DOCSLIB.ORG

Special Court for Sierra Leone: Achieving Justice?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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" ............... ....... 413 B. Selective Prosecutions:Commanders, but What of the Profiteers .................... ..... 418 C. Shoestring Justice: Trials and Tribulations..... ..... 428 D. Limited Supportfor the Defense Office.............................437 E. Inequality ofArms Between the Prosecution and Defense ......................... ....... 440 B.A. (Guelph), LL.B., B.C.L. (McGill), M.St. and Chevening Scholar (Oxford); Assistant Professor of Law, University of Pittsburgh School of Law, Pennsylvania, United States of America; former Legal Advisor to the Office of the Principal Defender, Special Court for Sierra Leone, Associate Legal Officer, United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and Legal Counsel, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section, Canadian Department of Justice. E-mail: [email protected]. This Article was prepared for a debate between former Special Court for Sierra Leone Prosecutor David Crane and this author on the above question. It was hosted by the Human Rights Center and the Baldy Center for Law and Social Policy, State University of New York at Buffalo Law School on February 17, 2010. Vincent del Buono, a fine human rights advo- cate, moderated. He has since passed away. I dedicate this Article to his memory. I thank Tara Melish for organizing and inviting me to the above student-focused event, which prompted the drafting of this paper. I am grateful to Erika de Wet and Joseph Rikhof for kindly reviewing an earlier draft of this Article and giving excellent suggestions. Amy DiBella provided outstanding research assistance. I appreciate Jennifer Allen and the editors of the Michigan Journalof InternationalLaw for their thoughtful edits. The usual disclaimer applies. 395 396 Michigan Journalof InternationalLaw [Vol. 32:395 IV. DID THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE BRING JUSTICE, PEACE, AND RECONCILIATION TO SIERRA LEONE?........ .. .. .. 444 A. Justice and Overall Fairness of the Trials..... ........ 445 B. FailedExpectations of Efficiency and Expeditious Trials... 446 C. Lasting Peace and the Deterrence Value of the SCSL....... 451 D. National Reconciliation?................ ....... 453 CONCLUSION ................................................. 456 INTRODUCTION The creation of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL or the Court) in early 2002 generated high expectations within the international community.' The SCSL was generally deemed to herald a new model or benchmark for the assessment of future ad hoc international criminal courts.! As the Court completes the trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor in The Hague-its last-nine years later, this Article of- fers an early and broad assessment of whether it has fulfilled its promise. More specifically, this Article examines whether the SCSL has achieved, or more accurately-because its trials are still ongoing- whether it is achieving justice. I use the term justice in the ordinary sense, referring to whether the Court has justly or fairly treated the ac- cused during the proceedings it has carried out. This approach is justified for three main reasons. First, dispensing credible justice on behalf of Sierra Leonean victims of conflict is a noble goal that was the raison I. See, e.g., Stuart Beresford & A.S. Muller, The Special Courtfor Sierra Leone: An Initial Comment, 14 LEIDEN J. INT'L L. 635 (2001) (maintaining optimism regarding the Court despite the numerous hurdles facing it); Robert Cryer, A "Special Court" for Sierra Leone, 50 INT'L & Comp. L.Q. 435 (2001) (comparing the origins of the Court relative to other attempts at creating similar institutions); Nicole Fritz & Alison Smith, Current Apathy for Coming Anarchy: Building the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 25 FORDHAM INT'L L.J. 391 (2001) (claiming that the Court, by virtue of its relationship with the United Nations, will be perceived as more legitimate than purely domestic courts); Micaela Frulli, The Special Court for Sierra Leone: Some Preliminary Comments, 11 E.J.I.L. 857, 869 (2000) ("[T]he establishment of the Special Court represents another positive step in the struggle against impunity."); Melron C. Nicol-Wilson, Accountability for Human Rights Abuses: The United Nations'SpecialCourt for Sierra Leone, AUSTL. INT'L L.J. 159, 175 (2001) ("The importance of establishing the Special Court is unquestionable and Sierra Leoneans and the international community are anxious to see a viable and effective court functioning as soon as possible."); Celina Schocken, The Special Courtfor Sierra Leone: Overview and Recommendations, 20 BERKELEY J. INT'L L. 436 (2002) (expressing optimism in the Court when compared to the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) and International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY)). 2. See Independent Expert, Report on the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 134 (Dec. 12, 2006) (Antonio Cassese) ("[Tlhe Special Court has in some respects made much headway, establishing a new benchmark for international criminal justice. On the other hand, the Court has also experienced a number of challenges and setbacks . ."). Spring 20111 Special Courtfor Sierra Leone: Achieving Justice? 397 d'etre for the SCSL's creation. Second, since the Court is an interna- tional tribunal entrusted with such a sacred mandate and whose creation and functioning was supported by many states from around the world, it seems only fair to hold it to the high international fair trial standards that its statute claims to espouse. Third, the SCSL's success was, from its founding, predicated on the idea that it would not only dispense justice but that it would be seen to do so and contribute to laying a firm struc- tural foundation for lasting peace and national reconciliation in post- conflict Sierra Leone. An inevitable question then is whether it has met that expectation. The Article is divided into four parts. Part I examines the travaux prdparatoires,or documentary history, of the Court to discern the tribu- nal's intended role in order to set the stage for the subsequent analysis. I focus on the views of Sierra Leone and the United Nations during the formal discussions and negotiations preceding the SCSL's establishment. Part H1 provides some necessary background. Towards that end, I briefly highlight the three main trials that the Court has completed as well as the current status of its fourth and, by all indications, last trial, that of former Liberian President Charles Taylor. In Part III, I examine some limitations relating to the SCSL from a Sierra Leonean perspective, starting with the Prosecutor's selection of cases. I question the excessively narrow manner in which he framed and applied the Court's greatest responsibility personal jurisdiction. In this regard, I ask who was prosecuted, who was not prosecuted, and why or why not. Though I do not purport to have all the answers, my analysis does reveal a curious, inverse, and unexpected result: over-inclusiveness with respect to those who were actually prosecuted and under- inclusiveness in relation to those who were not. In seeking to understand this outcome, I suggest that the SCSL's volatile donations-based funding structure severely limited the number of cases brought by the Prosecu- tion. Perhaps worse, it also negatively impacted the funding and other types of support provided for the accused and their defense. Part IV of the Article critically assesses how well the Court has done in achieving the tripartite goals of its founders to help bring justice, re- store peace, and promote national reconciliation in Sierra Leone. Finally, in the Conclusion,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Crimes Against Humanity As Adopted by the Commission in 2017 on First Reading
    COMMENTS AND OBSERVATIONS FROM THE REPUBLIC OF SIERRA LEONE on the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Crimes against Humanity as adopted by the Commission in 2017 on First Reading I. Introduction 1. In accordance with paragraph 43 of the Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its Sixty-Ninth Session (A/72/10), the Republic of Sierra Leone appreciates the opportunity to submit its comments and observations on the Draft Articles on Crimes against Humanity, and accompanying commentaries, which were adopted on first reading in 2017. 2. The people of Sierra Leone experienced the destruction caused by the commission of crimes against humanity during the rebel-initiated war which claimed the lives of thousands of innocent civilians in the decade between March 1991 and January 2002. After several efforts to end the conflict failed, between 1995 and 1999, the government then led by President Ahmad Tejan Kabba requested United Nations assistance to establish the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). The Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (UN-Sierra Leone Agreement), to which was annexed the Statute of the SCSL (SCSL Statute), was signed on 16 January 2002.1 3. The UN-Sierra Leone Agreement, which had been authorized by Security Council Resolution 1315 adopted on 14 August 2000, was the first bilateral treaty to be concluded between the United Nations and one of its member states to pursue a mix of international and domestic crimes committed in the territory of that state.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Meaning of a Militia: Understanding the Civil Defence Forces of Sierra Leone
    African Affairs, 106/425, 639–662 doi: 10.1093/afraf/adm054 C The Author [2007]. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Royal African Society. All rights reserved ! THE MEANING OF A MILITIA: UNDERSTANDING THE CIVIL DEFENCE FORCES OF SIERRA LEONE DANNY HOFFMAN ABSTRACT This article is an adapted, narrative version of an expert witness report the author wrote for the Defence of one of the accused before the Spe- cial Court for Sierra Leone. The case against the Civil Defence Forces militia was predicated in part on the argument that the CDF was a mil- itary organization with military-style command and control. Based on a close reading of the Prosecution’s military expert witness report and the author’s ethnographic research with the militia, the article outlines a case for understanding the CDF as the militarization of a social network rather than as a military organization. This framing has implications not only for post-conflict adjudication, but for how we think about and intervene in violent contexts throughout contemporary West Africa. ON 14 JUNE 2005 COLONEL RICHARD IRON TOOK THE WITNESS STAND in the case against the Civil Defence Forces at the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Court was trying those accused of bearing ‘greatest responsi- bility for serious violations of humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law’ during the latter half of the country’s ten-year war. Iron, a British officer, was in Freetown to answer the Defence’s challenge to a report he wrote on behalf of the Prosecution. Iron’s report did not speak directly to the ultimate issue, the Court’s terminology for the guilt or innocence of the accused.
    [Show full text]
  • G U I N E a Liberia Sierra Leone
    The boundaries and names shown and the designations Mamou used on this map do not imply official endorsement or er acceptance by the United Nations. Nig K o L le n o G UINEA t l e a SIERRA Kindia LEONEFaranah Médina Dula Falaba Tabili ba o s a g Dubréka K n ie c o r M Musaia Gberia a c S Fotombu Coyah Bafodia t a e r G Kabala Banian Konta Fandié Kamakwie Koinadugu Bendugu Forécariah li Kukuna Kamalu Fadugu Se Bagbe r Madina e Bambaya g Jct. i ies NORTHERN N arc Sc Kurubonla e Karina tl it Mateboi Alikalia L Yombiro Kambia M Pendembu Bumbuna Batkanu a Bendugu b Rokupr o l e Binkolo M Mange Gbinti e Kortimaw Is. Kayima l Mambolo Makeni i Bendou Bodou Port Loko Magburaka Tefeya Yomadu Lunsar Koidu-Sefadu li Masingbi Koundou e a Lungi Pepel S n Int'l Airport or a Matotoka Yengema R el p ok m Freetown a Njaiama Ferry Masiaka Mile 91 P Njaiama- Wellington a Yele Sewafe Tongo Gandorhun o Hastings Yonibana Tungie M Koindu WESTERN Songo Bradford EAS T E R N AREA Waterloo Mongeri York Rotifunk Falla Bomi Kailahun Buedu a i Panguma Moyamba a Taiama Manowa Giehun Bauya T Boajibu Njala Dambara Pendembu Yawri Bendu Banana Is. Bay Mano Lago Bo Segbwema Daru Shenge Sembehun SOUTHE R N Gerihun Plantain Is. Sieromco Mokanje Kenema Tikonko Bumpe a Blama Gbangbatok Sew Tokpombu ro Kpetewoma o Sh Koribundu M erb Nitti ro River a o i Turtle Is. o M h Sumbuya a Sherbro I.
    [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]
  • Articles the Sentencing Legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
    GEORGIA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AND COMPARATIVE LAW VOLUME 42 2014 NUMBER 3 ARTICLES THE SENTENCING LEGACY OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE Shahram Dana* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 617 II. BACKGROUND: PEACE AGREEMENTS AND BLANKET AMNESTIES FAIL TO STOP CONFLICT OR ATROCITIES .................... 619 III. FROM AMNESTY TO ACCOUNTABILITY: A UNIQUE COURT IS BORN ............................................................................................... 622 A. The Head of State Trial: Prosecutor v. Charles Taylor ............ 623 1. The Crimes ......................................................................... 623 2. The Punishment.................................................................. 625 B. The RUF Trial: Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon & Gbao .............. 632 1. The Crimes ......................................................................... 632 2. The Punishment.................................................................. 633 C. The AFRC Trial: Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara & Kanu ......... 640 1. The Crimes ......................................................................... 640 2. The Punishment.................................................................. 641 * Senior Lecturer, Griffith Law School, Griffith University; Visiting Scholar, Vanderbilt University Law School (Spring 2015); former United Nations Associate Legal Officer in the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for the
    [Show full text]
  • Litigating Child Recruitment Before the Special Court for Sierra Leone
    Litigating Child Recruitment Before the Special Court for Sierra Leone NOAH B. NOVOGRODSKY* In May 2004, the Special Court for Sierra Leone issued a landmark decision finding that an individual may be held criminally responsible for the offense of recruiting' child soldiers into armed conflict. As a hybrid tribunal established by the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone to try those who "bear the greatest responsibility" for serious violations of international humanitarian law committed during the country's civil war after November 1996, the Special Court is the first international criminal body to indict a person for the crime of recruiting and employing children in war. The decision in the case of Sam Hinga Norman now aligns this emerging doctrine of international humanitarian law with general international human rights protections, as * Professor Noah Novogrodsky is the director of the University of Toronto Faculty of Law International Human Rights Clinic (IHRC). The attached brief was filed with the Special Court for Sierra Leone on November 4, 2003. Mora Johnson, Elyse Korman, Robin Reinertson, and David Wei of the IHRC drafted substantial parts of the brief and contributed to this article. 1. Recruitment is defined in Article 4 of the Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone as "[c]onscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups using them to participate actively in hostilities." The implication of this Article is that a child under the age of fifteen cannot meaningfully consent to enlist or participate in armed conflict. See The Secretary-General, Report of the Secretary-Generalon the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, U.N.
    [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]
  • Sierra Leone: Whether a Person Who Did Not Participate in the General
    RIR Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada www.irb-cisr.gc.ca Français Home Contact Us Help Search canada.gc.ca Home > Research > Responses to Information Requests RESPONSES TO INFORMATION REQUESTS (RIRs) New Search | About RIR's | Help 03 April 2003 SLE41345.E Sierra Leone: Whether a person who did not participate in the general strike of 1997 and 1998 as decreed by the exiled Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) would be targeted by the Kamajors and, if so, protection available; areas of the country in which the Kamajors still have influence Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Ottawa The Kamajor militias are traditional hunters who fought against the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels during Sierra Leone's eleven-year armed conflict (IRIN 14 Feb. 2003; UNHCR/ACCORD 13-14 Nov. 2000), which President Ahmad Tejan Kabbah declared over on 18 January 2002 (HRW 2003). The editor of Sierra Leone Web (SLW) said, in correspondence with the Research Directorate, that the Kamajors, meaning "hunter" in Mende, are of the Mendes ethnic group and so were active in the southern and eastern regions of the country (21 Mar. 2003). The profile on Sierra Leone in the final report of the 6th European Country of Origin Information Seminar, states that the Civil Defence Forces (CDF) were a "major player" in the civil war and that, in the southern region of the country, they called themselves the Kamajors while in the north and north-east, they called themselves Tamboro (UNHCR/ACCORD 13-14 Nov. 2000, 149). The report further noted that, although the "stronghold" of the Kamajor militia was in Bo, they also had a "strong base" in the centre of the country (ibid.).
    [Show full text]
  • The Contribution of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to the Development of International Law
    Florida International University College of Law eCollections Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2007 The Contribution of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to the Development of International Law Charles Chernor Jalloh Florida International University College of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the International Law Commons, and the Jurisprudence Commons Recommended Citation Charles Chernor Jalloh, The Contribution of the Special Court for Sierra Leone to the Development of International Law , 15 Afr. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 165 (2007). Available at: https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty_publications/241 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at eCollections. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of eCollections. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 15 Afr. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 165 2007 Provided by: FIU College of Law Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline Wed Sep 21 15:16:39 2016 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: Copyright Information THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW CHARLES CHERNOR JALLOH* INTRODUCTION On 16 January 2002, the United Nations ('UN') and the Government of Sierra Leone ('Sierra Leone') signed an historic agreement' establishing the Special Court for Sierra Leone ('the SCSL' or 'the Court').
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Introduction 1 The political context 2 The West Africa sub-region 5 International response to the human rights crisis 8 United Nations 8 The UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone 9 The UN special conference on Sierra Leone 11 OAU and ECOWAS 13 Human rights violations during the period of AFRC rule 16 Arbitrary arrest and detention 17 Torture and extrajudicial executions 18 The use of the death penalty by the AFRC 21 Human rights abuses by AFRC and RUF forces since February 1998 22 "Operation no living thing" 24 Human rights abuses by rebel forces since July 1998 29 Children at the centre of the violence 32 Abduction of children 34 The abuse of children by rebel forces 34 Victims and perpetrators of human rights abuses 35 Recruitment of children by Civil Defence Forces 35 Efforts by the international community to meet the needs of children 36 Human rights violations by ECOMOG forces 38 Human rights violations by Civil Defence Forces 41 Refugees and internally displaced people - still at risk 44 Refugees in Guinea and Liberia 44 Internally displaced people 47 Accountability for human rights abuses 48 Detentions and trials after February 1998 49 The committee of investigation 51 Trials before the High Court 52 Trials before court martial 55 The death penalty - a violation of human rights 57 Harsh prison conditions 59 Long-term measures for the protection and respect of human rights 61 Reform of the legal and judicial system 62 Restructuring the armed forces 62 Human rights training for the police force 63 The National Commission for Human Rights and Democracy 64 1 SIERRA LEONE 1998 - a year of atrocities against civilians Introduction During 1998 the scale of atrocities against civilians in Sierra Leone has reached unprecedented levels.
    [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]