 |
The Special Court for Sierra Leone
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
- UN Security Council Calls for Taylor's Arrest
- Chief Prosecutor Calls for Nigeria to Extradite Taylor
ABOUT THE SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE
The Special Court is a hybrid or 'mixed' tribunal, comprising both international and domestic elements. The Court was set up at the request of President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah, President of Sierra Leone, in June 2000 to help bring justice to the country following a brutal ten year civil war which began in 1991. The UN Security Council came to the conclusion that the situation in Sierra Leone posed a threat to international peace and security and, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, passed resolution 1315 on August 14, 2000. The Court became operational in 2003 in Sierra Leone's capital Freetown.
The Conflict
Sierra Leone is a nation with diamond fields. These diamond fields have
caused long-term instability and corruption in the country as a result of power
struggles over their control. During the 1990s,
conflict erupted in Sierra Leone between the Revolutionary United Front (RUF),
led by Liberian sponsored warlord Foday Sankoh, and militias loyal to other
factions and the Government. This conflict was characterized by mass killings,
mutilations, sex crimes and other grave human rights abuses. Members of both
sides are accused of gross human rights violations under international law.
Peace efforts were concluded in the Lome Peace Accords of July 1999, but the conflict reignited in May 2000 when the RUF took 500 UN peacekeepers hostage and renewed its offensive against the government. The conflict was finally brought to a halt by a small British military intervention.
Since the end of the conflict, Britain and the UN have made efforts to rebuild the country's governing system, however, Sierra Leone remained unable to administer widespread justice and hold those responsible for the atrocities accountable. Therefore, the Special Court was created to bring those bearing the most responsibility for the crimes committed during the civil war to justice. The Court will also aim to provide a legacy of justice in Sierra Leone and support the development of rule of law institutions.
The Court
According to its Statute, the Court will prosecute "persons who bear the
greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law
and Sierra Leonean law." The Statute also provides for the prosecution of
criminal offences under Sierra Leonean law, including particular sexual offences
against girls and the wanton destruction of property. The Court can prosecute accused persons over 15 years old
- an age limit lower than that of other international tribunals, which was tailored to the specific
conditions of the conflict.
The Court complements domestic courts; it does not automatically override their jurisdiction. Domestic courts can hear relevant cases, but must defer to the Court's competence if it so requests. This has so far not posed a problem for either tribunal. Also, the Court has jurisdiction over the nationals of any State, but can only involving crimes committed on the territory of Sierra Leone. Finally, prosecutions can only be made in regards to acts committed 'since 30 November 1996'. This start date has been much criticized as it doesn't cover all the atrocities committed during the entire conflict.
The Court and The Peace Process
Under heavy international pressure for peace, the initial 1999 agreements
granted immunity from prosecution by the Government to some parties
involved in the conflict. During the initial establishment of the Court, this
issue become somewhat contentious as the future of those who had
already been granted immunity was debated. The UN Security Council finally ruled in
Resolution 1315 that immunities granted under the Lome Accords did not bar
prosecution for international crimes.
The Court set another precedent in International Law by indicting the former head of state in Liberia, Charles Taylor. In May 2003 the Court ruled that Taylor did not enjoy immunity from prosecution by the Court although he was serving as Head of State at the time when criminal proceedings were initiated. This ruling asserted that Heads of State and high-ranking government officials are not absolved of criminal responsibility for serious international crimes.
