The Taylor trial and its significance to international criminal law

The international court’s proceedings, indictment and charges on charles taylor of liberia. the details of the crime and case are to be found in the internet, relevant books and journal articles.

Ex-Liberian President Charles Taylor faced trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), which moved international criminal justice into limelight for nearly half a decade. There is no doubt that the prosecution of a former Head of State received much international attention. The Appeals Chamber of SCSL found Charles Taylor guilty and he has been sentenced to imprisonment for 50 years.

Keeping in view, the significance of the Charles Taylor case, the Taylor trial judgment has been discussed by several international journals including the International Criminal Justice Journal. The trial of Charles Taylor is the first completed criminal appeals process in which the fate of a former Head of State has been judged by the modern international criminal law. However, considerable debate has been going on if the SCSL can be treated as the pro-first international criminal tribunal that was going to try a Head of State. For this purpose, the sentencing of Karl Donitz that was done by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg has been mentioned as he was the Head of the German Reich for nearly twenty days before capitulation of Germany. However, as the International Military Tribunal could not succeed in completing the appeal process, credit needs to be given to the SCSL of being the first Tribunal to accomplish this historical task (Briody, 2005). The magnitude of this task can be seen from the time that was taken by the global society to completely try, a previous Head and also from the realistic obstacles that have been faced by other courts, like the unfinished Milosevic’s trial that took place before the ICTY or the failure in arresting Bashir for facing trial before the International Criminal Court. Therefore, in terms of a legal perspective, theSCSL should not only be judged on account of such historic achievement but also keeping in view the soundness of its factual and legal findings (Cohn, 2001).

Considering the activities of SCSL since May 2002, when the first investigations took place, it becomes very clear that it was not an easy task to bring Charles Taylor to trial. The Court had to face a lot of challenges. These included demanding legal queries, financial constraints, the annoyingly sluggish speed of proceedings, lack of interest on the part of the people of Sierra Leone towards the end of the verdict, the difficult relationship. That was present with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and also the PGS security situation during the early years of operation. At the same time, further challenges are added that were exclusive to the Taylor trial. These included the requirement for the Tribunal to operate in three different nations and two different continents (Crane, 2006). However these are only some of the challenges among a large number of challenges that were present in the success of the proceedings in the court. However, in the end, SCSL were successful in dealing with all these challenges and completed its mandate. In this way, it contributed in the transition of Sierra Leone to peace and democracy. Now, looking at the past, a large number of problems that were faced by the court looks like less keen as compared to the other experiences related with the international criminal regulations.

Challenges faced by the Special Court for Sierra Leone in prosecuting the Taylor case

In the beginning of the proceedings, the sponsors of the court wanted that the court should convey justice in a period of 3 years. However in the end, the court took more than a decade for accomplishing its mandate. Only the Taylor case took more than 6 years. During the 11 years of being of the SCSL, the tribunal provided 13 sentences against the affiliates belonging to all the warring factions (Danner, Marston and Martinez, 2005). This resulted in eight convictions (not including the Taylor conviction). There was only one accused, Johnny Paul Koroma who could not be arrested by the authorities and was believed to be deceased. Two other accused died shortly after the charges were framed against them. Another accused, Sam Hinga Norman died soon prior to the decision day in Civil Defense Forces Trial. Other than the main “atrocity” trials, the prosecution also started 12th contempt proceedings, which resulted in 10 convictions (Deen-Racsma and Zsuzsanna, 2005).

After the Taylor verdict, the SCSL transformed into Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone shortly after it had completed its directive. The RSCSL statute provides that the court will carry on the “jurisdiction, rights and obligations and functions” of the SCSL.

The Charles Tyler case: Charles Taylor has been accused by the Court of court accusations of crimes against humankind (including murder, sexual slavery, rape and additional inhuman acts), 4 accusations of violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II (These included murder, acts of terrorism, cruel treatment, outrage on a smell dignity, pillage etc.). Similarly, he was also charged for construction and the use of child soldiers. It was also alleged against him that Taylor had committed these crimes on the soil of Sierra Leone between 1996 and 2002 remotely from Liberia. The trial court found Taylor guilty on all 11 counts in 2002. Although the conviction of Taylor had the trial may not surprising for a casual observer, he was in reality, convicted for much less than he was charged with in the beginning by the prosecution (Elagab, 2004). In this regard, the opinion of the prosecution was that Taylor had acted along with the rebel leaders of Sierra Leone (the RUF and AFRC). Therefore the prosecution believed that Taylor and his co-conspirators had the intention of committing all the crimes that were perpetrated during the civil war going on in Sierra Leone. However this claim was rejected by the judges as they arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution could not succeed in establishing the allegation that an agreement was forged by Taylor with the levels of Sierra Leone for perpetrating atrocities against Sierra Leone people (Farah, 2004).

The Charles Taylor case: Charges and convictions

On the other hand, according to the Trial Chamber, Taylor was an accessory. As a result he was convicted for abetting and aiding and also preparing for crimes in a narrow time structure that was between August, 1997 and 18 January, 2002. The trial chamber also discovered that Taylor had abetted and aided these kinds as he provided practical encouragement and assistance to RUF in committing the crimes in the course of the armed actions that were carried out by this organization in Sierra Leone. In this context, it was mentioned by the trial chamber that “the common feature of different types of assistance mentioned above is is to support, sustain and enhance the operations of RUF, as well as its capability of undertaking military operations during the course of which, these crimes have been committed”. Therefore, significantly and rather controversially, it was held by the court that the military actions conducted by RUF and AFRC were inextricably associated with the crimes that have been charged in the indictment (Gberie, 2005).

As a result, an individualized evaluation of the contribution made by Taylor to the particular crimes that were committed on the territory of Sierra Leone was not necessary. It was adequate to establish that the military operations carried on by the rebels were in fact sustained by Taylor. Therefore, the trial chamber noted that due to the reason that these military operations were inextricably associated with the commission of the crimes, it was not necessary that substantial contribution to individual crimes should also be established. Moreover, it was also discovered by the trial chamber that a plan had been made by Charles Taylor to assault main cities and also Freetown, the capital, during the later part of 1998 and early 1999, and it was the time when these kinds have taken place (Haffajee, 2006). Concerning the knowledge that can be attributed to Taylor, it was discovered by the trial chamber that in fact, Charles Taylor knew very well regarding the carnage, in any case when he became the president of Liberia in August 1997.

Several challenges introduced by the defense on appeal raised questions regarding the assessment of proof done by the trial adjudicators. The particulars of this case and generally the facts related with the Civil War were very complex unsurprisingly. The trial judgment had elaborately relied on circumstantial and hearsay evidence (Hirsch, 2001).

Other than the questions related with evidence, one controversial point on appeal was the meaning of ‘aiding and abetting’ and if this form of retribution means that the accused should have added with “specific direction” in the crime. In this regard, the court had expressed the view that the actus reus of aiding and abetting does not need this type of “specific direction”. In this context, the court depended on the ICTY precedence in Perisic Trial judgment and also in the Mrksic appeal judgment. While the other cases before the SCSL. In fact made it such an element, the rejection of the need for such element in the case of Charles Taylor is notable. On the other hand in Perisic appeals judgment, it has been controversially mentioned by ICTY appeals chamber that “specific direction” is a essential constituent related with aiding and abetting (International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, 2003). Therefore the court stated that in “most of the cases, providing common aid that may be used for lawful as well as unlawful activities, is not alone enough for establishing that this aid has been particularly directed to crimes of main performers. Under these circumstances, for the purpose of entering a conviction on the basis of aiding and abetting, the evidence which establishes a direct link between the aid given by the charged person and the relevant crimes that have been committed by main executors is required”.

Analysis of the Taylor case from the perspective of international law

Another point that needs to be noted in SCSL Appeals Chambers regarding this issue is remarkable. Therefore, it needs to be mentioned that in CDF case, it had mitigated the accused from criminal liability for abetting and aiding by giving military apparatus that has been later on used in committing the crimes (Keen, 2005). At the time of this contribution, the fighters of CDF were notorious for committing atrocities against the civilian population. However, it was mentioned by the appeals chamber that the “provision of logistics is not sufficient for establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has contributed in the form of aging and abetting the commission of particular criminal acts”. Therefore, there are striking similarities present with the case of Charles Taylor. While critically analyzing the legal findings of the trial chamber, some experts have highlighted significant deficiencies in the try statement of Charles Taylor, placing the assessment of the judgment within the wider international criminal regulation jurisprudence related with personal criminal liability by dealing with the outcome of the ruling given in the appeal in the Perisic case.

As already mentioned, the importance of the case of Charles Taylor is generally due to the detail that Taylor was impeached when he was the head of state of Liberia. The appeals chamber had sacked the legal issues related with any claim of immunity in 2004 before the arrest of Charles Taylor and the initial appearance in 2006 (by this time, Charles Taylor had already stepped down from presidency). As a result, any issue related with immunity did not feature in the appeal judgment. However, the special status of Taylor as the Head of State at the time when he supposedly took part in the offenses in Sierra Leone was considered as an aggravating circumstance, while delivering the judgment. The special status of Charles Taylor and the extraterritoriality of the actions of Taylor dropped all the mitigating circumstances (Kelsall, 2004). While critically analyzing the sentencing judgment, some experts have pointed out towards some of the possible flaws of the sentence for imprisonment of 50 years, in particularly dealing with the fact that Taylor has been offender as an outcome lies and not as the principal perpetrator of the crime when this sentence given by Charles Taylor was compared with other offenders of SCSL.

When the sentence that was imposed on Charles Taylor was compared with the other convicts of SCSL, it was concluded by the analysts that the sentence for imprisonment of 50 years may be inconsistent. Keeping in view, the detail that extraterritoriality of the actions of Taylor was treated as an aggravating circumstance is noteworthy. Here the silence of the chamber regarding the nature of the conflict while delivering the verdict is particularly notable. In other judgments of the SCSL, it was found that regardless of supposed aid provided by Liberia, the character was non-international. If this holding is treated as being true, the crimes committed in international military clashes will regularly require a elevated punishment.

Conclusion

In earlier cases, the SCSL, appeal Chambers judges had upheld the conviction and the sentences of RUF and AFRC commanders in Sierra Leone. Simultaneously, the lower sentences imposed by the trial chamber have also been overturned by the judges and the verdicts of the Civil Defense Forces commanders were also augmented. It is still not clear if the recent controversial decision that has been given in the case against General Mom?ilo Perisic by the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber had also influenced the Taylor’s appeal. In this case, the ICTY Appeals Chamber had reversed the conviction by trial chamber of Perisic and stated that “specific direction” is necessary for aiding and abetting conviction, particularly when the accused was at a remote location from the crimes. In case of Charles Taylor, apart from planning the attacks by RUF and AFRC that included the attack on Freetown during 1999, Charles Taylor was also held guilty of aiding and abetting crimes that have been committed in Sierra Leone while he remained in Liberia. As a result, the SCSL appeals chamber did not rule out regarding the exact direction condition in terms of aging and abetting as mentioned by the ICTY judges even if this ground has been raised by the defense of Charles Taylor on appeal.

In this way, the Court has applied both international as well as domestic law. On one hand, it prosecuted Taylor for offenses against humanity, the violation of Art. 3 that are universal to Geneva conventions and the additional protocol II as well as as other violations of the global humanitarian regulations and at the same time, also for the Sierra Leonean crimes like rape and arson.

In this way, after many years of deliberations, the court found Mr. Charles Taylor guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity on account of the role played by him in fomenting widespread brutality. It was claimed by the prosecutors that the motivation for Mr. Taylor to commit these gruesome crimes was not any ideology, but instead pure avarice and thirst for power.

References

Briody, Tom. (2005) Feature: Defending war crimes in Africa: The Special Court for Sierra Leone. The Champion, 29, 34–35

Cohn, Ilene. (2001) The protection of children and the quest for truth and justice in Sierra Leone. Journal of International Affairs, 55(1), 2–37

Crane, David. (2006) Current issues brief: Charles Taylor on trial. United States Institute of Peace. [Online]. Available: www.usip.org/events 

Danner, Allison Marston, and Martinez, Jenny (2005) Guilty associations: Joint criminal enterprise, command responsibility, and the development of international criminal law. California Law Review, 93, 77–169

Deen-Racsma´ NY, Zsuzsanna. (2005) Prosecutor v. Taylor: The status of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and its implications for immunity. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18, 299–322.

Elagab, Omer Yousif. (2004) The Special Court for Sierra Leone: Some constraints. International Journal of Human Rights, 8(3), 249–274.

Farah, Douglas. (2004) Blood from Stones: The Secret Financial Network of Terror (New York: Broadway Books).

Gberie, Lansana. (2005) A Dirty War in West Africa: The RUF and the Destruction of Sierra Leone (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).

Haffajee, Rebecca. (2006) Note: Prosecuting crimes of rape and sexual violence at the ICTR: The application of Joint Criminal Enterprise Theory. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 29, 201–221.

Hirsch, John. (2001) Sierra Leone: Diamonds and the Struggle for Democracy (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers)

International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. (2003) Prosecutor v. Ojdanic, et al Case No. IT-99-37-AR72 Separate Opinion of Judge David Hunt on Challenge by Ojdanic to Jurisdiction Joint Criminal Enterprise, May 21. [Online]. Available: https://www.un.org/icty 

Keen, David. (2005) Conflict and Collusion in Sierra Leone (New York: Palgrave).

Kelsall, Tim. (2004) Politics, Anti-Politics, International Justice: Notes on the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Paper presented at the conference “Settling Accounts: Truth, Justice and Redress in Post-Conflict Societies, November 1–4, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.