The Special Court for Sierra Leone - Essay Example

Running Head: The Special Court for Sierra Leone Introduction Sierra Leone a West African country was entangled in conflict for about eleven years. This conflict was characterized by acts of violence against the citizens of the country from various fronts. There were three major factions involved in the mayhem which included the civilians, suspected collaborators, and enemy combatants. During the long period of the conflict, there were so many atrocities committed ranging from acts of sexual violence, amputation, use of child combatants, mass killing, mutilation, forced recruitment into the armed gangs, exploitation of the diamond reserves in the country for purposes of financing the conflict, as well as abduction. After the end of the conflict, the citizens of Sierra Leone wanted the individual responsible for the conflict and the atrocities that followed to be held accountable for their actions and face justice. Nevertheless, the country at the time did not have an established judicial system and the necessary infrastructure to bring these perpetrators into book (Nzongola-Ntalaja 2000). Furthermore, the existence of Lomé Peace Agreement of 1999 was a big hindrance to the courts in the country to indict the alleged perpetrators as they were given a blanket amnesty by the aforementioned agreement. For this reason, there was an urgent need to form a court that would be capable of addressing the situation in the country, thus, the formation of The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). The United Nations Security Council and the government of Sierra Leone agreed to form The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) which was established in the year 2002 on a request from Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, the then president of Sierra Leone. Unlike the courts established by the United Nations Security Council to deal with the perpetrators of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia and the Rwandan genocide, the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) was able to dispense a diverse judicial model hence characterized as a hybrid tribunal so to speak. The main aim of the special court for Sierra Leone was to deal with the post conflict justice expeditiously, and in a more economical way unlike the local courts and tribunals in the country which were slow and more expensive, not to mention their inability to respond to the plight of the citizens in the country (Murphy 2003). This court was characterized by new ways of handling judicial processes in the post conflict situations. Such characteristics include the pressure to accomplish its mandate expeditiously, use of a very tight budget, and its location. Discussion The composition of the court includes both international and local judges, counsel, and employees. This composition allows the court to administer justice without undue influence from the domestic or international pressure. The mandate of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) is to try the persons suspected of having the greatest responsibility in perpetrating the violence that ensued in Sierra Leone during the 11 years conflict. It is worth noting that this special court is independent in its operation from the domestic legal system of Sierra Leone and as such, the court uses limited statutory guidelines from the country’s criminal law and heavily depend on international humanitarian law in its proceedings (Stover 2005). The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) statute empowers the court to prosecute violations of Article 3 under the Geneva Convention, international humanitarian law violations, and crimes against humanity. One of the major strengths witnessed in the operation of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) is the responsiveness of the court in the witness protection and management, since most of them are victims of the atrocities that ensued in Sierra Leone. The court has continued to ensure that the witness feel protected and safe during and after their testimony. This has been done by involving a variety of security resources as well as new psychosocial support program. The court in its proceedings has employed a primarily prudent as well as concerned method in the treatment of witnesses particularly during the proceedings. It should however be noted that the care for these witnesses can be enhanced further if the court ensures that key witnesses in the course of the trial proceedings do not feel uncomfortable due to any form of digress cased by commentaries within the courtroom (Gurd 2005). The court should therefore, design principles that outline what amount to witness intimidation or even harassment during the trial proceedings, as this may facilitate equal treatment of all witnesses in the special court, and also boost the cooperation of the witnesses in giving their testimony. It is pertinent to mention that, the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) has also worked extensively in its effort to involve different sectors of the society in Sierra Leone to work with it. The court is able to achieve this by dissemination information to the citizens of Sierra Leone about the court, principles of human rights as well as the trial proceedings. In addition, the court uses the views and opinion of the citizens to inform its programs and the purposes of such programs (Perriello & Wierda 2006). Both the international and domestic activists in the civil society hold with high regard this outreach section of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). In an effort to alleviate its legacy, the court has held conferences aimed at commemorating victims of the violence and to encourage other players in Sierra Leone to engage in promoting the rule of law. The court has further adopted measures to ensure that more staffs are hired from Sierra Leone in the available international posts of the special court. The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) has been termed as a hybrid court due to its effort to employ an approach that strikes a balance between the application of the localized interpretation of the international legal norms, precedents as well as conventions in a way that would ensure justice is dispensed fairly and expeditiously in light of the circumstances in the country. The use of the term hybrid justice in reference The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) should therefore be perceived as drawing attention to the importance of the opposing concern that the operations of the special court seek to deal with in the best way possible (Wald 2002). The appropriateness of the term hybrid justice in the case of The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) cannot be over emphasized, as the term clearly highlights double impact of the court’s operation and emphasizes composition of the special court. The court attempts to develop a viable model of a mixed composition for tribunals and courts which may employ such approach in future. It is also the aim of the special court to positively influence Sierra Leone’s judicial and social circumstances. In the standards for prosecuting individuals who perpetrated atrocities in Sierra Leone the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) was the first court to employ greatest responsibility standards unlike the Arusha and Hague based United Nations tribunals with the mandate to try individuals responsible for the commission of felonies. The critics of the approach by the prosecutor (greatest responsibility standard), argue that such an approach is likely to be ineffective in the fight against impunity in Sierra Leone (Stedman et al 2002). In their argument, the indictment of a few individuals who are alleged to bear the greatest responsibility, would exempt other persons who were responsible in the commission of heinous acts during the conflict in Sierra Leone. The interpretation of the prosecution mandate coupled with the financial, political and temporal constraints pose a big challenge to the prosecution in the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). It follows that the due to the aforementioned constrains, the prosecution is unable to prosecute a good number of high ranked persons responsible for the commission of crimes under the international criminal law and hold them legally accountable for their actions. It has been argued that the new structure of the (SCSL) was informed by the failures and successes encountered by tribunals formed in the past, such as the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda ("I.C.T.R.") and the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia ("I.C.T.Y.") (Basoglu et al 2007). It therefore follows that the formation of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) was a consulted effort by the United Nations Security Council to create an international criminal tribunal that is more effective and efficient. Unlike the two previous tribunals ("I.C.T.Y.") and ("I.C.T.R.") which were situated outside of Yugoslavia and Rwanda respectively and sparked a sharp criticism on that decision by the United Nations, the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) was located in the capital city of Sierra Leone Freetown. The location of the special court within Sierra Leone is likely to achieve the purpose of its set up which is assist the country to reconstruct a judicial system that is credible, effective and strong. Thus, the decision by the United Nations to establish the special court within the country’s territory is very critical as the people of Sierra Leone will have an opportunity to access and follow the judicial process (Bangura 2005). There are however a number of procedural and structural shortfalls associated with the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) and which may present a number of challenges in the operations of the court. These inadequacies include: the Lomé peace Agreement which contains amnesty provisions to alleged perpetrators, the inability of the special court to invoke powers under chapter VII, the financial restraints of the court, and the limited jurisdiction given to the Special. The aforementioned shortfall of the court may present surmountable impediments in the efforts of the special court to bring to justice the perpetrators of crimes in Sierra Leone during the conflict. The limited jurisdiction of the special court may prove to be quite prohibitive in the efforts of the court to bring to justice the responsible perpetrators. Notwithstanding the fact that the conflict in Sierra Leone began way back in the year 1991, the United Nations granted the special court temporally jurisdiction to investigate and determine concerns which dates back from the year 1996 and nothing more. Even though the decision by the United Nations was aimed at reducing the burden of prosecution in the context of the duration in the 11 years conflict, the decision has been termed as unfair and arbitrary particularly the limited temporal jurisdiction of the court (Abdullah 1997). Due to lack of chapter VII powers under the United Nations, the special court could not oblige other states to comply with it request to provide evidence regarding the conflict in the country. In addition, other nations bear no responsibility of arresting a person who is alleged to have perpetrated crimes in Sierra Leone and has sought an asylum in that other country. Conclusion The establishment of the Special Court for Sierra Leone was aimed at providing a novel approach by the government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations Security Council to international justice adjudicated in the country where such crimes took place. The aim of establishing this special court within Sierra Leone was to assist the country in the reconstruction of a judicial system that is credible, effective and strong. Thus, the decision by the United Nations and the collaboration of the Sierra Leone government to establish the special court within the country’s territory was very critical as the people of Sierra Leone will have an opportunity to access and follow the judicial process. Structure of the (SCSL) was informed by the failures and successes encountered by tribunals formed in the past, such as the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda ("I.C.T.R.") and the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia ("I.C.T.Y."). The court was characterized by new ways of handling judicial processes in the post conflict situations. Such characteristics include the pressure to accomplish its mandate expeditiously, use of a very tight budget, and its location. The special court was therefore created to deal with the post conflict justice expeditiously, and in a more economical way unlike the local courts and tribunals. References Abdullah, I (1997), Lumpen Youth Culture and Political Violence: Sierra Leoneans Debate the RUF and the Civil War, African Development, Vol. 22 no 6, pp 171-215 Bangura, Z. (2005), Sierra Leone: Ordinary Courts and the Special Court, Justice Initiative, Feb 2005, 54-58. Accessed 12/4/2010 from: http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0LBKqqzcrMc%3D&tabid=176 Basoglu, M et al (2007), Psychiatric and Cognitive Effects of War in Former Yugoslavia: Association of lack of redress for trauma and posttraumatic stress reactions, JAMA Vol.294 no 5, pp 580-590. Gurd, T. (2005), Individualizing International Justice in Africa: Focusing on the victims, Justice Initiative, Feb 2005: 48-53 Accessed 12/4/2010 from: http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=0LBKqqzcrMc%3D&tabid=176 Murphy, W. (2003), Military Patrimonialism and Child Soldier Clientelism in Liberian and Sierra Leone Civil Wars, African Studies Review, Vol. 46 no 2, pp 61-87. Nzongola-Ntalaja, G (2000), Unpacking the Lome Peace Agreement in Abdel Fatau Musah (ed), Sierra Leone: One Year after Lomé, London: CDD Perriello, T., & Wierda, M (2006), the Special Court for Sierra Leone under Scrutiny, New York: International Center for Transitional Justice. The Lomé Peace Agreement (1999). Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Article (2002). Stedman, S et al (2002), Ending Civil Wars: the Success and Failure of Negotiated Settlements in Civil War, Lanham, MD: Lynne Rienner Stover, E (2005), The Witnesses, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press Wald, PM (2002), Dealing with witnesses in war crime trials: Lessons from the Yugoslav tribunal, Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, Vol. 5 no1, pp 217-239. Read More