DOCSLIB.ORG

Special Court for Sierra Leone in The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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 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 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”?............................. 65 D. PROSECUTION ’S EIGHTH GROUND OF APPEAL : CUMULATIVE CONVICTIONS UNDER COUNTS TEN AND ELEVEN .....................................................................................................................67 E. PROSECUTION ’S NINTH GROUND OF APPEAL
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]
  • Puun 1 9 8 0 0
    GENERAL ASSEMBLY GENERAL ASSEMBLY OFFICIAL RECORDS: THIRTY-FIFTH SESSION SUPPLEMENT No. 23 (A/35/23/Rev.1) UNITED NATIONS New York, 1981 REPORT OF THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE SITUATION WITH REGARD TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES NOTE Symbols of United Nations documents are composed of capital letters combined with figures. Mention of such a symbol indicates a reference to a United Nations document. The present version of the report of the Special Committee is a consolidation of the following documents as they appeared in provisional form: A/35/23 (Part I) of 26 November 1980, A/35/23 (Part II) of 24 September 1980, A/35/23 (Part III) of 15 September 1980, A/35/23 (Part IV) of 15 September 1930, A/35/23 (Part V) of 26 September 1980 and A/35/23 (Part VI) of 24 October 1980. /Original: Engrlish! CONTENiTS Parar-ranhs Fage LLTTER OF 'RA;ITTAL . Chapter I. ESTADLISIL'i;T, ORGAIdZATICii AND ACTIVITIIIES OF THE SP2CIAL COO1iiITTLE (A/35/23 (Part I)) ...... ................ Establishment of the Special Committee ........... i3. Opening of the Special Committee's meetings in 1980. C. Organization of work.. ....... .................. 0. ifeetings of the Special Committee and its subsidiary bodies ............ ....................... Consideration of Territories ..... .............. F. Question of the list of Territories to which the Declaration is applicable ...... ................ G. Participation of national liberation movements in the work of the United iFations ................. H. Hatters relating to the small Territories .......... I. Week of Solidarity writh the Colonial Peoples of Southern Africa Fighting for Freedom, Independence and Equal Rights .......
    [Show full text]
  • FROM the TAYLOR TRIAL to a LASTING LEGACY: PUTTING the SPECIAL COURT ©2009 International Center MODEL to the TEST for Transitional Justice and Thierry Cruvellier
    PROSECUTIONS CASE STUDIES SER I E S Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme FROM THE TAYLOR TRIAL TO A LASTING LEGACY: PUTTING THE SPECIAL COURT ©2009 International Center MODEL TO THE TEST for Transitional Justice and Thierry Cruvellier FROM THE TAYLOR TRIAL TO A LASTING LEGACY: PUTTING THE SP E C I A L COURT MODEL TO THE TEST ©2009 International Center for Transitional Justice, The Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme and Thierry Cruvellier This document may be cited as Thierry Cruvellier, From the Taylor Trial to a Lasting Legacy : Putting the Special Court Model to the Test (2009), International Center for Transitional Justice and Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme ISBN 978-1-936064-01-4 Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme i ABOUT THE ICTJ The International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) assists countries pursuing accountability for past mass atrocity or human rights abuse. It works in societies emerging from repressive rule or armed conflict, as well as in established democracies where historical injustices or systemic abuse remain unresolved. In order to promote justice, peace, and reconciliation, government officials and nongovernmental advocates are likely to consider a variety of transitional justice approaches including both judicial and nonjudicial responses to human rights crimes. ICTJ assists in the development of integrated, comprehensive, and localized approaches to transitional justice comprising five key elements: prosecuting perpetrators; documenting and acknowledging violations through nonjudicial means such as truth commissions; reforming abusive institutions; providing reparations to victims; and facilitating reconciliation processes. The center is committed to building local capacity and generally strengthening the emerging field of transitional justice, and it works closely with organizations and experts around the world to do so.
    [Show full text]
  • Seventh Annual Report of the President of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
    Seventh Annual Report of the President of the Special Court for Sierra Leone June 2009 to May 2010 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/266656/ PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/266656/ Seventh Annual Report of the President of the Special Court for Sierra Leone June 2009 to May 2010 PURL: https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/266656/ contents Foreword 5 Fundraising and Diplomatic Relations 39 Europe 39 Introduction 9 North America 40 Summary of Activities 9 United nations 40 New York sub-office 40 Judicial Proceedings 13 Trial chamber II 13 outreach and Public Affairs 43 The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor 13 Video screening of trial summaries 43 Appeals chamber 15 Public Lectures 44 Interlocutory Appeals in Prosecutor v. Taylor 15 Legacy specific Activities: seminars and Appellate Proceedings in Prosecutor v. sesay, Accountability now clubs (ANCs) in tertiary Kallon and Gbao: (June 2009-october 2009) 17 Institutions 44 the RUF Appeal Judgment 19 special events and court tours 44 Publication of Informational and Human Rights other chamber’s Activities 23 Materials 45 14th Plenary Meeting of Judges 23 civil society Visits to the Hague 45 Meeting with DoMAc Project 23 school Visits and other Programmes 45 Visit from War crimes Division of Ugandan Judiciary 23 Legacy 47 Meeting with ICTR Prosecutor 24 Principle Legacy Initiatives of the Registry Launching of Report on Work of the SCSL by sections 47 the ICTJ 24 site Project 48 expert Group Meeting on Residual Issues 24 Prosecution Legacy Activities 48 Meetings with United nations Assistant secretary- chambers Legacy Activities 49 General for Legal Affairs and U.s.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law
    Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.219, on 28 Sep 2021 at 17:55:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/EFEDBED0B84359DFA281A9079047846F Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 170.106.40.219, on 28 Sep 2021 at 17:55:18, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/EFEDBED0B84359DFA281A9079047846F A CRITICAL INTRODUCTION TO INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW International criminal law has witnessed a rapid rise since the end of the Cold War. The United Nations refers to the birth of a new ‘age of accountability’, but certain historical objections, such as selectivity or victor’s justice, have never fully gone away, and many of the justice dimensions of international criminal law remain unexplored. Various critiques have emerged in sociolegal scholarship or globalization discourse, revealing that there is a stark discrepancy between reality and expectation. Linking discussion of legal theories, case law and practice to scholarship and opinion, A Critical Introduction to International Criminal Law explores these critiques through five main themes at the heart of contemporary dilemmas: • The shifting contours of criminality and international crimes • The tension between individual and collective responsibility • The challenges of domestic, international, hybrid and regional justice institutions • The foundations of justice procedures • Approaches towards punishment and reparation. The book is suitable for students, academics and professionals from multiple fields wishing to understand contemporary theories, practices and critiques of international criminal law.
    [Show full text]
  • Ronicle on International Courts and Tribunals (July 2012 – June 2013)
    CHRONICLE ON INTERNATIONAL COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (JULY 2012 – JUNE 2013) Jorge Antonio Quindimil López Summary: I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (ICJ). II. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (ICC). III. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE FORMER YUGOSLAVIA (ICTY). IV. INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA (ICTR). V. INTERNATIONAL RESIDUAL MECHANISM FOR CRIMINAL TRIBUNALS. VI. SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE (SCSL). VII. EXTRAORDINARY CHAMBERS IN THE COURTS OF CAMBODIA (ECCC). VIII. SPECIAL TRIBUNAL FOR THE LEBANON (STL). IX. EFTA COURT. X. PERMANENT TRIBUNAL OF REVISION OF MERCOSUR (PTR). XI. PERMANENT COURT OF ARBITRATION (CPA). INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL TRIBUNALS GENERAL JURISDICTION I. INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE (WWW.ICJ-CIJ.ORG) 1. Judgments Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal). On 20 July, the Court delivered its Judgment finding, unanimously, that the Republic of Senegal should submit the case of Mr. Hissène Habré to its competente authorities for the purpose of prosecution, if it does not extradite. The Court considers that the Republic of Senegal, by failing to make immediately a preliminary inquiry into the facts relating to the crimes allegedly committed by Mr. Hissène Habré, has breached its obligation under Article 6, paragraph 2, of the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment of 10 December 1984. Territorial and Maritime Dispute (Nicaragua v. Colombia). On 19 November 2012, the Court delivered the sentence in this decade-long case, declaring that Colombia has sovereignty over the maritime features in dispute and drew a single maritime boundary, so Nicaragua obtained a large maritime area of approximately 90.000 square kilometers.
    [Show full text]
  • 'RECEIVED Case No.: SCSL-2003-01-PT COURT Mana6ei\1ENT C::--Cfi MAR 2007 INA~ME~ 1€~"'__.Fu .9.' the PROSECUTOR ! S I'" - ~ I. "'__• __ " T
    THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE Before: Justice George Gelaga King, President Registrar: Mr. Lovemore G. Munlo, SC Date: 9 March 2007 SPEC~ALtOUATf8RS'lRRALEONE ~ 'RECEIVED Case No.: SCSL-2003-01-PT COURT MANA6Ei\1ENT c::--cfI MAR 2007 INA~ME~ 1€~"' __.fu_.9.'_ THE PROSECUTOR ! S I'" - ~ I._"'__• __ " T . ...• _, - u . __"'L~_ •••__ -v- CHARLESGHANKAYTAYLOR PUBLIC CIVIL SOCIETY AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF REGARDING CHANGE OF VENUE OF TAYLOR TRIAL BACK TO FREETOWN Office of the Prosecution Counsel for Charles Taylor Mr. Stephen Rapp Mr. Karim A. A. Khan Ms. Brenda Hollis Mr. Roger Sahota Ms. Wendy van Tongeren Ms. Shyamala Alagendra Mr. Alain Werner Ms. Leigh Lawrie I. Introduction 1. Mr. Charles Taylor was arrested and transferred to the United Nations backed Special Court for Sierra Leone for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious violations of international humanitarian law he allegedly committed against the people of Sierra Leone through his support for the rebels of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) during the civil war. Prior to his arrest, civil society organisations both within and without the country advocated vociferously to see Mr. Taylor put on trial before the Court in Freetown.' Still today, civil society wants to see Mr. Taylor's trial held in Freetown. 2 As such, civil society's position has remained consistent, irregardless of whether the Prosecution or the Defence is raising the issue. 2. However, a day after Mr. Taylor's initial transfer to the Court, the then President of the Court, Judge Raja N. Fernando, sent a letter to the Government of the Netherlands and the President of the International Criminal Court asking them to facilitate the Taylor trial in The Hague.
    [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]
  • Unequal Enforcement of the Law: Targeting Aggressors for Mass Atrocity Prosecutions Nancy Amoury Combs William & Mary Law School, [email protected]
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty and Deans 2019 Unequal Enforcement of the Law: Targeting Aggressors for Mass Atrocity Prosecutions Nancy Amoury Combs William & Mary Law School, [email protected] Copyright c 2019 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/facpubs UNEQUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW: TARGETING AGGRESSORS FOR MASS ATROCITY PROSECUTIONS Nancy Amoury Combs* It is a central tenet of the laws of war that they apply equally to all parties to a conflict. For this reason, a party that illegally launches a war benefits from all the same rights as a party that must defend against the illegal aggression. Countless philosophers have shown that this so-called equal application doctrine is morally indefensible and that defenders should have more rights and fewer responsibilities than aggressors. The equal application doctrine retains the support of legal scholars, however, because they reasonably fear that applying different rules to different warring parties will substantially reduce overall compliance with the international humanitarian law system as a whole. My Article seeks to bridge these divides. It does so by shifting focus from the application of international humanitarian law rules to the enforcement of these rules. Although a vast body of scholarship has centered on the equal application doctrine, none of it considers the way in which that doctrine intersects with post-conflict enforcement of international humanitarian law. On the one hand, such neglect is unsurprising because, historically, there was no post-conflict enforcement of international humanitarian law violations.
    [Show full text]
  • SCSL Press Release
    Special Court for Sierra Leone Press and Public Affairs Office PRESS RELEASE Freetown, Sierra Leone, 17 May 2007 Justice George Gelaga-King Re-Elected President of Special Court Justice George Gelaga King of Sierra Leone has been unanimously re-elected Presiding Judge of the Appeals Chamber, a post which makes him President of the Special Court for a period of an additional one-year term. Justice George Gelaga King has been President of the Sierra Leone Court of Appeal and of Court of Appeal of the Gambia. He served as Sierra Leone’s Ambassador to France, Spain, Portugal and Switzerland from 1974 to 1978, and was at the same time Sierra Leone’s Permanent Representative to UNESCO. Between 1978 and 1980 he served as Sierra Leone’s Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Justice King taught law at the Sierra Leone Law School from 1990 to 2005. He is Chairman of both the Sierra Leone Law Journal and the Gambian National Council for Law Reporting, and was a member of the Sierra Leone Council of Legal Education. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Last month he received Sierra Leone’s highest honour when he was named a Grand Officer of the Republic of Sierra Leone (GORSL). He is a “Distinguished Visiting Professor” of Kingston University in Essex, U.K. Justice King has been a Judge of the Special Court for Sierra Leone since December 2002. The Appeals Court Judges also elected Justice Emmanuel Ayoola of Nigeria as Vice-President of the Special Court. Justice Ayoola has served as Judge of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, President of the Seychelles Court of Appeal, and former Chief Justice of the Gambia.
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons from Hybrid Tribunals
    INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR TRANSITIONAL JUSTICE Committing to Justice for Serious Human Rights Violations Lessons from Hybrid Tribunals RESEARCH REPORT Elena Naughton Acknowledgments This report was prepared over several years and required the help and support of many people. Early on, when this project was getting started, important research and drafting contributions were provided by Nieri Avanessian, Emily Bell, Ketaki Purohit, Francesca Mauri, Sarah Jung, and Emma Fishman. Giordana Pepe and Eric Bias showed great attention to detail when completing the many tasks required to finalize the report. The author would most especially like to thank Anna Myriam Roccatello for taking up and spearheading this project and believing in it throughout. A special mention to David Tolbert, who so generously gave of his time on a number of occasions, sharing his insights and experiences, reviewing the lengthy manuscript, and providing invaluable nuance. About the Author Elena Naughton is a program expert for ICTJ. She has contributed to projects examining reparations, criminal justice, and truth-seeking mechanisms in post-conflict settings, such as Uganda, Nepal, and Sierra Leone, and has conducted training workshops relating to the specialized chambers in Tunisia and for victims and civil society organizations in Nepal and northern Uganda. She earned a J.D. and LL.M. at New York University School of Law. About ICTJ The International Center for Transitional Justice works across society and borders to challenge the causes and address the consequences of massive human rights violations. We affirm victims’ dignity, fight impunity, and promote responsive institutions in societies emerging from repressive rule or armed conflict as well as in established democracies where historical injustices or systemic abuse remain unresolved.
    [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]