• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

IT-05-88-A 15008 Sesay replies that the Trial Chamber itself found that the Bunumbu training camp was not opened during the Junta period.1537 (c) Discussion 619. Sesay’s first challenge to his participation in the JCE in Kenema District concerns the Trial Chamber’s finding that, “on Sesay’s orders, from 1997 onwards, captured civilians were taken to Bunumbu for military training.”1538 The Trial Chamber found that the Bunumbu training camp was established in 19981539 and that the AFRC/RUF Junta was ousted from power by the ECOMOG intervention on 14 February 1998.1540 It did not say whether the Bunumbu training camp was established before or after 14 February 1998, but the testimony of TF1-362, relied on by the Trial Chamber for the impugned finding and invoked by Sesay and the Prosecution on appeal, suggests that the camp was established shortly after the ECOMOG intervention.1541 Sesay thus appears to be correct that the Bunumbu training camp did not open until after the Junta period. 620. However, it does not follow that his orders in question did not constitute a participation in the JCE, because the JCE continued beyond the Junta period, until late April 1998.1542 Sesay does not address the question of whether he issued any orders between the opening of the Bunumbu training camp sometime in February 1998 and late April 1998. The extent that these orders contributed to the crimes in Kenema District, which occurred between 25 May 1997 and 19 February 1998,1543 would have been limited to the period of temporal overlap, but this fact alone does not render unreasonable the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that Sesay lent a significant contribution to those crimes, particularly in light of his other forms of participation in the JCE in Kenema. The Appeals Chamber therefore dismisses Sesay’s present argument, and proceeds to consider his challenges to the findings on his other forms of participation in Kenema. 621. Sesay contests the finding that he participated in the JCE through his involvement in the planning and organising of the forced mining in Kenema District. His first argument, that this 1537 Sesay Reply, para. 73. 1538 Trial Judgment, paras 1437, 2000. 1539 Trial Judgment, para. 1436. 1540 Trial Judgment, paras 776, 2067. 1541 Transcript, TF1-362, 20 April 2005, pp. 39-42; Trial Judgment, para. 2067. 1542 Trial Judgment, para. 2076. 1543 Trial Judgment, paras 2050, 2056. 219 Case No. SCSL-04-15-A 26 October 2009 IT-05-88-A 15007 involvement was not carried out with the intent to cause terror,1544 is dismissed because it is based on the erroneous premise that the common criminal purpose of the JCE was to cause terror.1545 622. Second, Sesay contends that the finding in paragraph 1091 of the Trial Judgment that “[d]iamonds were then either given to RUF Commanders including Bockarie, Sesay and Mike Lamin” was an insufficient basis for the Trial Chamber to conclude in paragraph 1997 that “the forced mining was a planned and a systematic policy of the Junta Government devised at the highest level” and that he “as a member of the Supreme Council, was involved in the planning and organisation of the forced mining in Kenema District.”1546 However, Sesay only selectively quotes paragraph 1091 in support of his claim. The full finding states that many civilians dug for diamonds in Tongo Field and [T]he diamonds found would be taken to the Secretariat to be valued. Diamonds were then either given to RUF Commanders including Bockarie, Sesay and Mike Lamin, or taken by AFRC Commanders to senior AFRC official Eddie Kanneh in Kenema. Eddie Kanneh was known to arrange for diamonds to be sold abroad to finance the acquisition of arms and ammunition.1547 Also, Sesay does not challenge the finding in paragraph 1997 that “the government mining in Tongo Field provided an important source of revenue for the Junta Government and that this topic was discussed in AFRC Supreme Council meetings when Sesay was present.” Rather, Sesay refers to TF1-371’s testimony to argue that the issue of force was not discussed and that the Supreme Council would replace the commander if civilians were harassed while mining in his area.1548 However, he does not explain how it was unreasonable for the Trial Chamber to disregard this evidence given “[t]he sheer scale of the enslavement in Kenema District.”1549 Further, merely invoking the finding that “significant decisions were made by Koroma, SAJ Musa and certain other Honourables,”1550 Sesay fails to show that the Trial Chamber’s finding concerning his participation was unreasonable. 623. The Appeals Chamber therefore rejects the arguments in Sesay’s Ground 27 that he did not participate in the JCE in Kenema District. 1544 Sesay Appeal, para. 237. 1545 See supra, para. 305. 1546 Sesay Appeal, para. 237, quoting Trial Judgment, para. 1091, 1097. 1547 Trial Judgment, para. 1091 (internal references omitted). 1548 Sesay Appeal, para. 238. 1549 Trial Judgment, para. 1997. 1550 Appeal Transcript, 2 September 2009, p. 30; Trial Judgment, para. 756. 220 Case No. SCSL-04-15-A 26 October 2009 IT-05-88-A 15006 3. Kono District (Sesay Ground 34) (a) Trial Chamber’s findings 624. The Trial Chamber found that Sesay actively participated in the furtherance of the Common Criminal Purpose and thereby significantly contributed to the acts of terrorism (Count 1), collective punishment (Count 2), unlawful killings (Counts 3 to 5), sexual violence (Counts 6 to 9), physical violence (Count 11), enslavement (Count 13) and pillage (Count 14) found to have been committed in Kono District between 14 February 1998 and April/May 1998.1551 It held that he shared the intent with the other JCE members to commit these crimes.1552 (b) Submissions of the Parties 625. Sesay makes five submissions to challenge the findings on his participation and intent regarding Kono District, arguing that: (i) he did not tacitly endorse looting, or plan the attack on Koidu;1553 (ii) he did not endorse Johnny Paul Koroma’s instructions to burn houses and kill civilians in Koidu in March 1998;1554 (iii) his involvement in mining activities or with the Yengema training base could not constitute participation in the JCE, because he was not found to have been involved in mining in Kono until December 1998,1555 and Yengema did not start operating until late 1998 or early 1999;1556 (iv) his participation in the forced military training at the Bunumbu training camp in Kailahun did not contribute to terror and collective punishment in Kono;1557 and (v) he did not receive regular radio reports.1558 626. The Prosecution responds, in particular, that the Trial Chamber found that forced mining “continued throughout 1998” and “intensified” in December 19981559 and that the reference to 1551 Trial Judgment, para. 2091. 1552 Trial Judgment, para. 2092. 1553 Sesay Appeal, para. 241, citing Trial Judgment, paras 2082, 2083. 1554 Sesay Appeal, para. 242, citing Trial Judgment, paras 799, 1141-1144, 2084, 2092. 1555 Sesay Appeal, para. 245, citing Trial Judgment, paras 1240-1259, 2086. 1556 Sesay Appeal, para. 246, citing Trial Judgment, paras 2000, 2087, 2088, 2092; Transcript, TF1-362, 22 April 2005, p. 16. 1557 Sesay Appeal, para. 247, citing Trial Judgment, 2064. 1558 Sesay Appeal, para. 248, citing Trial Judgment, para. 827. 1559 Prosecution Response, para. 5.43. quoting Trial Judgment, para. 1242. 221 Case No. SCSL-04-15-A 26 October 2009 IT-05-88-A 15005 Yengema relates to involvement in the planning and creation of the base.1560 Sesay offers no material additional arguments in reply.1561 (c) Discussion 627. The Appeals Chamber addresses Sesay’s five challenges in turn. First, Sesay challenges his participation in respect of the attack on Koidu Town and his tacit endorsement and encouragement of the looting during Operation Pay Yourself.1562 He argues that, “[e]ven if the Trial Chamber’s conclusion that Sesay planned [the Koidu] attack was correct,” no evidence showed that such planning also involved planning the crimes of terror and collective punishment committed during the attack.1563 The Appeals Chamber observes, however, that it was not required that Sesay planned the crimes committed during the attack in order to significantly contribute to them. As to the looting, Sesay merely repeats the fact, noted by the Trial Chamber, that he was not actively engaged in the attack on Koidu Town as he was still recovering from the injury he had sustained during the attack on Bo Town.1564 However, Sesay fails to account for the finding that, even though Sesay was injured, the Commander of the attack (Superman) was subordinate to him during the attack.1565 Sesay therefore fails to demonstrate that, on the evidence as a whole, no reasonable trier of fact could have found that he tacitly endorsed and encouraged the looting. These arguments are rejected. 628. Second, Sesay disputes the Trial Chamber’s finding that he endorsed Johnny Paul Koroma’s instructions to burn houses and kill civilians in Koidu in March 1998.1566 This challenge turns on the quality of Witness TF1-334’s testimony, on which the impugned finding relies.1567 Sesay claims that TF1-334, contrary to the Trial Chamber’s finding, did not testify that the meeting at which Sesay endorsed Koroma’s instructions took place at Kimberlite, yet he fails to address the other evidence relied upon by the Trial Chamber when it found that the meeting was held at Kimberlite.1568 In any event, he fails to explain how such a mistake as to location would render unreasonable the finding that the meeting took place and that Sesay endorsed Koroma’s instructions.

Load more

  337

Copy Link