Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T07:03:44.525Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Due Process and Fair Trial Rights at the Special Court: How the Desire for Accountability Outweighed the Demands of Justice at the Special Court for Sierra Leone

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 July 2010

WAYNE JORDASH  and
SCOTT MARTIN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It was recognized that it was critical to the process of national reconciliation and the maintenance of peace in Sierra Leone that the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) be a strong and credible court operating in accordance with international standards of justice, fairness, and due process of law. This article assesses the fulfilment of this mandate through an examination of the fairness of the RUF trial as illustrated through two issues: the interpretation of the accused's right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges and the approach taken by the Trial Chamber and the Appeals Chamber in assessing the evidential links between the accused and the crimes pursuant to the joint criminal enterprise (JCE) mode of liability. First, the article discusses the decisions that led to the omission of 250 charges from the indictment and their introduction into the trial through late evidential disclosures after the commencement of the prosecution case. Second, the article examines the way in which the charges, in a majority of cases, were found to be part of a common criminal purpose without a sufficient nexus being established to the accused or any member of the alleged JCE. The article concludes that the judicial approach to these issues abandoned the safeguards contained in the jurisprudence developed at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, giving rise to a trial that failed to adhere to international standards of justice, fairness, and due process, leading to manifestly unjust convictions.

Keywords

international criminal lawjoint criminal enterprisemembership of a groupright to be informed of chargesSpecial Court for Sierra Leone
Type
HAGUE INTERNATIONAL TRIBUNALS: Special Court for Sierra Leone
Information
Leiden Journal of International Law , Volume 23 , Issue 3 , September 2010 , pp. 585 - 608
Copyright
Copyright © Foundation of the Leiden Journal of International Law 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 UN Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000).

2 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, annexed to the Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra Leone, United Nations and Sierra Leone, 16 January 2002 (hereinafter SCSL Statute) Art. I.

3 Babera, Messegue and Jabardo v. Spain, Series A, No. 146 (App nos. 10588/83; 10589/83;10590/83) ECHR 6 December 1988 (1989) 11 EHRR 360, para. 77.

4 SCSL Statute, supra note 2, Art. 17(4)(a); Updated Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of the Former Yugoslavia since 1991, UN Doc. S/RES/1660(2006), Art. 21(4)(a); Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Genocide and Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law Committed in the Territory of Rwanda and Other Such Violations Committed in the Territory of Neighbouring States, UN Doc. S/RES/955 (1994), Art. 20(4)(a).

5 See, e.g., Brozicek v. Italy, (1989) 12 EHRR 371; Mattoccia v. Italy, (2003) 36 EHRR 47.

6 D. Monguya Mbenge et al. v. Zaire, Communication No. 16/1977 (views adopted on 25 March 1983), in UN Doc. GAOR, A/38/40; Mattoccia v. Italy, (App. no. 23969/94) ECHR 25 July 2000, para. 65.

7 I.H. and others v. Austria, (App. no. 42780/98) ECHR 20 April 2006, para. 30; Mattoccia v. Italy, (App. no. 23969/94) ECHR 25 July 2000, para. 59; and Kamasinski v. Austria, (App. no. 9783/82) ECHR 19 December 1989, para. 79.

8 Soering v. UK, (App. no. 14038/88) ECHR 7 July 1989, para. 113 (emphasis added); see also, e.g., Einhorn v. France, (App. no. 71555/01) ECHR 16 October 2001.

9 Prosecutor v. Tadić Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999 (hereinafter Tadić Appeal Judgement).

10 Prosecutor v. Delalić et al., Decision on the Accused Mućić's Motion for Particulars, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 26 June 1996.

11 Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-95-16-A, 23 October 2001 (hereinafter Kupreškić Appeal Judgement), para. 114.

12 Prosecutor v. Krnolejac, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, Case No. IT-97-25-PT, 24 February 1999, para. 12, n. 19.

13 Kupreškić Appeal Judgement, supra note 11, para. 88.

14 Prosecutor v. Hadźihasanović, Decision on Motion of the Accused Hadźihasanović Regarding the Prosecution's Examination of Witnesses on Alleged Violations Not Covered by the Indictment, Case No. IT-01-47-T, 16 March 2004, at 4.

15 Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, Appeal Judgement, Case No. ICTR-96-3-A, 26 May 2003 (hereinafter Rutaganda Appeal Judgement), para. 301; Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Trial Judgement, Case No. ICTR-99-46-T, 25 February 2004, para. 31.

16 Kupreškić Appeal Judgement, supra note 11, para. 89; Prosecutor v. Karemera, Decision on Defects in the Form of the Indictment, ICTR Trial Chamber III, Case No. ICTR-98-44-R72, 5 August 2005, para. 17.

17 Prosecutor v. Blaškić Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-95-14-A, 29 July 2004 (hereinafter Blaškić Appeal Judgement), para. 213; Kupreškić Appeal Judgment, supra note 11, para. 89.

18 Blaškić Appeal Judgement, supra note 17, para. 211; Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, supra note 15, para. 301.

19 Blaškić Appeal Judgement, supra note 17, para. 213.

20 Kupreškić Appeal Judgement, supra note 11, para. 88.

21 Prosecutor v. Brđanin and Talić, Decision on Objections by Radoslav Brđanin to the Form of the Amended Indictment, Case No. IT-99-36-PT, 23 February 2001, para. 9; see also Prosecutor v. Zigiranyirazo, Decision on Defence Urgent Motion to Exclude Some Parts of the Prosecution Pre-Trial Brief, Case No. ICTR-2001-73-PT, 30 September 2005, para. 2.

22 Prosecutor v. Halilović, Decision on Prosecutor's Motion Seeking Leave to Amend the Indictment, Case No. IT-01-48-PT, 17 December 2004, para. 30; see also Prosecutor v. Prlić et al., Decision on Prosecution Application for Leave to Amend the Indictment and on Defence Complaints on Form of Proposed Amended Indictment, Case No. IT-04-74-PT, 18 October 2005 (hereinafter Prlić Decision), para. 13.

23 Prosecutor v. Tadić, Indictment (amended), Case No. IT-94-1-I, 14 December 1995.

24 Prosecutor v. Delalić, Decision on the Accused Mucić's Motion for Particulars, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 26 June 1996.

25 Crane, D., ‘Symposium: International Criminal Tribunals in the 21st Century: Terrorists, Warlords, and Thugs’, (2006) 21 American University International Law Review 505Google Scholar; see also T. Cruvellier and M. Wierda, The Special Court for Sierra Leone: The First Eighteen Months (2004), International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ) Case Study Series, available at www.ictj.org/images/content/1/0/104.pdf (visited 20 April 2010), 5.

26 Crane, supra note 25.

27 Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Corrected Amended Consolidated Indictment, SCSL-04-15-PT, 2 August 2006 (hereinafter RUF Indictment).

28 Ibid., paras. 21, 22.

29 Ibid., para. 38.

30 Ibid., para. 69.

31 Ibid., para. 74.

32 Ibid., para. 76.

33 Kupreškić Appeal Judgement, supra note 11, para. 98.

34 Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Prosecution's Pre-Trial Brief Pursuant to Order for Filing Pre-Trial Briefs (Under Rules 54 and 73bis) of 13 February 2004, Case No. SCSL-04-15-PT, 1 March 2004; see also Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Prosecution Supplemental Pre-Trial Brief Pursuant to Order to the Prosecution to File a Supplemental Pre-Trial Brief of 30 March 2004 as Amended by Order to Extend the Time for Filing of the Prosecution Supplemental Pre-Trial Brief of 2 April 2004, SCSL-04-15-PT, 21 April 2004, para. 8.

35 Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Judgement, Doc. No. SCSL-04-15-T-1234, 2 March 2009 (hereinafter RUF Trial Judgement), paras. 1417–1443.

36 Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Sesay Final Trial Brief, SCSL-04-15-PT, 1 August 2008, at Annexes A1–A3 for comprehensive listing of the pre-trial notice and the additional and amended charges.

37 The indictments of the three accused were subsequently joined.

38 See generally Prosecutor v. Sesay, Decision and Order on Defence Preliminary Motion for Defects in the Form of the Indictment, Doc. No. SCSL-2003-05-PT, 13 October 2003 (hereinafter Sesay Form of the Indictment Decision).

39 Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana, Judgement, ICTR-96-10 & 96-17-T, 21 February 2003 (hereinafter Ntakirutimana Trial Judgement), para. 49 (emphasis added); see also Kupreškić Appeal Judgement, supra note 11, para. 89, and Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Appeal Judgement, Case No. SCSL-04-15-A, 26 October 2009 (hereinafter RUF Appeal Judgement), para. 52.

40 Sesay Form of the Indictment Decision, supra note 38, para. 7(xi) (emphasis added).

41 RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, paras. 471, 472.

42 Ibid., para. 330.

43 RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, para. 60.

44 Case of Dragan Nikolić. See ICTY website ‘ICTY Timeline’, available at www.icty.org/action/timeline/254. The initial conflict in Rwanda ended in July 1994 and the first trial started in January 1997: Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Indictment, Case No. ICTR-96-4-PT, 12 February 1996.

45 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Nyiramusuhuko, Decision on Defence Motion for Disclosure of Evidence, Case No. ICTR-97-21-T, 1 November 2000, paras. 38–39.

46 Prosecutor v. Brđanin, Decision on Form of Further Amended Indictment and Prosecution Application to Amend, Case No. IT-99-36-T, 26 June 2001, para. 62.

47 Prosecutor v. Brđanin, Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-99-36-A, 3 April 2007 (hereinafter Brđanin Appeal Judgement), para. 424 (internal citations omitted).

48 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Bagosora et al., Decision on Admissibility of Evidence of Witness DP, ICTR-98-41-T, 18 November 2003, para. 6.

49 Ibid.

50 Prosecutor v. Halilović, Decision on Prosecutor's Motion Seeking Leave to Amend the Indictment, Case No. IT-01-48-PT, 17 December 2004, para. 30; see also Prosecutor v. Prlić, Decision on Prosecution Application for Leave to Amend the Indictment and on Defence Complaints on Form of Proposed Amended Indictment, Case No. IT-04-74-PT, 18 October 2005, para. 13: ‘[i]f a new allegation does not expose an Accused to an additional risk of conviction, then it cannot be considered as a new charge.’

51 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Decision on the Defence Motion for the Exclusion of Evidence Arising from the Supplemental Statements of Witnesses TF1-113, TF1-108, TF1-330, TF1-041 and TF1-288, Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, 27 February 2006, para. 10; see also Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Decision on Defence Motion Requesting the Exclusion of Evidence Arising from the Supplemental Statements of Witnesses TF1-168, TF1-165 and TF1-041, Case No. SCSL-04-15-T, 20 March 2006, paras. 11, 13.

52 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Ruling on Application for the Exclusion of Certain Supplemental Statements of Witness TF1-361 and Witness TF1-122, Doc. No. SCSL-04-15-T-396, 1 June 2005, paras. 28(iv), 29(vi).

53 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Decision Regarding the Prosecution's Further Renewed Witness List, Doc. No. SCSL-04-15-T-339, 5 April 2005.

54 Prosecutor v. Delalić, Decision on the Prosecution's Alternative Request to Reopen the Prosecution's Case, Case No. IT-96-21-T, 19 August 1998, para. 20.

55 See, e.g., Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Ruling on Application for the Exclusion of Certain Supplemental Statements of Witness TF1-361 and Witness TF1-122, Doc. No. SCSL-04-15-T-396, 1 June 2005, paras. 28(iv), 29(vi).

56 See Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Sentencing Judgement, Doc. No. SCSL-04-15-T-1251, 8 April 2009.

57 RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, para. 44; see also Prosecutor v. Issa Hassan Sesay, Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao, Case No. SCSL-04-15-A, Sesay Public Corrected Redacted Grounds of Appeal, 15 June 2009, Annexes A1-A3; Practice Direction on Filing Documents before the Special Court for Sierra Leone, as amended 16 January 2008, Art. 6(f), which states that ‘[a]ny appendices or authorities do not count towards the page limit’.

58 RUF Trial Judgment, supra note 35, para. 1985.

59 W. Jordash and P. Van Tuyl, ‘Failure to Carry the Burden of Proof: How Joint Criminal Enterprise Lost Its Way at the Special Court for Sierra Leone’, (2010) 8 Journal of International Criminal Justice 591; see also Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu, Further Amended Consolidated Indictment, Case No. SCSL-04-16-I, 18 February 2005 (hereinafter AFRC Indictment), para. 34; RUF Indictment, supra note 27, para. 37; Prosecutor v. Norman, Fofana and Kondewa, Consolidated Indictment, Case No. SCSL-03-14-I, 5 February 2004 (hereinafter CDF Indictment), para. 19; Prosecutor v. Taylor, Second Amended Indictment, Case No. SCSL-03-01-I, 29 May 2007 (hereinafter Original Taylor Indictment), para. 33.

60 AFRC Indictment, supra note 59, paras. 33-34; RUF Indictment, supra note 27, para. 36; Original Taylor Indictment, supra note 59, para. 23.

61 M. N. Shaw, International Law (2003), 1040, which states that ‘[w]hether to prosecute the perpetrators of rebellion for their act of rebellion and challenge to the constituted authority of the State as a matter of internal law is for the state authority to decide. There is no rule against rebellion in international law.’

62 AFRC Indictment, supra note 59, para. 35; RUF Indictment, supra note 27, para. 37; Original Taylor Indictment, supra note 59, para. 24 (emphasis added).

63 RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, para. 296, quoting Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu, Judgement, Case No. SCSL-04-16-675-A, 22 February 2008, paras. 76, 80 (internal citations omitted).

64 Brđanin Appeal Judgement, supra note 47, paras. 410, 430.

65 Prosecutor v. Sagahutu et al., Decision on Sagahutu's Preliminary, Provisional Release and Severage Motions, Case No. ICTR-00-56-T, 25 September 2002, para. 39.

66 Prosecutor v. Kvocka et al., Trial Judgement, Case No. IT-98-30/1-T, 2 November 2001, para. 312; Prosecutor v. Kvocka et al., Appeal Judgement, Case No. IT-98-30/1-A, 28 February 2005, paras. 99, 263; Prosecutor v. Brđanin, supra note 47, para. 427.

67 RUF Trial Judgment, supra note 35, para. 2016 (emphasis added).

68 Ibid., para. 1985.

69 Prosecutor v. Brđanin, supra note 47, para. 412.

70 Ibid., para. 418.

71 Ibid., para. 413.

72 Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-A, Appeal Judgement, 17 March 2009 (hereinafter Krajišnik Appeal Judgement), para. 226.

73 Of course, a JCE member may be acting for multiple purposes, in which case the crime could be part of the JCE.

74 RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, para. 1985.

75 Ibid., paras. 1979–1985.

76 Ibid., paras. 1982–1985.

77 RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, para. 263, citing Brđanin Appeal Judgement, supra note 47, paras. 413, 430.

78 See RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, para. 1990 for a list of JCE members in the RUF case.

79 RUF Trial Judgment, supra note 35, para. 1992 (emphasis added).

80 RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, paras. 405, 407, 411.

81 RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, para. 1985.

82 Ibid., para. 2080 (emphasis added).

83 See generally ibid., paras. 1165–69, 1369, 2063; see also RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, paras. 429–31.

84 RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, paras. 1167, 1273, 2063; see also RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, paras. 429–435.

85 RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, paras. 1192, 1195, 1196, 1278, 2063; see also RUF Appeal Judgment, supra note 39, paras. 429–435.

86 RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, paras. 1165, 1274, 2063; see also RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, paras. 429–435.

87 RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, para. 414.

88 See, e.g., ibid., paras. 416–418.

89 According to para. 1990 of the RUF Trial Chamber judgement, JCE members included Foday Sankoh, Sam Bockarie, Issa Sesay, Morris Kallon, Superman, Eldred Collins, Mike Lamin, Isaac Mongor, Gibril Massaquoi, Augustine Gbao, and other unnamed RUF commanders, as well as the following AFRC: Johnny Paul Koroma, Gullt, Bazzy, Five-Five, SAJ Musa, Zagalo, Eddie Kanneh, and others to hold power in Sierra Leone on or shortly after 25 May 1997. See RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, para. 1990.

90 This includes unnamed AFRC/RUF rebels raping TF1-218 in Bumpeh, ibid., paras. 1206, 1290, 1299, 2063; rape by a man named Staff Alhaji in Tombodu, ibid., paras. 1171, 1288, 1299, 2063; rape of TF1-217's wife, as well as an unknown number of other women in Penduma by AFRC/RUF rebels, ibid., paras. 1193–95, 1290, 1299, 2063; AFRC/RUF rebels’ rape of an unidentified female in Bomboafuidu, ibid., paras. 1208, 1289, 1290, 1299, 2063; AFRC/RUF rebels forcing 20 people to have sex with each other in Bomboafuidu, ibid., paras. 1207, 1309, 2063; AFRC/RUF rebels using knives to slit genitals in Bomboafuidu, ibid., paras. 1208, 2063; AFRC/RUF rebels raping TF1-195 five times and five other women in Sawao, ibid., paras. 1181, 1185, 1290, 1299, 2063; AFRC/RUF rebels forcibly marrying an unknown number of women at Wendedu, ibid., paras. 1178–1179, 1294, 1297, 1299, 2063.

91 RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, para. 440.

92 RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, paras. 991–1041.

93 RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, paras. 417–18. In regard to the other two crimes, the Trial Chamber found that Sam Bockarie, a JCE member, was one of the principal perpetrators. See RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, paras. 1007, 1023, 1029, 1974.

94 RUF Trial Judgement, supra note 35, paras. 995-1005, 1974–1975, 1984, for findings on crimes committed in Tikonko Junction in Bo district.

95 RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, paras. 417, 418.

96 Prosecutor v. Haradinaj, Balaj and Brahimaj, Trial Judgement, IT-04-84-T, 3 April 2008, para. 139; Prosecutor v. Krajišnik, Case No. IT-00-39-T, Trial Judgement, 27 September 2006, para. 884.

97 RUF Appeal Judgement, supra note 39, paras. 421–422.

98 Ibid., paras. 424, 440, 449.

99 Ibid.

100 Brđanin Appeal Judgement, supra note 47, para. 428.

101 Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Doc. No. SCSL-04-15-A-279, Appeal Brief for Augustine Gbao, 1 June 2009, Annex I, for a full description of the crimes committed by non-JCE members that were left unconnected to a JCE member.

102 Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanić's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction – Joint Criminal Enterprise, Case No. IT-99-37-AR72, 21 May 2003, para. 25.

103 See Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, Sesay Final Trial Brief, SCSL-04-15-PT, 1 August 2008, at Annexes A1–A3 for comprehensive listing of the pre-trial notice and the additional and amended charges.