Because of the importance of the mission with which the Special Court for Sierra Leone has been invested, the Berkeley War Crimes Studies Center established a permanent monitoring program in Freetown in June 2004. It is our conviction that only an ongoing presence and attendance at trials, day in and day out, will enable us to report on and evaluate the work of the Special Court in a comprehensive manner.
Our monitors, Radha Webley, Sara Kendall, Michelle Staggs, Kyra Sanin, and Anna Stirnemann, have attended daily court sessions since the first trial began. Their weekly reports, in conjunction with upcoming interim and thematic reports, cover the initial phase of the trials. Our website is updated with their information on a regular basis.
Apart from the commitment and dedication of the monitors, acknowledgments are also due to the InternationalCenter for Transitional Justice with whom we share information and cooperate on issues regarding the Special Court, to our partners at the HumanRightsCenter at UC Berkeley, and to the Wang Family Foundation for their ongoing support of this project.
David CohenDirector, BerkeleyWarCrimesStudiesCenter
Chamber / Trial / Date
1 / CDF / Update #1: 23 June 2004
1 / RUF / Update #2: 9 July 2004
1 / RUF / Update #3: 23 July 2004
1 / CDF / Update #4: 17 September 2004
1 / CDF / Update #5: 24 September 2004
1 / CDF / Update #6: 1 October 2004
1 / RUF / Update #7: 8 October 2004
1 / RUF / Update #8: 15 October 2004
1 / RUF / Update #9: 22 October 2004
1 / RUF / Update #10: 29 October 2004
1 / CDF / Update #11: 5 November 2004
1 / CDF / Update #12: 12 November 2004
1 / CDF / Update #13: 19 November 2004
1 / CDF / Update #14: 26 November 2004
1 / CDF / Update #15: 3 December 2004
1 / CDF / Update #16: 7 December 2004
1 / RUF / Update #17: 14 January 2005
1 / RUF / Update #18: 21 January 2005
1 / RUF / Update #19: 28 January 2005
1 / RUF / Update #20: 4 February 2005
1 / CDF / Update #21: 11 February 2005
1 / CDF / Update #22: 18 February 2005
1 / CDF / Update #23: 25 February 2005
1 / CDF / Update #24: 4 March 2005
1 / CDF / Update #25: 11 March 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #26: 11 March 2005
1 / RUF / Update #27: 18 March 2005
1 / RUF / Update #28: 25 March 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #29: 25 March 2005
1 / RUF / Update #30: 1 April 2005
1 / RUF / Update #31: 8 April 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #32: 22 April 2005
1 / AFRC / Update #33: 29 April 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #34: 29 April 2005
1 / RUF / Update #35: 6 May 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #36: 13 May 2005
1 / RUF / Update #37: 20 May 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #38: 20 May 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #39: 27 May 2005
1 / CDF / Update #40: 27 May 2005
1 / CDF / Update #41: 3 June 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #42: 10 June 2005
1 / CDF / Update #43: 10 June 2005
1 / CDF / Update #44: 17 June 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #45: 17 June 2005
1 / CDF / Update #46: 24 June 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #47: 1 July 2005
1 / RUF, CDF / Update #48: 8 July 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #49: 15 July 2005
1 / RUF / Update #50: 22 July 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #51: 29 July 2005
1 / RUF / Update #52: 5 August 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #53: 16 September 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #54: Contempt Proceeding
1 / CDF / Update #55:Motion to Acquit
2 / AFRC / Update #56: 23 September 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #57: 5 October 2005
2 / AFRC / Update #58: 10 October 2005
1 / CDF / Update #59: 27 October 2005
Special Court Monitoring Program Update #1Trial Chamber I - CDF Trial 23 June 2004
by Radha Webley, Researcher
After getting off to a slow beginning, the Special Court's first trial finally got off to a full start last week, with the defense delivering its opening statement and the prosecution calling its first witnesses in the case against the three key leaders of the Civilian Defence Forces (CDF). The three individuals on trial for this case are Samuel Hinga Norman (former National Coordinator of the CDF, as well as former Deputy Minister of Defence for Sierra Leone and former Minister of the Interior), Moinina Fofana (former National Director of War of the CDF), and Allieu Kondewa (former High Priest of the CDF).
Although the trial opened on June 3 with the Prosecution's opening statement, the first weeks of June were spent sorting out the question of legal representation for the first accused, Samuel Hinga Norman, who had requested that his then-present counsel be excused and that he be allowed to represent himself for the duration of the trial. This matter was fully and finally settled on Monday, under the Trial Chamber's earlier ruling of 8 June. This ruling held that Mr. Norman be allowed to exercise a qualified right to self-representation, with the limitation that he be appointed a stand-by counsel team who would be available to advise and support him on legal and procedural matters. This stand-by counsel team of four, now assembled, includes both national and international counsel.
Following the settlement of this issue, Mr. Norman delivered his opening statement on Tuesday June 15. After asserting his honorable intentions to defend his country during Sierra Leone's 10-year civil war, he presented a series of arguments that questioned and refuted the legal basis of the court. As the latter issue had been dealt with previously by the Trial Chamber, the Trial Chamber did not further address it, and the prosecution then proceeded to call its first witness.
In the week since this first witness was called, the prosecution has called a total of four witnesses in this case. These witnesses' testimones have focused primarily on a number of events that allegedly took place in and around Koribundo, a small town in the district of Bo, in Sierra Leone's Southern Province. These testimonies particularly concentrated on one attack that is alleged to have occurred during February of 1998.
These four witnesses all described their experience of the Kamajors, a fighting group based around a traditional Mende hunting society [1]. In a highly emotional testimony, one witness told of being violently beaten by the Kamajors, and then being forced to watch his brother being killed in front of his eyes. Another witness recalled seeing a group of Kamajors mutilating and killing three individuals in Koribundo, one of them a chief.
All of these witnesses recounted seeing or hearing about houses being burnt en masse in the town of Koribundo during this attack. Also, importantly, they each presented testimony concerning two town meetings held in Koribundo that followed these violent incidents. During these meetings, Mr. Norman (then Regent Chief of the area) is alleged to have spoken before an assembly of citizens from Koribundo and the surrounding area and to have made a number of incriminating statements. In particular, he is alleged to have said that it was he who sent the Kamajors to Koribundo, and that he had given orders that all people there should be killed and all property, with only a few exceptions, destroyed.
The defense's cross-examination for each witness was conducted separately by the counsel for the three accused individuals, as well as by Mr. Norman himself. In all four cases, these cross-examinations focused on highlighting contradictions and inconsistencies both within and between the witnesses' statements. The cross-examinations also sought to refute demonized images of the Kamajors and of Mr. Norman, stressing the fact that under Mr. Norman, the Kamajors were critical in the protection of the people of Koribundo throughout the civil war.
Even though the Court has only been in full swing for under two weeks, a couple of key issues have surfaced even at this early date that deserve mention here. The slowness of the proceedings thus far is a matter of especial concern, given that the court is expected to complete all trials within the next two years. With the prosecution expected to call over 190 witnesses in the course of this one trial, the fact that only four witnesses have been called thus far calls into question the ability of the court to complete its proceedings within the given time-frame.
Some of this initial slowness can of course be attributed to the very early stage of this current trial. In the short time since the prosecution began calling witnesses, for example, the court has been faced with a number of time-consuming procedural questions, ranging from how prior inconsistent statements by the witness should be properly addressed by the defense counsel during cross-examination, to various questions concerning the admissibility of different types of evidence. Once dealt with during these early days of the court's operation, these issues will hopefully cease to occupy so much of the Trial Chamber's time, such that the trials can then proceed in a speedier fashion.
Another issue evident during this last week's proceedings is the inherent tension in the attempt to separate the quest for justice from questions of national politics. Widely considered within Sierra Leone to have brought an end to the civil war, the CDF, and Mr. Norman in particular, enjoy effusive support from much of the Sierra Leone public. In fact, the courtroom's public gallery has been filled to capacity for much of these last weeks, with the majority of those present there in support of the defendants, waving in solidarity to Mr. Norman as he enters and leaves the courtroom.
Reacting to a round of applause from this audience after Mr. Norman's opening statement last week, Presiding Judge Benjamin Mutanga Itoe reprimanded the audience, underlining that this court is not a political forum, but a hall of justice, a theme that he and the other judges have returned to repeatedly throughout the last two weeks.
Regardless of the continued (and certainly understandable) effort to separate the proceedings of this trial from domestic politics, the political meanings of this trial cannot be ignored. Mr. Norman was a cabinet member of the present government until his arrest in March of last year, and was, until that point, a key member of the present administration. The fact that he is now on trial before such a tribunal, regardless of whether his arrest had any political motive or intention, certainly carries political meanings for much of the Sierra Leone public who are following his trial, either in person, via word of mouth, or through the daily newspapers.
As mentioned earlier, however, this trial, and the court's operations in general, remain in their very early stages. These and other issues will undoubtedly unfold and change over the coming months.
At the time of writing, the CDF trial has been adjourned until September 8. With only one courtroom fully operational at present (there is a second one currently under construction), only one trial can run at any given time. During July, this one courtroom will be used to open and launch the trial against the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). The court is scheduled for a month's recess in August.
1. The Mende are one of the main ethnic groups in Sierra Leone. Although the Kamajors were comprised mainly of Mende individuals and were the dominant group within the CDF, there were also other such fighting groups that were part of the CDF. These were the Gbethis and the Kapras (made up of fighters primarily of Temne ethnicity), the Tamaboros (comprising mainly those of Koranko ethnicity) and the Donos (emerging out of the Kono ethnic group).
Special Court Monitoring Program Update #2Trial Chamber I - RUF Trial 9 July 2004by Radha Webley, Researcher
The Special Court for Sierra Leone opened a new trial session this week with the opening of the joint trial of three of the key leaders of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF). These three individuals, all alleged to have been senior officers and commanders within the RUF, are Issa Sesay, Morris Kallon, and Augustine Gbao. They are charged with eighteen counts of crimes against humanity and other violations of international humanitarian law, their charges including acts of terrorism, collective punishment, extermination, murder, enslavement, and pillage.
As with the case against the Civilian Defense Forces (CDF) that began last month, these three RUF leaders are also specifically charged with the use of child soldiers as a violation of international humanitarian law. Unlike the indictment against the CDF, however, which does not include any charges of sexual violence, the charges against the RUF leaders include four counts of sexual violence, among them charges of rape, sexual slavery, and outrages upon personal dignity.
Opening the RUF trial on Monday 5 July, Presiding Judge Benjamin Mutanga Itoe delivered a brief address to the Court. In this statement, Judge Itoe reiterated the history and purpose of the Special Court, and also stressed the Court's commitment to protecting the rights of the accused by ensuring a fair and expeditious trial.
After this address, Chief Prosecutor David Crane proceeded to deliver the first half of the prosecution's opening statement. Outlining the history and background of the conflict, his address highlighted the regional nature of the conflict, focusing on a February 1991 planning meeting held in Liberia, at which meeting the initial RUF-led invasion of Sierra Leone was allegedly planned. Throughout his address, Crane made a point of stressing that the RUF's motive was not political reform, as is often claimed by this group, but was instead the control of Sierra Leone's "resource rich areas."
Against this background, Crane outlined the 18 charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity with which the defendants in this case are charged. In this context, he repeatedly emphasized the centrality in this case of the legal concept of joint criminal enterprise, particularly in regards to the alleged wartime collaboration between the RUF, the AFRC (Armed Forces Revolutionary Council), and the NPFL (National Patriotic Front for Liberia, led by Charles Taylor). Following this introduction, Crane gave a broad outline of the evidence that the prosecution will present in support of those charges.
With the rhetorical flourish for which he has become known, Crane peppered his statement with quasi-poetic phrases, telling his listeners that this case "is a tale of horror, beyond the gothic into the realm of Dante's inferno." Variously referring to the RUF as "hounds of hell," "dogs of war," and "handmaidens to the beast of impunity that walked this burnt and pillaged land," he described the RUF/AFRC collaboration as a "macabre dance of death," claiming that "ruin was their motto and destruction was their creed." Along the same lines, Crane claimed that the witnesses to be called in this case would "meet and slay the beast of impunity with the righteous sword of the law." Not surprisingly, this language generated a lively debate, initiated by the defence counsel, regarding the appropriateness or inappropriateness of such potentially emotive language.
The second half of the prosecution's opening statement was delivered by prosecution attorney Abdul Tejan-Cole. Tejan-Cole elaborated on the nature of the crimes in question, emphasizing the widespread nature and consistent pattern of the crimes committed by the RUF during the war. He also detailed a number of specific crimes allegedly committed by each of the accused, in addition to stressing the criminal significance of their responsibility as senior commanders. Finally, Tejan-Cole outlined the categories of witnesses to be called for the prosecution. These categories included 1) those who will give an overview of the nature and geographic spread of the crimes, 2) those "insiders" who can give detailed evidence about the command structure of the RUF, 3) crime-based witnesses, 4) expert witnesses, 5) witnesses testifying about the conscription of child soldiers, and 6) those giving evidence about attacks on UNAMSIL personnel.
These statements by the prosecution were followed by an opening statement by Raymond Brown, defence counsel for Morris Kallon. Emphasizing that Kallon's defence team represents their client as an individual, not as a member of the RUF, and not as part of any RUF/AFRC "joint enterprise," Brown stressed that the guilt of the RUF was not in any way equivalent to the guilt of his own client. He went on to refute Crane's claim that "this was not a just war," stressing that Kallon fought in the war because of his commitment to democracy, not to some "corrupt enterprise." Brown also refuted the idea of a clearly defined command structure in the RUF, as well as the concept of a "marriage" (or even any clear alliance) between the RUF and the AFRC.
Lastly, Brown proceeded to test the concept of "those who bear the greatest responsibility" upon which the Special Court rests, by suggesting that Kallon and perhaps others are being tried in lieu of those who truly bear such "greatest responsibility," such as Charles Taylor (in exile in Nigeria), Foday Sankoh (deceased) and Sam Bockarie (deceased). Brown also underlined the necessity to question the credibility of the "insider" witnesses referred to in the Prosecution's opening statements, and pointed to a number of inconsistencies and contradictions inherent in such witnesses' testimony.
The following day, Tuesday 6 July, began with further opening statements from the defence. While defence counsel for Issa Sesay declined to make an opening statement at this point, Augustine Gbao not only opted to deliver his statement at this point, but chose to give the statement himself, in lieu of his defence counsel. Before Gbao began, the judges warned him that his statement must not touch on questions either of politics or of the constitutional legitimacy of the Court (an issue addressed earlier this year by the Trial Chamber), but that his remarks must, in accordance with the Court's Rules of Procedure and Evidence, remain "confined to the evidence he intends to present in support of his case."