BRIMA BRIMA BAZZY KAMARA SANTIGIE BORBOR KANU Case No. SCSL - 2004 - 16 - T PROSECUTION FILING OF ADDITIONAL WITNESS STATEMENT PURSUANT TO DECISION ON PROSECUTION REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO CALL AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS PURSUANT TO RULE 73bisE Office of the Prosecutor Defence Counsel for Alex Tamba Brima Luc Cote Kojo Graham Lesley Taylor Glenna Thompson Defence Counsel for Brima Bazzy Kamara Andrew Daniels Pa Momo Fofanah Defence Counsel for Santigie Borbor Kanu: Geert-Jan Alexander Knoops Carry J. Knoops A.E. Manly-Spain SCSL-04-16-T SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTOR FREETOWN - SIERRA LEONE THE PROSECUTOR Against ALEX TAMBA BRIMA BRIMA BAZZY KAMARA SANTIGIE BORBOR KANU Case No. SCSL - 2004 -16 -T PROSECUTION FILING OF ADDITIONAL WITNESS STATEMENT PURSUANT TO DECISION ON PROSECUTION REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO CALL AN ADDITIONAL WITNESS PURSUANT TO RULE 73bisE I. On 6 July 2005, the Prosecution filed its "Prosecution Request for Leave to Call an Additional Witness Pursuant to Rule 73bisE". On 5 August 2005, the Trial Chamber issued its "Decision on Prosecution Request for Leave to Call an Additional Witness Pursuant to Rule 73bisE" ("the Decision"), where the Trial Chamber granted leave to the Prosecution to add John Petrie to the witness list and ordered the Prosecution to disclose to the Defence and file with the Trial Chamber, the statement ofJohn Petrie, not later than 12 August 2005.
    [Show full text]
  • Special Court for Sierra Leone “Bringing Justice and Ensuring Lasting Peace” Some Reflections on the Trial Phase at the Special Court for Sierra Leone
    SECOND INTERIM REPORT ON THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE “BRINGING JUSTICE AND ENSURING LASTING PEACE” SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE TRIAL PHASE AT THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE U.C. BERKELEY WAR CRIMES STUDIES CENTER APRIL 2006 Sierra Leone's national courthouse and the historic Cotton Tree, Freetown, Sierra Leone This publication was originally produced pursuant to a project supported by the War Crimes Studies Center (WCSC), which was founded at the University of California, Berkeley in 2000. In 2014, the WCSC re-located to Stanford University and adopted a new name: the WSD Handa Center for Human Rights and International Justice. The Handa Center succeeds and carries on all the work of the WCSC, including all trial monitoring programs, as well as partnerships such as the Asian International Justice Initiative (AIJI). A complete archive of trial monitoring reports is available online at: http://handacenter.stanford.edu/reports-list For more information about Handa Center programs, please visit: http://handacenter.stanford.edu SECOND INTERIM REPORT ON THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE “BRINGING JUSTICE AND ENSURING LASTING PEACE”: SOME REFLECTIONS ON THE TRIAL PHASE AT THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE 30 March 2006 By Michelle Staggs 1 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. REPORT OBJECTIVES 4 3. TRIAL CHAMBER I: UNDER THE SWAY OF THE INDICTMENT 5 3.1 Trial Timetable 6 3.2 Trial Management 6 3.3 Approach of the Chamber: Indictment-oriented 7 3.4 Brief Overview of the CDF and RUF trials 10 3.5 The CDF Trial: Politics, Religion and the Trial Process 11 3.6 Brief Overview of the Prosecution’s Case in the CDF trial 12 4.
    [Show full text]
  • HJJ 2008-2 ENG 04.Indd
    This article from Hague Justice Journal is published by Eleven international publishing and made available to anonieme bezoeker COMMENTARY The Special Court for Sierra Leone’s Appeals Judgment in the AFRC case Roland Adjovi* The civil war in Sierra Leone (1991-2002) was initially a confl ict between the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebel forces under Foday Sankoh, and the central government. In 1997, the advance of the rebels led to the establishment of the Civil Defence Forces (CDF), which benefi ted from the support of the Sierra Leonean government, seemingly to the detriment of Sierra Leone’s army. Although the country was still unstable, elections took place and in March 1996, Ahmed Tejan Kabbah was elected president. Beginning in September 1996, Kabbah was subjected to an attempted military coup led by retired offi cer Johnny Paul Koroma, who was subsequently imprisoned. On 25 May 1997, members of Sierra Leone’s army staged a successful coup and installed Koroma as the Head of State, along with his military regime, the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC). One of the major political moves of this regime was to involve the RUF in the management of the country, integrating the RUF into the government and establishing a Supreme Council. The three accused in this case, all relatively young offi cers born between 1965 and 1971, played key roles in the government of Sierra Leone. Alex Tamba Brima, one of the offi cers who participated in the coup, had the rank of Principal Liaison Offi cer and was a member of the Supreme Council with responsibility for several ministries.
    [Show full text]
  • SCSL in the Year 2011: Atrocity Crime Litigation Review for the Year 2011 William Magenya
    Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Volume 11 | Issue 3 Article 11 Summer 2013 SCSL in the Year 2011: Atrocity Crime Litigation Review for the Year 2011 William Magenya Paulina Paz Zavala Regina Trillo Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr Part of the International Law Commons Recommended Citation William Magenya, Paulina Paz Zavala, and Regina Trillo, SCSL in the Year 2011: Atrocity Crime Litigation Review for the Year 2011, 11 Nw. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 264 (2013). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol11/iss3/11 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. SCSL in the Year 2011: Atrocity Crime Litigation Review in the Year 2011 William Magenya Paulina Paz Zavala Regina Trillo INTRODUCTION ¶1 The Special Court of Sierra Leone (“SCSL”) was established, pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1315, as an international body in its own right charged with the mandate of prosecuting persons who bear the “[g]reatest responsibility for the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law and crimes committed under Sierra Leonean law since the outbreak of a brutal civil war in Sierra Leone in November 1996.” To date, this mandate has been fulfilled but for one trial - the Charles Taylor case. 1 ¶2 The SCSL estimates that a judgment in the Taylor case shall be delivered by February 2012. With this in mind, the United Nations Office of Internal Oversight (“OIOS”) conducted an audit of the SCSL as the court prepared to transform into a Residual Special Court (“RSC”).
    [Show full text]