Michael P. Scharf and |
War Crimes Prosecution Watch Volume 4 - Issue 12 |
Editor in Chief Managing Editor Senior Technical Editor |
War Crimes Prosecution Watch is a bi-weekly e-newsletter that compiles official documents and articles from major news sources detailing and analyzing salient issues pertaining to the investigation and prosecution of war crimes throughout the world. To subscribe, please email warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org and type "subscribe" in the subject line.
International Criminal Court
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Special Court for Sierra Leone
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia
Uganda (Truth & Reconciliation & Domestic Prosecutions / Non-ICC)
Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
Central African Republic & Uganda
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Cases: Central African Republic
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Uganda
Congo Ministers Attacked in Bemba Trial “Warning”
Reuters
By Joe Bavier
August 31, 2009
Gunmen opened fire on the homes of two Congolese ministers in an attack aimed at scaring them off testifying against ex-rebel Jean-Pierre Bemba in his war crimes trial, one of the officials targeted said on Monday.
Bemba backers dismissed the allegation as an attempt to discredit him before
his trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The assailants fired shots at the residences of Jose Endundo, Democratic
Republic of Congo's environment minister, and Foreign Minister Alexis
Thambwe-Mwamba on Sunday. No one was hurt and their houses were only slightly
damanged.
"They fired on the entrance gate and they left an envelope with a bullet
and a message that read "Testify against Bemba and you will die".
The same thing happened to minister Thambwe-Mwamba," Endundo told Reuters
on Monday.
The two ministers were members of Bemba's Congo Liberation Movement (MLC) that
fought against Kabila's government during
Neither minister has been called as a witness against Bemba but both were
senior MLC members.
Bemba, who was arrested in
Bemba has denied all the charges against him and, earlier this month, the ICC
ordered his conditional release pending his trial. The court's prosecutor has
appealed against the decision.
The MLC, currently the largest opposition group in parliament, said the attacks
were part of a plot to derail Bemba's release rather than efforts to intimidate
the ministers.
"This is a crude set-up organised by the enemies of democracy, who fear a
return of the leader of the opposition to the Congolese political scene,"
Thomas Luhaka, the MLC's acting secretary-general, told Reuters.
Bemba lost a run-off election to Kabila in 2006 polls meant to draw a line
under decades of dictatorship and a 1998-2003 war. He fled into exile following
three days of fighting between remnants of his rebel movement and government
soldiers in 2007. (Editing by David Lewis and Angus MacSwan)
DRC War Crimes Suspect to Stay in Custody
United Press International
September 3, 2009
The International Criminal Court at The Hague says a former Democratic Republic of Congo official will remain in custody until his war crimes trial.
The criminal court's appeals chamber ruled that former Congolese Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo must remain in custody in order to ensure his appearance at his upcoming war crimes and crimes against humanity trial, the United Nations said in a release Thursday.
Gombo had initially been granted a temporary release with conditions in August. The former senior DRC official is accused of committing war crimes in 2002 and 2003 in the Central African Republic.
ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo fought to have the temporary release order appealed on grounds Gombo may flee ahead of his trial. The date of the trial was not reported.
Moreno-Ocampo also voiced concerns that if granted his temporary freedom, Gombo could potentially target witnesses set to testify in his trial.
Decision Postponing the Hearings with States on Mr. Jean_Pierre
Bemba Gombo’s Conditional Release
ICC
September 4, 2009
On 3 September 2009, Pre-Trial Chamber II issued a decision postponing the public hearings on Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo's conditional release, until the Appeals Chamber has ruled on the appeal against the decision made on14 August 2009, on interim release. The hearings were initially scheduled to be held on 7 to 11 September and on 14 September, with representatives of the Kingdom of Belgium, the Republic of Portugal, the Republic of France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Italian Republic, and the Republic of South Africa.
Pre-Trial Chamber II had invited those States, to which Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo requested to be released, to provide informative observations on the questions of his interim release onto their territory and any possible set of conditions restricting liberty to be imposed.
Judge Trendafilova, acting as Single Judge, noted the Appeals Chamber decision of 3 September 2009, granting suspensive effect to the Prosecutor’s appeal against the decision on the interim release of Mr Bemba. Being mindful of the possibility that the Appeals Chamber overturns the decision on the interim release, the Single Judge considered it unfeasible, at this stage, to proceed with convening the public hearings as initially scheduled. The Single Judge also took into consideration the need to preserve the Court's resources.
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Darfur, Sudan
Sudan: Panel to Back 'Home-Grown' Justice for Darfur?
AllAfrica.com
September 2, 2009
The high-level African Union (AU) panel appointed to help end the Darfur conflict is reported to be advocating a South African-style "truth and reconciliation commission" and special courts to try war crimes suspects in the region.
The Sudan Tribune reports that unidentified Sudanese government officials have told the newspaper, Al-Sahafa, that the panel - headed by former South African president Thabo Mbeki - will recommend "home-grown justice mechanisms" as part of efforts to achieve a settlement in Darfur.
The AU has said it appointed the panel to make recommendations on how to "expedite and harmonise the processes of peace, reconciliation and justice" in Darfur.
The reported proposal would constitute a "middle way" between prosecuting Sudanese government officials at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague and granting them effective immunity.
The ICC has issued arrest warrants for Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir and two other senior officials on charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity arising out of the Darfur conflict. The court investigated alleged crimes in Darfur on the basis of a mandate, issued in 2005, by the United Nations Security Council.
But this year's AU summit, apparently under heavy pressure from Libya, resolved not to cooperate with the ICC in arresting the Sudanese leaders. Botswana accused Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, who chaired discussion of the matter, of allowing little debate.
The Sudan Tribune reported Tuesday that Mbeki had lobbied intensively to prevent the summit from taking its stand, arguing that it would undermine the work of his panel. The Tribune said Sudanese officials had now told Al-Sahafa that the panel would recommend "special or hybrid courts and a prosecutor in Sudan" to bring Darfur war crimes suspects to trial. The officials suggested that "all people would be equally treated before the judiciary."
However, Darfur rebel groups told the Tribune that Mbeki's panel was trying to circumvent the ICC. The Tribune quoted Justice and Equality Movement spokesman Ahmed Hussein as saying: "We reject in its entirety any direction to establish courts or venues for justice in the manner described in this report. This is nothing short [of]... an attempt to find an exit for Bashir. Only the ICC can handle the Darfur prosecutions."
Other members of the AU panel include the former Nigerian president, General Abdulsalami Abubakar, former Burundian president Pierre Buyoya and Zambia's Justice Florence Mumba.
Sudan Says Mbeki Panel to Recommend Hybrid Courts for Darfur
Crimes
Sudan Tribune
Septmeber 2, 2009
A commission established by the African Union (AU) this year to look into ways to resolve the Darfur conflict in Western Sudan will recommend homegrown justice mechanisms to look into war crime issues, Sudanese officials said.
The independent Al-Sahafa newspaper quoted unidentified Sudanese officials from Cairo, where presidential assistant Nafi Ali Nafi is currently visiting, as saying that the panel stressed to them that Darfur conflict should be resolved within the comprehensive approach to the crisis in Sudan.
The panel headed by the former South African president Thabo Mbeki suggested a conference which would include the government and opposition as well as rebel groups, NGO’s and civilian administration in Darfur, the officials said.
The eight-member panel was established by the AU last February in response to the imminent issuance of arrest warrant by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for Sudanese president Omer Hassan Al-Bashir which came a month later.
The mandate of the panel has not been made public but it includes conducting an "in-depth assessment of the situation in Darfur" as it relates "to human rights and international humanitarian law violations and abuses."
It will also assess the measures taken by Khartoum authorities to address the violations in Darfur in terms of justice and the impact of the ICC on the North-South peace process concluded in 2005.
The AU has slammed the ICC arrest warrant for Bashir and in July the pan-African body instructed its members not to cooperate with the Hague based court.
Multiple sources told Sudan Tribune at the time that Mbeki has lobbied intensely to prevent the Sirte summit from endorsing the Libyan backed proposal arguing that it will undermine the work of his commission.
The Sudanese officials told Al-Sahafa newspaper that the Mbeki panel wants a "truth and reconciliation commission" similar to that of South Africa.
The panel would also recommend special or hybrid courts and a prosecutor in Sudan to bring Darfur war crimes suspects and that all people would be equally treated before the judiciary, the officials added.
Sudan in the past has rejected any participation of non-Sudanese judges in the Darfur prosecutions.
Darfur rebel groups today dismissed the work of the panel accusing it of seeking to circumvent the ICC investigations in the war ravaged region.
"We reject in its entirety any direction to establish courts or venues for justice in the manner described in this report. This is nothing short than an attempt to find an exit for Bashir. Only the ICC can handle the Darfur prosecutions," Ahmed Hussein, the spokesperson for Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) told Sudan Tribune by phone from Libya.
"We from day one had serious doubts about the impartiality of the Mbeki panel which is why we refused to meet with it. There were leakages on the part of Khartoum saying they will accept anything that the committee will come up with which means they are confident that it will come up with recommendations in their favor," Hussein added.
The JEM official stressed that Mbeki’s panel “must work for the sake of the victims not the perpetrators”.
Abdel-Wahid Al-Nur, the head of the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM), said that the panel never requested a meeting with him.
"This is a political and legal issue. As a major party to the conflict, they at a minimum should have sought to hear our [SLM] views on the conflict," Al-Nur told Sudan Tribune by phone from Paris.
"What do you expect from a panel like this? They [Mbeki panel] met with the IDP’s who told them that they want security and prosecuting criminals at the ICC. However, they came afterwards to say something totally different" Al-Nur said.
The SLM chief slammed the AU saying that the latter has not “dared” to condemn the Darfur atrocities “all these years."
"The AU stripped the Darfuris from their humanity. They are supporting the government of Sudan. In any of their summit did anyone mention the genocide in Darfur? Therefore I do not expect anything positive from the panel. They came to save Bashir and others from the ICC under the cover of Africa," Al-Nur said.
"If the report is true it just proves that the findings of the panel were prefixed with Khartoum," he added.
The Mbeki panel is scheduled to submit its report to the AU by the end of September. Its deadline was extended from the original deadline of July.
Sudan: ICC Must Consider the Security of War Victims
AllAfrica.com
By Chidi Anselm Odinkalu
September 7, 2009
At the conclusion of its Summit in Sirte, Libya, on July 1, 2009, the assembly of heads of state and government of the African Union (AU) decided that "AU member states shall not co-operate... in the arrest and surrender of President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan."
In a press release issued two weeks later, on July 14, the organisation explained that this decision "bears testimony to the glaring reality that the situation in Darfur is too serious and complex an issue to be resolved without recourse to a harmonised approach to justice and peace, neither of which should be pursued at the expense of the other."
This AU resolution responds to the decision of the judges of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in March 2009 to issue a warrant for the arrest of President Bashir in connection with alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur, western Sudan. The AU's decision has rightly been criticised on legal and policy grounds.
The AU Summit is not the place to decide issues about the ICC because 23 of the 53 members of the AU have not yet accepted the ICC and this decision is capable of giving the unintended impression that the AU tolerates impunity for mass atrocities in Africa.
hat it does, however, is provide an opportunity to acknowledge and confront the many challenges currently facing international justice in Africa.
THE GREATEST FEARS ABOUT THE role that international justice is playing in Africa arise not from crimes behind us but in connection with a mass atrocity that some informed people foresee and all must work to prevent -- a disintegration of Sudan into a regional killing field.
I was born a refugee into the Nigerian civil war in which an estimated two million people were killed in 30 months. Most people in our continent are, like me, children of war, want, and deprivation caused mostly by bad government. Like the rest of the world, our needs are basic.
We desire a world in which our people, families and ourselves can harness our abilities in dignity, peace and justice under government that is for us and not against us.
In most of our countries, these basic expectations of citizenship are illusory. This is why most of us supported the establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC). For us, justice for mass atrocities is intimately personal.
We believed the court would help to end high-level impunity for mass atrocities, enabling us to attain the best we are capable of.
Yet a little over five years since the Court received its first case from Uganda in 2003, the initial optimism from Africa that greeted it has been replaced by hardened scepticism from traditional opponents and, most worryingly, by fear among victims and host communities uncertain whether the court can help them.
THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ICC RE-presented a major breakthrough in international diplomacy: the creation of a mutually respectful consensus around the compelling idea of bringing to account those who bear the greatest responsibility for the worst crimes known to humanity.
But today mutual recrimination has replaced respectful dialogue, debates on the ICC often degenerate into epithets and supportive diplomacy is absent.
Criticism of the Court, no matter how constructive, risks being denounced as endorsing impunity; support for it, no matter how reasonable, is easily branded imperialism or its agent.
In authorising the arrest of Bashir, ICC judges agreed that he had a case to answer for his alleged role in war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in Darfur. But the execution of the warrant without an adequately managed transition could create a power vacuum in Khartoum, unleashing destabilising tremors beyond Sudan's borders.
Consequently, all nine countries that share a border with Sudan are on a war footing. Without a government for two decades, nearby Somalia is already a major destabilising factor in the region.
Uganda's murderous Lord's Resistance Army, long supported by Khartoum and whose leaders are also wanted by the ICC, is regrouping in vast ungoverned border territory between Sudan, Uganda and DR Congo.
The 2005 comprehensive peace agreement (CPA) that ended Sudan's half century-long north-south war risks breaking down, while the Darfur crisis in western Sudan remains active.
These uncertainties drive an undisguised arms race in the region. If the CPA collapses, many fear a transnational atrocity site like none this region has known.
I recognise most of those who harbour these fears. They are
neither pillaging presidents nor ravaging rebels. Like the child refugee I was
a few decades ago, they are victims driven by neither dollar nor dinar; widowed
refugees from their homesteads, unsure whether the next meal will come or
whether they will be alive at the next dawn
VICTIMS NOW SEEM TO BE THE PEOple paying the highest cost for international justice. They suffer threats of death, exile, and other forms of persecution for their commitment to justice with little protection, assistance or acknowledgement from governments or international institutions.
I have heard claims that those who express uncertainties about the work of the ICC in Africa may have been purchased by powerful enemies of justice. This makes victims seem expendable and discredits their well-founded fears as dubious.
Most victims need reassurance that when the neighbourhood mass murderer arrives, their only defence is not the promise of a warrant from a distant tribunal on thin resources. They are right in asking that the promise of justice should be accompanied by credible protection from reprisals. The ICC's friends must address this.
While the misbegotten duel between supposed imperialists and alleged impunity apologists persists, the deadly business of mass atrocities continues unchecked, its victims in Africa fret, and the credibility of the ICC suffers.
To overcome these difficulties, four things are needed. First, the ICC's resources must be improved to focus more on winning back the trust of victims through better outreach and effective protection. Thus, better co-ordination is needed between African governments, the ICC, the UN at its highest levels, governments and philanthropies.
Next, the African Union must translate its rhetoric against impunity into a programme of action, showing that African lives matter and it will not issue a free pass to those -- big or small -- who violate Africans.
Third, principled multilateral diplomacy is needed to reassure both governments and victims that the Great Lakes countries will not be allowed to become a killing field. In particular, the five permanent members of the Security Council should use their strategic heft to engage intensively with this looming crisis.
Finally, we must re-establish mutual respect among people in the advocacy communities who sometimes disagree as to means but mostly agree as to ends.
From Idi Amin to Al-Bashir: A Critical Moment for
International Criminal Justice
Huffington Post
September 8, 2009
An estimated 300,000 to 500,000 people died under his brutal reign of terror. Justice was never served. 80,000 of the country's minority, named "bloodsuckers" by the tyrant, were expelled with 90 days to flee their property and possessions. Justice was never served. No, this is not al-Bashir's Sudan. This is Uganda, and at the helm of hell was military dictator and President Idi Amin, who died in exile on Saudi Arabian soil in 2003. Following his 8 years as ruler of Uganda in the 1970s, Idi Amin spent 24 years unpunished, living seaside in the Kingdom. The rivers of justice ran dry as the former President soaked up the sun for more than two decades.
Back then, a system of justice that was unrestrained by geographical borders was merely an armchair exercise in intellectual idealism. Today, that very system is now permanent, global, and on the front lines of the justice business, gradually giving a resounding voice to the victims of the world's gravest crimes. Much of the conversation surrounding international criminal justice focuses on the capacity, credibility, and complexity of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
However, the system of international criminal justice depends on a much larger framework of international institutions, nation states, non-governmental organizations, regional courts, international law enforcement bodies, and new entities working toward the control of violence, the promotion of lasting security, and the manifestation of justice for the world's gravest crimes.
We simply cannot let this newly minted system of accountability slip through the cracks of politics as usual or skepticism and doubt. If we do, the moral stride of humanity will have taken one step back, rather than two steps forward. And while this new global system of justice cannot call Idi Amin to account for the litany of crimes he committed, including the expulsion of my mother and father from Uganda in 1972, the mere presence and pursuit of this international structure is touching the lives of many millions of people around the world affected by those engaged in truly heinous crimes.
The Consultative Conference on International Criminal Justice could not come at a more critical moment on the continuum of ending impunity and global cooperation in addressing mass atrocities. Convened by the Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations at Harvard University and sponsored by the MacArthur Foundation, members of the Steering Committee also include the International Criminal Court's Office of the Prosecutor, the Coalition for the International Criminal Court and the International Center for Transitional Justice. The 3-day conference hosted at the United Nations Headquarters September 9-11 is bringing together 150 high-level participants including the world's international justice experts, diplomats, scholars, jurists, and civil society actors to openly consult and better align strategies for the next three years. Landmark in nature, this is the first effort of its kind to strengthen the global system of international criminal justice.
Currently, there are four active investigations before the ICC, each with outstanding arrest warrants: Uganda; the Democratic Republic of Congo; Darfur, Sudan; and the Central African Republic. In addition, the Court also has several situations under analysis, including Colombia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Kenya and Cote d'Ivoire. Entrenched within these investigations, discussions and debates run the threads of local justice versus international justice, enforcement politics and State obligations, perceived biases towards the African continent, and last but not least, the complex relationship between the humanitarian community and the International Criminal Court.
With a number of outstanding arrest warrants and many more countries on the cusp of becoming active ICC investigations, the system of international criminal justice is at a crossroads and in need of stronger alignment amongst its actors. The time is now to understand and continue building a synergistic system that guides the agendas of many towards common goals.
At this defining moment, The Consultative Conference on International Criminal Justice aims to address these issues from the multitude of angles through which international criminal justice is perceived, strengthened, and dependent upon. Presenters include the Prosecutor, Registrar, and President of the International Criminal Court; Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda ('94-'96); Ambassadors of Mexico, Kenya and Tanzania to the United Nations; Commissioners of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, and the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights; Executive Director of Human Rights Watch; President and CEO of Save the Children; President of the Supreme Court of Justice of Colombia; and the Democratic Republic of Congo's Minister of Justice, among many others.
Crediting Canada with saving their lives, my parents had faith that such forced resettlement from Uganda would ultimately bear its fruit one day. "This was a blessing in disguise," my father said, examining the last 37 years. Others were not so lucky.
Back then, we could rationalize injustice and inaction by the international community because we lacked a common framework, permanent global institutions, and other enabling tools to save the world's most vulnerable populations. Today, these ideas are being put into practice, testing the will of humanity to fight for justice. Let us not fail this test, for if we fail, this article will be reprinted with only a handful of words changed--the main one, of course, would be replacing the name of President Idi Amin with President Omar al-Bashir. With the Arab League in support of the Sudanese president, not even the exile haven of choice would change.
Democratic Republic of the Congo (ICC)
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Commencement of the Trial in the Case of The Prosecutor v.
Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui Postponed Until 24 November 2009
ICC
August 31, 2009
Trial Chamber II of the International Criminal Court issued a decision today, 31 August 2009, postponing the commencement of the trial in the case The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui until 24 November 2009. The Chamber found that compelling reasons require that the date of 24 September 2009 initially set for the commencement of the trial be put back.
The Chamber announced that it would ensure an expeditious trial consonant with the Rome Statute and the rules, and that the time the Prosecutor needs to present his evidence is not unduly long. The Chamber underscored that several recently raised issues must be adjudicated before the trial can begin:
- The changes required to the table submitted by the Prosecutor at the request of the Chamber presenting all the evidence and the list of witnesses he intends to call. The purpose of that document is is to provide a properly structured presentation of prosecutorial evidence, particularly for the Defence;
- The need for the parties to reach agreement on evidentiary issues and for the Chamber to rule on the Defence for Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui’s request regarding the admissibility and relevance of more than 290 pieces of evidence submitted by the Prosecutor;
- The need for the Chamber to rule on the Defence for Germain Katanga’s motion of 30 June that his arrest and detention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo be declared unlawful and that the proceedings be stayed;
- The possible changes to the protective measures for witnesses called in this case, in particular those also called in the Lubanga case who have been granted protective measures by another Trial Chamber.
For these reasons, Trial Chamber II has decided to postpone the commencement of the trial in the case of The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga and Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui and to convene a status conference on 30 September 2009 at 9:30 am (The Hague local time).
Lubanga Trial Transformed By Victims
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
By Rachel Irwin
September 4, 2009
The participation of victims in the trial of Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga has fundamentally changed the course of the proceedings, observers say.
A total of 99 victims represented by seven lawyers are participating in the Lubanga trial at the International Criminal Court, ICC. The lawyers are present in the courtroom each day, where they are able to question witnesses and put their clients’ views.
It is the first time that victims have been able to present their views and concerns before an international court.
“The landscape of international criminal justice has changed perhaps forever, because of the role of the victims,” said Lorraine Smith, who monitors the ICC for the International Bar Association, IBA.
Victims can apply to participate in trials at the ICC if they are able to prove a link to the crimes in the indictment. Some are also witnesses for the prosecution.
Analysts say they have shaped the Lubanga trial – the first to take place at the ICC – in ways large and small.
However, their most significant contribution so far was the application by their lawyers to add charges of sexual slavery and cruel and inhumane treatment to the indictment, just as the prosecution prepared to close its case this spring.
Currently, Lubanga only faces charges of enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers to fight in the military wing of his group, the Union of Congolese Patriots, UPC, during the Ituri region’s inter-ethnic conflict during 2002 and 2003.
The victims’ lawyers contend that months of witness testimony on rape and severe abuse in Lubanga’s militia warranted the addition of the new charges. They say that sexual slavery was part of being a child soldier, and that sending children into combat constitutes cruel and unusual treatment.
The existing facts and witness testimony indicated additional crimes, the lawyers said, and the charges should be “reclassified” to reflect that.
A majority of the trial judges ruled on July 14 that it was possible to add new charges and controversially ruled that the new charges could be based on fresh evidence – not only on existing facts.
Both the prosecution and defence have asked for leave to appeal against the July 14 decision. The judges have not yet responded.
How this will ultimately impact the proceedings is still unclear, but the recent developments have pushed the complicated issue of victims’ participation to the forefront.
“The trial has been undeniably altered by the influence of the victims,” said Kevin Jon Heller, a senior lecturer at Melbourne Law School.
According to Heller, the idea that victims can simply ask for brand new charges mid-way through the trial is troubling.
If the judges’ July 14 decision is affirmed, he said, it would mean that the Lubanga case may need to be re-investigated.
The prosecution expressed a similar concern in their leave to appeal, writing, “The decision will require the parties to investigate, prepare and address incidents and events that were not pleaded.”
This, said Heller, could set a dangerous precedent.
“When would a defendant ever be safe, if at any point during a trial … the chamber can just re-characterise the facts to add new charges?” he told IWPR. “You can never be certain that your defence is adequate or adequately tailored to the charges, because you’ll never know what the charges are.”
But Smith, of the IBA, told IWPR that the victims are simply exercising the rights they have been given, which include presenting their views and concerns to the court.
She said that while the victims’ request has made a striking impact on the trial, it is ultimately the judges who must “ensure that the defence rights are not jeopardised at this crucial stage”.
Param-Preet Singh, a lawyer with Human Rights Watch, agreed.
“It goes back to the judges and what they decide is the proper balance, making victims participation meaningful and protecting the rights of the defence.”
Smith, however, acknowledged that the timing of the victims’ request was “unfortunate” given how far the trial had progressed.
“It really does put the defence in a difficult position,” she said. “What is important going forward is that we don’t have a situation where the presence of victims ends up being unfair.”
One of Lubanga’s defence lawyers, Jean Marie Biju-Duval, told IWPR in June that adding new charges would “gravely breach the fundamental rights of the accused and his rights of due process”. He said that new charges would mean that all the prosecution witnesses would have to return to court so that the defence could question them for a second time.
“It creates an unbearable prejudice on the accused,” Biju-Duval said.
The defence is scheduled to begin its case in October, but that date is now subject to the outcome of any appeals.
But lawyers for victims say they made their intentions clear from the very first day of the trial on January 26.
During her opening statement, Congolese lawyer Carine Bapita alleged that girl recruits were raped and beaten in Lubanga’s militia.
She told judges that the victims' “wish to reserve the right to request from your chamber a classification of the crime of sexual slavery against the accused Thomas Lubanga.”
Lawyers for victims say that the current charges have never reflected the actual experience of their clients.
“Probably the prosecution considers that obtaining a conviction is more important than the qualification of the charges, and that different aspects can be taken into account when it comes to the debate on punishment,” Luc Walleyn, a lawyer for victims, told IWPR.
“But for our clients, the number of years in prison Mr Lubanga should receive is not the first concern. They want the reality of these crimes being recognised, and that’s why we made the filing."
But Heller argues that the scope of the charges is not something the victims can control.
“Victims have an absolute right to lobby, submit briefs, argue in the court of public opinion, but it is the prosecutor’s final decision to bring charges,” he said.
As IWPR reported on June 25, the lack of sexual violence charges in Lubanga’s indictment has long been a point of contention among victims and NGOs.
While Heller acknowledged that it is “appalling” these charges were not brought in the first place, “It is not the role of victims at trial to be deciding what charges are brought.”
But advocates say that is precisely why victims’ participation exists.
“If the trial is missing the significant point of what happened in [the victims’] experience, the whole point of victims’ participation is that it can be rectified,” said Mariana Goetz, ICC programme advisor at REDRESS, which works on behalf of torture victims.
“This is a way of avoiding the excluding nature of the proceedings [at ad-hoc tribunals which do not allow victims’ participation], where you have the need for victims to mobilise in an angry way against a process because it’s not responding to their reality,” she said.
Observers acknowledge that the victims have been able to broach issues that the prosecution would not think to bring up.
“There are specific instances where victims have really added to the whole trial process and understanding of issues,” said Smith.
She pointed to the issue of names in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, DRC, which became significant after the defence noted that names of witnesses differed among the various documents submitted to the court.
Since this discrepancy could threaten witness credibility, lawyers for victims submitted an analysis on the history, process and legal context of naming in the DRC.
As a result, judges decided to bring in a Congolese expert on the subject, who will testify as court’s witness when the trial resumes.
“They have a value that they’ve brought to the process because of local expertise and knowledge,” said Smith.
Walleyn said this local expertise is crucial to the trial.
“There is a big gap between the trial in The Hague and the reality in Ituri,” he said. “Without the presence of victims, I am afraid the procedure would have been seen by many people of Ituri as a surrealistic event."
DR Congo army, rebels committed 'possible war crimes': UN
AFP
September 9, 2009
The office of the UN human rights chief on Wednesday accused the army and rebel troops in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo of having committed "possible war crimes and crimes against humanity."
In two reports detailing the conflict that took place in Nord and Sud-Kivu during October to November 2008, the United Nations office found that at least 12 cases of arbitrary killings and some 70 rapes were committed by government soldiers.
The reports compiled jointly with UN mission in Congo (MONUC) also documented at least 67 cases of arbitrary killings by Tutsi rebels from the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP).
The victims "were not killed in crossfire, but were arbitrarily executed, often inside their houses, after fighting had stopped," said the report.
"The information that has been gathered points very strongly to war crimes and crimes against humanity but you need a judicial body to determine whether or not the acts committed are war crimes under international law," said Scott Campbell, who heads the Africa section of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
He added that the reports offered only a "snapshot" of the violations that were taking place in the troubled eastern DR Congo.
"Rape and sexual violence are daily occurrences," he said, adding that "impunity is the norm."
Even if some perpetrators have been prosecuted and sentenced to jail, they are "subsequently freed or they simply walk out the door," said Campbell.
The "two reports on a series of human rights abuses, including possible war crimes and crimes against humanity... underscored the urgent need for the DRC government and the international community to institute fundamental reforms to the country's security and judicial systems," added the UN office.
The International Criminal Court has issued four arrest warrants for Congolese militiamen, including the CNDP's Bosco Ntaganda, who is still at large.
About 140,000-strong, DR Congo's army FARDC is often accused of attacking civilians, particularly in conflict zones where they are pursuing rebels from the Ugandan Lord's Resistance Army and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda.
U.N. Rights Chief Sees Possible War Crimes in Congo
Reuters
By Laura MacInnis
September 9, 2009
A top United Nations official on Tuesday decried possible war crimes and crimes against humanity in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where U.N. investigators cited both government and rebel fighters for abuses.
Navi Pillay, U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, raised particular concern about transgressions by the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) militia,
whose former leader Laurent Nkunda was arrested in January in Rwanda.
"The actions of the CNDP could well amount to war crimes or crimes against humanity, and are part of a self-perpetuating pattern of brutality in eastern DRC which continues to go largely unpunished," Pillay, a South African former war crimes judge, said in a statement alongside two U.N. reports on Congo.
Those reports, produced by the U.N. peacekeeping force in Congo and Pillay's office in Geneva, document violations that occurred during a spike in fighting in North Kivu, in October and November last year.
They found that some Congolese forces "engaged in large-scale pillages as well as arbitrary killings and sexual violence against the very people they were supposed to be protecting" as the CNDP militia approached eastern Congo towns.
The U.N. investigators documented 12 arbitrary killings and 70 rapes said to have been committed by government soldiers in Goma and Kanyabayonga. They also found CNDP rebels carried out at least 67 civilian killings, with many victims "executed, often inside their houses, after fighting had stopped."
In her statement, Pillay said that the judicial response to the abuses had been "wholly insufficient" and called for "concrete and immediate action to hold perpetrators accountable, particularly since sexual violence continues to take place on a daily basis".
"THE TERMINATOR"
The report stated that the majority of the CNDP's victims were murdered in targeted reprisal killings in Kiwanja in North Kivu on November 4 and 5 following a battle with local Mai Mai militia over control of the strategic town.
U.N. human rights researchers established that then-rebel General Jean Bosco Ntaganda was in charge of the CNDP's troops in Kiwanja at the time of the killings.
Ntaganda, who is being sought by the International Criminal Court on separate war crimes charges, was integrated into Congo's army in January along with other members of the Tutsi-dominated CNDP.
MONUC, the U.N. mission in Congo, is backing the anti-rebel operations, in which Ntaganda, known as "the Terminator," was named deputy coordinator, according to army documents and military officials.
However, the U.N. has long denied that it has any direct contact with the former rebel commander and claims it has received assurances from the Congolese government that Ntaganda is not playing a significant role in the operations.
"We know he is there. We are aware of it. He was integrated. He was given a role. And according to our partners, he does not play a role in the operations that MONUC is supporting," said Kevin Kennedy, MONUC's head of communications.
"But it isn't our job to investigate the role of Bosco Ntaganda in the (army)," he told journalists in Kinshasa.
Around 150 Indian peacekeepers from Congo's U.N. mission, known as MONUC, were based within three km (two miles) of the massacre and have been faulted by rights campaigners for not doing enough to stop the killings.
But the report said the U.N. troops were unaware of the "nature or magnitude of the situation" and would have lacked the capacity to intervene and protect the victims.
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
Rwanda Ex-Pastor Faces Genocide Charge in Finland
Reuter
By Brett Young
August 28, 2009
A 58-year-old former Baptist church pastor from Rwanda will face a possible life jail sentence for his role in the 1994 Hutu-led massacres when Finland's first genocide trial starts next week.
Francois Bazaramba, who sought asylum in Finland in 2003 and has been in detention since 2007, goes on trial on Tuesday. He denies genocide and 15 counts of murder.
Finland refused in February to extradite Bazaramba to Rwanda, saying he might not get a fair trial there. Finnish law allows its courts to try those charged with crimes like genocide wherever they took place.
"This is significant. It's important that Finland has taken this responsibility," said Kimmo Nuotio, professor of criminal law at the University of Helsinki.
"This is something for which there was no alternative. The Nordic countries have been promoting the development of an international criminal order, that there should be an end to impunity," he said.
The trial, expected to last several months, will be held in the district court of Porvoo, where Bazaramba has been living some 50 km (30 miles) east of Helsinki. It marks one of the Nordic country's highest-profile cases.
Rwanda accuses Bazaramba of orchestrating the murder of 5,000 people in the country in 1994. A total of about 800,000 minority Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed.
The case in Finland comes as the work by the Arusha, Tanzania-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) winds up. The court, set up in 1997 to try the masterminds of the massacres, had until last year to complete all trials, and has until 2010 to hear all appeals.
UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION
Reflecting the scale of the Finnish trial, the Office of the Prosecutor General said around 100 witnesses were examined in pre-trial work by the National Bureau of Investigation, most of this done abroad.
Finland's Minister of Justice, Tuija Brax, said the Nordic country was both capable and ready to host the trial.
"We have specialists and lawyers working in international fields and expertise in international criminal cases ... It's a global world, and we're not an isolated island," she told Reuters in an interview.
Similar cases had been held in France, Germany and Britain, she said.
Bazaramba, a Hutu who is married with six children, lived since 1994 in countries including the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zambia before traveling to Finland.
A court official in Porvoo said Bazaramba's trial would be heard by four judges, one more than usual given the hectic schedule which includes a trip to Rwanda. There will be no jury. A life sentence in Finland means a minimum 12 years in jail.
Finnish State Prosecutor Raija Toiviainen said Finland could proceed with the case as it had criminalized genocide and had adopted the universal jurisdiction principle.
Bazaramba is charged with genocide in the municipality of Nyakizu in April and May 1994.
Finland's neighbor Sweden in July became the first European country to approve the extradition of a suspected genocide crimes perpetrator to Rwanda, saying the African country's legal system had improved in recent years.
Rwanda: 'Witness' to Sue Bruguière
The New Times
By Felly Kimenyi
August 28, 2009
Barely days after the latest witness in the controversial Bruguiére case distanced himself, Richard Mugenzi, has threatened to take legal action against the French judge for wrongly attributing to him things he never said.
Mugenzi, who was considered a key witness in the case filed by French judge Jean Louis Bruguiére, was working as a telecommunications operator (signaller) for the former government army.
Bruguiére alleges that Mugenzi intercepted communication from the Rwandese Patriotic Army (RPA) frequencies and the information he got was linking them to the downing of the plane carrying former president Juvenal Habyarimana.
"It is very surprising when the man refers to me as his witness. It becomes even more disturbing when he attributes to me things I never said at all. For a person like the judge who should be more conversant with the law, this is rather unfortunate," said Mugenzi during an interview with The New Times yesterday.
Mugenzi said that he was under the witness protection unit of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) for ten years helping the prosecution. "Am seriously thinking about suing this judge," he told The New Times.
He accused Bruguiére of being unethical by revealing his identity which had been kept under wraps for a decade, saying that this would put his life in danger.
"I was in a protective custody for all those years and this man just went ahead to reveal my identity, when I am not even his witness what guarantee does he give me?" questioned Mugenzi.
He said that he never met the judge for even a single minute. "The only people I met were a group of investigators he sent to meet me in Arusha, and whatever they wrote in the report they gave the judge were just fabrications," he said.
"I only talked of a memo I fabricated for propaganda purposes, claiming that I had intercepted communication from the RPA saying that they had a hand in the shooting. But this, I told them, was a fabricated memo."
Mugenzi said that he explained to the investigators, whom he claim to have met in the office of the ICTR prosecutor, that the memo was drafted for propaganda purposes, telling them the whole thing was just made up.
"They never considered what I told them, it is like they had already made up their minds when they met me, they just needed confirmation that I had indeed drafted the memo," he accused.
The French judge has widely been condemned for the manner in which he conducted the investigations that he based his indictments on nine senior government officials.
Mugenzi said that he came back to Rwanda last year allegedly to 'try and expose the judge' on his indictment that he maintains is based on falsehoods.
Bruguiere-ICTR defence connection Meanwhile, the witness said that Bruguiére came to know about his testimonies through his communication with defence lawyers at the tribunal.
They have a strong connection between the lawyers, Bruguiére and some other Rwandans living abroad, especially those suspected of having played a role in the 1994 Genocide," he said.
He said that he was still 'consulting' to get a better option on which course of action he will take. Mugenzi became the fourth person to retract his testimony since the indictments were issued in November 2007.
Munyakazi Never Took Part in Killings at Churches –
Witnesses
Hirondelle News Agency
September 7, 2009
Two other defence witnesses in a genocide case against the oldest detainee at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Yusuf Munyakazi, denied that the accused in the company of interahmwe militia from his native commune of Bugarama went to Nyamasheke and Shangi parishes in Cyangugu prefecture, to incite and attack Tutsi refugees hosted in the churches in April 1994.
The defence witnesses, code-named "YCI'' and ‘'MBRE'' to conceal their identities, insisted in separate occasions that they did not witness the 74 years old man in those churches-- Nyasheke in Kagano commune and Shangi in Gafunzo commune-- as they were both far from Bugarama commune.
‘'I never saw Munyakazi in Shangi parish but I saw Munyakazi in Bugarama where he was doing farming ,'' said defence witness YCI who was being led in examination-in-chief by the accused's Cameroonian co-defence counsel, Barnabe Nekuie on Monday.
The witness, who also admitted that he did not even hear about Munyakazi's presence at Shangi church from other people, said he witnessed a large crowed of attackers around 1500 with guns, grenades and traditional weapons on April 28 or 29 in 1994 arriving from three different directions around 4. 00 pm attacked and killed refugees in Shangi church, including his own relatives.
‘'They came on foot. They were very many and looked deadly dangerous,'' the witness narrated.
Witness ‘'MBRE'', who elaborated incidence at Nyamasheki parish like the previous witness, denied seeing Munyakazi at the attack allegedly carried at the Parish on April 16, 1994.
‘'I did not see or heard about Munyakazi leading the attackers at Nyamasheke parish,'' the witness told the attentive Chamber.
Last week two other defence witnesses also gave similar evidence denying the accused involvement into the killings at the two churches including that of Mibilizi parish in Cymbogo commune.
The witnesses concluded their testimonies after being crossed examined by prosecution.
The trial continues on Tuesday.
Accused for genocide, complicity in the genocide and extermination, Munyakazi, has pleaded his innocence.
He was arrested in May 2004 in east of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) where he pretended to be an Imam, under the name of Mzee Mandevu (literally, the bearded old man in Kiswahili).
The trial began on 22 April, 2009.
ICTR to Hear Three Appeals this Month
Hirondelle News Agency
September 7, 2009
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) will on the last three days beginning September 28, commence the hearing of three appeal cases, including that of the brother in-law of the former Rwandan President, Protais Zigiranyirazo.
Whereas the appeal of Zigiranyirazo is scheduled for hearing on September 28, that of the former Rwandan prosecutor, Simeon Nshamihigo was set for hearing on September 29 and the third, which involves the former Rwandan renowned musician, Simon Bikindi, will be heard on September 30, according to Bocar Sy, ICTR Chief of Press.
On Bikindi's case, the prosecutor appealed against 15-year jail term handed down to the defendant on December 2, last year saying the defendant deserved heavier penalty whereas for Nshamihigo was sentenced to life imprisonment after being convicted for genocide on September 24, 2008.
Both, the Prosecutor and the defence teams in the case of Zigiranyirazo, sentenced to a 20-year jail term on December 18, 2008, appealed against the conviction and the sentence.
In two different notice of appeals filed by the Prosecutor and the defence on 15 and 19 of January, 2009 respectively the parties claimed separately that the trial Chamber erred in the determination of conviction and sentencing based on the events at Kiyovu roadblock in Kigali city and Kesho Hill in Gisenyi, North of Rwanda where several ethnic-Tutsis were slaughtered in April, 1994.
The Prosecutor in his notice of appeal categorically stated that the Trial Chamber erred on the sentences imposed on Zigiranyirazo compelling him to serve them concurrently instead of consecutively.
On December 18, 2008, the appellant was sentenced to 20 years in prison on genocide for his involvement at Kesho hill killings, another 15 years for his acts at the Kiyovu roadblock and for extermination he was sentenced to 20 years, all of which were directed to be served concurrently.
According to the notice of appeal, the Chamber ignored several issues before handing down the sentences including, full responsibility of the accused for the crimes committed, Tribunal's sentencing practice in similar cases and it even failed to give consideration to Rwanda's sentencing framework.
"The relief sought is the reversal of the sentence imposed by the Trial Chamber and the imposition upon Protais Zigiranyirazo of an appropriate sentence of imprisonment for the remainder of his life," pleaded the Prosecutor in his notice of appeal.
On the other hand the defence team alleged that their client was neither the incharge of the Kiyovu roadblock nor did he distribute weapons but rather his involvement was limited to encouraging the participants of the roadblock to check identifications and distribution of food, both of which did not contribute substantially to the killings, according to the defence notice of appeal.
The defence also denied the appellant's participation at the Kesho hill events as in charge of the attack, distributed arms and that the content of his speech could not be ascertained claiming also that he left the scene at the beginning of the attack.
The notice of appeal signed by four members of the defence team, including the lead counsel, Canadian lawyer, John Philpot, prayed that the conviction be turned down and acquit the appellant on all counts, order a new trial or reduce the sentence substantially.
Kanyarukiga – Tutsis Had Initially Resisted Attackers in
Nyange Church (Witness)
Hirondelle News Agency
September 8, 2009
Ethnic Tutsis massacred in Nyange Church, western Rwanda, on 16 April, 1994, had strongly resisted their attackers before succumbing to them, a witness told the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Tuesday.
Referred by codename ‘'CBY'' to protect his identity, the prosecution witness, who was employed at the presbytery of Nyange during the 1994 genocide, was testifying in the trial of businessman Gaspard Kanyarukiga, accused of conspiracy to commit genocide, genocide and extermination.
According to the testimony, the attackers had to retreat on 13 and 14 April 1994.
But, the following day, alleged the witness, one of the assailants attacked with a grenade, weakening and dispersing the Tutsis, several of whom were killed that day.
The survivors, he said, barricaded themselves inside the church, adding that the attackers had also tried in vain to set on fire the church building by using kerosene.
Fulgence Kayishema, police inspector of Kivumu Commune, where the Nyange Church was located, then resorted to a bulldozer to demolish the church, stated CBY, who was examined by Tidiane Mara, from the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP).
He said that the bulldozer had begun demolition on 15 April 1994 in the afternoon and completed the work the following day, leaving behind between 2,500 and 3,000 ethnic Tutsis buried dead under bricks and tiles.
Influential persons, including then Mayor of Kivumu, Gregoire Ndahimana, who was arrested last month in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), and Kanyarukiga, ordered the destruction of the church, claimed the witness.
The defendant, who has claimed not guilty, was arrested in South Africa on 16 July 2004 and was transferred three days later to the ICTR detention centre in Arusha, Tanzania.
His trial began on 31 August.
Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)
Offical Website of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
The Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme
Man of Peace, Man of War
The Economist
August 27, 2009
In a small courtroom on the upper floor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) building in The Hague, closed off to the public gallery behind thick glass, Charles Ghankay Taylor has spent the past month giving testimony in his trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Indicted on 11 counts in 2003 by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), a body that combines national and international judicial procedures, the former president of Liberia has been before the court for the past three years.
The SCSL is borrowing a courtroom from the ICC (a purely international body set up by the UN) because his trial might have been “an impediment to stability and a threat to the peace” had it been held in the Sierra Leonean capital, Freetown. There, eight others have already been convicted and sentenced in the SCSL’s especially constructed building for their part in the appalling civil war of 1991-2002.
It is the first time a former African head of state has been tried by an international court. So the Taylor case is a test not only for justice in Africa, but for international justice, too. If the prosecution wins, it would be the first time any former head of state had been convicted of war crimes; Slobodan Milosevic, the former president of Serbia and Yugoslavia, died before the conclusion of his trial in 2006.
The SCSL has already set several legal precedents during its seven years of existence. It has convicted people for the use of child soldiers, for “forced marriages” (as distinct from rape) and for sexual slavery. For the first time, it has categorised these as crimes against humanity. But campaigners believe that if the SCSL convicts a former president for these sorts of crimes too, it would be an even bigger step towards ending impunity. “If Taylor is convicted, there will be an expectation of justice—that leaders will be held to account,” the court’s outgoing chief prosecutor, Stephen Rapp, has argued.
Despite the court’s past successes, however, the prosecution will have to work hard to win this one. For a start, Mr Taylor is being tried not for atrocities that occurred in his homeland, Liberia, but in neighbouring Sierra Leone. Furthermore, no one is alleging he personally carried out any war crimes there either, but rather that he was responsible for arming and abetting the Sierra Leonean rebels, mainly the Revolutionary United Front (RUF), who committed the crimes. The prosecution thus has to prove both that Mr Taylor bears responsibility for the actions of a third party (always a difficult task), and to show that he was arming the rebels so as to terrorise the Sierra Leonean population and to gain control of the country’s diamonds.
That the RUF committed horrendous acts of cruelty amounting to crimes against humanity is not in doubt. It has not even been contested by Mr Taylor’s defence team. Several witnesses for the prosecution recounted in court last year instances of the mutilation and torture that became common across Sierra Leone.
The drugged-up fighters of the RUF were particularly notorious for amputations. As one witness recounted: “A small unit of boy soldiers brought another small boy, kicking and screaming. They put his right arm on a log, took a machete, and amputated it at the wrist. They took the left arm again and put it on the same log and sliced it off. He was still screaming and shouting. They took the left leg and put it on the same log and cut it off at the ankle. At last they took the right leg and put it on the same log and cut it off with a machete. They were swinging the boy. They threw him into a toilet pit. I was there. I saw it myself.” The rebels were finally defeated by the intervention of the British army in 2000 to save the tottering government.
Also among the 91 witnesses called were 31 “insider” witnesses, men who personally attested to Mr Taylor giving orders to RUF leaders—thus linking him to the crimes. The testimony of these witnesses will probably represent the prosecution’s best hope of getting a conviction.
However, Mr Taylor’s defence is that although he was indeed talking with the RUF’s leaders during the most brutal phase of the civil war, he was doing so in his capacity as an outside mediator. Moreover, he was acting on behalf of, and with the full knowledge of, the United Nations, the countries of the Economic Community of West Africa (ECOWAS) and Western countries too, namely America and Britain, the former colonial power.
The defence, led by a British barrister, Courtenay Griffiths, has been taking the court through scores of cables and memorandums from within the UN to try to show that Mr Taylor was always acting openly and transparently in his dealings with the RUF. Indeed, Mr Taylor claims that he was encouraged to get involved in trying to resolve the civil war, often against his better judgment, precisely because he was the person with the best links to the rebels and thus the person with the most influence over them. But he denies arming or receiving diamonds from them.
In his guise as an international statesman and peace-broker (and therefore, by implication, very different from Mr Milosevic or Saddam Hussein at his trial in Baghdad), the well-spoken and worldly Mr Taylor has been offering full co-operation with the court. He bows to the judges pretty much as low as everybody else. Always a natty dresser, his standards in court never slip. With his well-tailored suits, shiny cufflinks, wise reading-glasses and elegant ties, he looks a thousand miles from a roughhouse warlord.
The trial is being followed closely in Liberia and Sierra Leone. Short summaries of the day’s proceedings are broadcast on national and local radio in both countries, with a 30-minute digest on weekends. Mr Taylor still enjoys support in his home country, where his trial remains divisive. Indeed, there are even fears that, if Mr Taylor is convicted, his loyalists could take revenge against those who brought the case to trial in the first place, including members of the present government. In Sierra Leone, by contrast, no one will mourn Mr Taylor’s incarceration.
However, there is disquiet there at the trial’s length and cost. Sierra Leone is desperately poor. Many of the RUF’s surviving victims—often without a leg or an arm—still have no jobs. Reparations have been paid out slowly, in stark contrast to the money and manpower lavished on Mr Taylor’s trial.
Yet the SCSL in Freetown, now packing up as it hears the last appeals of convicted RUF leaders, still enjoys broad support; in a poll taken two years ago over 90% of respondents agreed that the court has contributed to “building peace” after the civil war. Indeed, many Sierra Leoneans are proud of the court’s work and the precedents that it might set for other African countries. The SCSL might, they argue, be a “hybrid” model for countries still vehemently opposed to the idea of pure international justice—such as Sudan, where the president, Omar al-Bashir, has been indicted for war crimes by the ICC but refuses any co-operation with the court.
United Nations Panel Is At The Heart of Case Against Taylor,
He Says
AllAfrica.com
By Alpha Sesay
August 28, 2009
Charles Taylor said that a 2000 United Nations report charging him with gun running and diamond smuggling made recommendations that that not only hurt him, but punished Liberia. This, Mr. Taylor told Special Court for Sierra Leone judges today, was a "travesty of justice."
For the past three days, Mr. Taylor has been responding to allegations made against him in a 2000 United Nations Expert Panel Report that he was involved in fueling the conflict in Sierra Leone through diamond and arms trade with Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels. The UN report reinforces prosecution allegations against Mr. Taylor that he supported RUF rebels through the supply of arms and ammunition in return for diamonds. Mr. Taylor has denied these allegations.
"This report actually is at the heart of this case and because of the way this report is written, together with the level of disinformation in it, it puts us in a bad position because it talks about diamonds, arms and training bases in Liberia. This is the basis of the case that has not been subject to legal scrutiny," Mr. Taylor said.
Mr. Taylor accused the UN of writing an intelligence report rather than an investigative report against him, telling the judges that "Ian Smillie was not an academic but an intelligence analyst. This was not a report about going out to an investigation. These are words that you use in an intelligence report. The inclusion of Ian Smillie on the panel contaminated the panel from the onset."
Mr. Taylor accused the UN of ignoring the good work he did to facilitate a peaceful end to the conflict in Sierra Leone. He said that any fair report would have pointed out that he made significant contributions to take the RUF rebels to the negotiating table. The report, Mr. Taylor said "does not present the whole truth. There is not one mention of my contribution towards peace in Sierra Leone. This report is not fair, it is fickle and should not stand."
Mr. Taylor told the court that when the report was published in 2000, his government in Liberia sent an immediate response to the UN Secretary General in which they tried to put the record straight. "We were furious and we did not hesitate to respond immediately. The government put a team together and we responded," he said.
Mr. Taylor told the judges that the Panel of Experts exceeded their mandate by recommending punitive actions against Liberia. "It was like we are accusers and we are now the judge and jury," Mr. Taylor said about the Panel of Experts.
Among other things, the report recommended that a moratorium be put on all export of diamonds and timber from Liberia. In response to this, Mr. Taylor said that this recommendation was not even necessary as 80-90% of diamonds from Liberia were exported without his government's knowledge. Mr. Taylor said that there were many conflict diamonds that entered the market from countries like Angola and Congo but were certified as coming from Liberia.
Mr. Taylor also denied allegations in the report that he had a training base at Batala in Liberia where RUF rebels were trained. " My government denies that anyone order than Liberian personnel were trained at Batala," he said.
Mr. Taylor dismissed the entire report as a step by Western countries to smear his image and get him out of power. Pointing fingers at the United States, Mr. Taylor said that at some point, US Senator Judd Gregg even asked for his assassination during his presidency.
"I told you I was an accident waiting to happen as part of a regime change policy. This is a travesty of justice. This is all made up, there is no truth in it," Mr. Taylor said.
Arms Could Flow Through Liberia Without Taylor’s Consent, He
Says
The Trial of Charles Taylor.com
By Alpha Sesay
August 31, 2009
Significant shipments of weapons, intended for use by rebels in Sierra Leone’s 11-year civil conflict, could have been transported through Liberia without Charles Taylor’s knowledge, the accused former Liberian president told Special Court for Sierra Leone judges today at his trial in The Hague.
“It is possible that significant amounts of arms could come into Liberia without my consent. With the level of corruption in the country, it is possible. I don’t run the airports or the roads,” he told the judges.
Mr. Taylor was responding to allegations that he transported arms and ammunition from Libya and Burkina Faso for onward transfer to Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels in Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor has denied these allegations.
In his testimony today, Mr. Taylor explained that when these allegations against him were made, he took steps to make sure that no such arms were transported through Liberia. His accusers, he said, had no evidence to prove these allegations.
“They could not show us what was coming in. We were as diligent as we could be. If they had the evidence, they could have confronted us with it,” Mr. Taylor said. “If anyone thinks that anything coming into Liberia is with the knowledge of Taylor, then I am already guilty.”
Mr. Taylor explained that even in the United States where “you have the best security network,” the terrorists who launched the September 11, 2001 attacks were able to enter the country and wreak havoc without being detected by the United States intelligence.
“When it comes to these small countries therefore, lots of things could happen,” he said.
Mr. Taylor said that when his government was attacked by the Liberians United for Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) rebels in 1998, he asked the United Nations to lift its arms embargo on Liberia. When the UN refused, his government ordered loads of arms and ammunition to defend the country. Afterwards, he informed the UN of the list of arms that they had bought and the purpose for which they would be used.
Reinforcing his point that arms could have been transported through Liberia without his consent, Mr. Taylor said that the arms and ammunition that were bought by the Liberian government to fight against LURD rebels were transported through European countries without the consent of their respective governments.
“We imported arms from Europe, these European countries were bound by Chapter VII of the UN Charter. They[arms] stopped in these countries but the governments did not know and they got to Liberia,” Mr Taylor said. “If you have a little bit of money, and you want to move weapons, I don’t care what resolution is passed, you will move weapons including through the best of the countries you can imagine and use some of their own companies to do it.”
Mr. Taylor said that the same thing could have happened in Liberia when individuals or groups could have transported arms into the country and transferred the arms to rebel forces in Sierra Leone. All this, Mr. Taylor said, could have happened without his knowledge or consent.
“So the fact is that something can come into Roberts International Airport [Liberia's main airport], the president in Monrovia doing what he’s got to do, if sufficient contacts are made at that airport, those things would come into the airport, if its weapons, of course. With sufficient money, you can bribe the officials and the weapons can be brought in at a time, it can happen anywhere,” he said.
Mr. Taylor also told the judges that at the relevant times that he is accused of transporting arms and ammunition to rebel forces in Sierra Leone, the main roads linking Liberia to Sierra Leone were occupied by other rebel groups who were fighting against his National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL).
“When we look at the period of occupation as from 1991 up to my election in 1997, ULIMO had control of the very position. LURD attacked in 1998 and up to 2001, they made significant gains,” Mr. Taylor said. “As of August 2001 to 2002, LURD is occupying the very position that ULIMO occupied earlier. They know the strategic nature of occupying this area.”
Mr. Taylor is accused of providing support for RUF rebels in Sierra Leone through the supply of arms and ammunition in return for diamonds. Several witnesses have testified to the transfer of arms and ammunition from Liberia to Sierra Leone with Mr. Taylor’s knowledge and participation. Mr. Taylor has denied these allegations.
The Death of Chief Norman Was One of My Disappointments
Awoko
By Betty Milton
September 02, 2009
At his final press conference held at SLENA building yesterday the outgoing prosecutor of the Special Court Stephen Rapp has disclosed that one of his disappointments was the death of Chief Sam Hinga Norman.
Chief Norman was the National Coordinator of the Civil Defence Forces (CDF) and was indicted by the Special Court for crimes against humanity, war crimes and serious international humanitarian law during the ten years war in the country.
Chief Norman was flown to Senegal for a hip operation through an electric surgery but he died before he was flown back to the country to continue with his trial.
Mr Rapp who disclosed that Chief Norman left just as he arrived said “I was devastated when I heard the news of his death and an investigations was done and it was determined that it was cardiac arrest and it was unrelated to the surgery it was unrelated to the treatment that he received ...”
The outgoing prosecutor added that “it was important that given the significance and the controversy of that case that a verdict could be rendered to him at the end of the trial but that did not happen, justice was denied and that was one of the disappointments I had.”
He said that he “very much appreciates the good will of people and understanding but it was a great disappointment for me and a tragedy for the people of Sierra Leone as justice was denied in that case as the verdict of guilt or innocence would have followed the trial.”
Mr Rapp explained further that justice had already been done and it was now in the hands of the judges to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused but under the rules of the court and uniform international law once the individual dies there can’t be a judgment.
Another disappointment he said he had was that he could not finish the work of the court to achieve justice in the cases “where we could achieve them.”
Speaking about his happy moments during his three years in the court, Prosecutor Rapp said his happy moment is “when you go to court and succeed and you see justice done you are happy. It is more a matter of satisfaction but it is never a moment of complete joy when other human beings are charged, convicted and sent to prison and jailed but the achievement of justice remembering what happened to the victims - this calls for normal satisfaction which made me the happiest since my time in Sierra Leone.
“When I feel embraced by the people of Sierra Leone, accepted by them is wonderful and those occasions are really the happiest being a lawyer, going to court pounding on the table, citing the law that is a challenging work, but seeing the people that are affected with a smile on their faces … is really the happiest time I have had here and that is one of the reason that I look forward to coming back.”
The prosecutor who has been appointed as Ambassador at Large For War Crimes in America said that he will continue to use his office to continue the work of the Court.
He revealed that “the most important thing in the (new) office is working with each of the special or international tribunal or court that has been established - I have a person in my office which is specifically responsible for the Sierra Leone court and the United States is part of the management committee in New York and I will be involved in the proceedings.”
Prosecutor Rapp said that he was pleased with the trial process of Charles Taylor which is presently going on in The Hague and the accused is testifying in his defence. The prosecutor stressed that most of the testimony of Taylor is quite different from what they have put before the judges but that the important side is that they will have time to test the credibility of the witness through cross examination.
He stressed that “when our turn comes to ask questions we will confront Charles Taylor with the full weight of our case.”
About his role during his three years in office the prosecutor said that he has overseen
the prosecution of all the trials before the court where they secured convictions of the leaders of the AFRC, CDF and at trial level - because of this he is proud to have been part of the judicial proceedings that resulted in the first convictions in the history for the recruitment and use of child soldiers as a war crime, the first convictions for attacks on peace-keepers as a violation of international humanitarian law.
Stephen Rapp was nominated by President Obama in July to serve as United States Ambassador at Large for War Crimes Issues.
In Sierra Leone, Rebels Final Arguments Start Today
Awareness Times
By Abdul Fonti & Augusting Samba
September 02, 2009
The Appeal Chambers of the Special Court for Sierra Leone will this morning commence hearing of the final oral arguments on the appeal of the trial judgment that recently convicted three leaders of the defunct Revolutionary United Front (RUF), Chief Prosecutor of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Stephen Rapp told newsmen yesterday Tuesday 1st September 2009.“At this hearing the Prosecution will present its arguments for rejecting the 96 grounds of appeal that have been filed by the three RUF accused, Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, against the Trial Chamber’s judgments of conviction entered in February 2009 and the sentences of imprisonment pronounced in April 2009,” Stephen Rapp disclosed in his farewell press briefing held at the Wallace Johnson Street conference hall of the Sierra Leone News Agency (SLENA) in Freetown. He explained that the Prosecution would be pursuing three grounds of appeal asking for additional determinations of criminal responsibility.
The Special Court Prosecutor noted that this week’s appeals
hearing would mark the last time that attorneys for the Prosecution and Defence
would make arguments in the RUF case. “When the judges of the Appeals Chamber
pronounce their final ruling several weeks from now, all judicial proceedings
will be complete,” he pointed out, adding that: “This is a very significant
period in the history of the Special Court for Sierra Leone”.On the Charles
Taylor trial in The Hague, Stephen Rapp said the accused was presenting a story
that was very different from the evidence offered by the Prosecution. “We
called over 90 witnesses who appeared in person before the Court and testified
about the grave crimes committed against tens of thousands of innocent victims
in Sierra Leone and provided the linkage evidence showing Taylor’s
responsibility for the commission of these atrocities,” he disclosed.
He stated that the prosecutors have been waiting patiently while the accused
give what he described as “his own contrary version” of events and denies all
the charges against him. “When our turn comes to ask the questions, we will
confront Charles Taylor with the full weight of our case,” he firmly
asserted. He stated that the legacy of
the Special Court in Sierra Leone was an increase in the respect for the rule
of law by all individuals, no matter how powerful, and thus contributed to
lasting peace and security for the people of Sierra Leone. He used the forum as
an opportunity to inform pressmen that he would cease being a Prosecutor for
the Special Court on September 7, 2009, in order for him to take up a new
appointment in America as Ambassador at large for War Crimes.
In Sierra Leone, Special Court Prosecution Replies to
Defence
Awareness Times
By Augustine Samba
September 04, 2009
The Prosecution team of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, led by Stephen Rapp has strongly argued against the submissions made by the defence counsel of the three rebel leaders of the defunct Revolutionary United Front (RUF).
Stephen Rapp made this argument on Thursday 3rd September 2009 at the Appeals Chamber of the Special Court whilst replying to the submission of the defence lawyers for Issa Sesay, Augustine Gbao and Morris Kallon.
Stephen Rapp pointed out the rebel leaders had committed atrocities on the people of Sierra Leone.
Among the numerous points raised by the prosecution was the issue of the operation of the Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE); an indictment which the defence had earlier argued does not constitute an offence in international criminal law and that the defending clients were never part of such an enterprise.
Prosecutor Rapp emphasized that the three accused persons must have intended, responsible, or having knowledge of the common purpose of the JCE. “Issa Sesay, Morison Kallon, and Augustine Gbao were members of the JCE, as long as they were senior members of the junta forces who committed the grave atrocities during the war in Sierra Leone,” Mr. Rapp intimated.
He said Issa Sesay was a commander and leader of the joint AFRC/RUF junta force. “His responsibilities were to ensure that there was a sufficient supply of man power to fight the war,” the prosecutor told the Appeals Chamber, adding that “He was responsible for the recruitment of child soldiers and capturing of civilians to be trained as fighters in Bunumbu or Yengema”.
He said the Trial Chamber had proved earlier that Issa Sesay participated in atrocities including murder, enslavement of civilians, forced marriages, sexual abuses and looting of civilians’ properties. He informed that similar crimes were committed by Morris Kallon. Augustine Gbao, he continued, captured and forced civilians to work on farms and also recruited civilians into the junta force. He furthered that Augustine Gbao was a vanguard and overall leader of the RUF in Kailahun.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia
Official Website of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia
Liberia: Bad Laws Afflict Country, Woewiyu Says, Condemns
TRC Report
The Analyst
August 27, 2009
There is no question that Liberia is the most legalistic nation in West Africa: there is legal prescription for almost every aspect of life - from social interactions, to business, to politics and governance. But there is no denying that Liberia is also a nation of impunity and some say, endemic corruption.
How come? Former Labor Minister Thomas Woewiyu says the reasons lie in Liberia's "borrowed and therefore faulty laws", the lack of national vision, and the quest for political conquest by some Liberian politicians as exemplified by the final report of the TRC. The Analyst has been looking at remarks Mr. Woewiyu made by recently in the U.S.
Former Labor Minister, Thomas Woeyiwu, says Liberia is weighed down by numerous problems today because of bad laws and poor national visions that dogged politics and governance from the nation's founding some 162 years ago in 1847.
Mr. Woeyiwu made the statement recently when he addressed the Installation Program of the US branch of the Haywood Mission School Alumni Association on the theme: "Without A Vision, A People Will Surely Perish".
He said because vision clarifies direction, invites unity, facilitates function, enhances leadership, prompts passion, foster risk taking, offers sustenance, creates energy, provides purpose, and motivates giving, any nation that is not built on the foundation of vision that is fortified by laws that support majority rule, was doomed to failure.
Plagiarized Constitution and Bad Laws
He said Liberia was facing numerous problems and seemingly insurmountable challenges because its visions and laws were tampered with from its founding. He did not name any particular law or statute that is underpinning the nation's vows, but he said there was something in the basic philosophy of the current Constitution of Liberia, which he said was a miniature replica of the US Constitution, that defines the nation's political rat race.
"The Constitution of the Republic of Liberia was designed by the original framers for minority rule. The minority rule provision of the current constitution is embedded in the powers of the Executive Branch headed by the President. For instance, the President of the United States [as is the President of Liberia] has the power to veto the work of the entire Congress which represents the people.
"Some blind academician will argue that the people are protected by the provision to override the President's veto, but the damage would have already been done. The President may start a war with other countries without first getting the approval of the (Congress) the people.
"This is what you get when you plagiarize the work of others without an understanding," Mr. Woewiyu said regarding what he sees as Liberia's governance and recovery problems. Mr. Woewiyu did not say how the so-called minority rule provision of the Constitution of Liberia hampers governance, accountability, and transparency in Liberia when it does not have the same effect on the three elements of good governance in the United States.
But he went on to accuse the nation political and civil society leaders of not having the vision and courage to frame a constitution or body of laws that reflects who Liberians really are and how they should distribute the nation's power and wealth.
'The minority rule element of the Liberia Constitution is also the root of detriment and retardation for the Liberia People. We cry about the Americo Liberian oligarchy. Little do we admit that there has also been a countryman oligarchy in the name and form of the Samuel Doe regime. Was there any difference?
"The answer is no because the constitution was still the same. It makes no difference whether the ruler is Congo, Americo or Countryman. As long as the rule of law is minority, the outcome will always be detrimental. Where in Africa or elsewhere do we find the American political system so stiffly replicated in its pure form? Absolutely nowhere! Not even in America where every state has its own political system as if it were an independent country," the political icon said.
He noted further: "Anything that starts wrong will continue wrong unless its course is corrected. Today, Liberia, the oldest independent nation in Africa is without a cohesive national identity. She is referred to as a microcosm of America in Africa. Our flag, laws and constitution are all replicas of that of the United States."
As the result of this, he said, the body of laws that rule the nation does not only support majority rule, but it also has no bearing or link with the nation's traditional culture and the people's sense of justice, reconciliation, and peace.
According to the Mr. Woewiyu, who is known by many for his revolutionary thoughts, the most disappointing and damaging aspect of Liberia's dedication to the so-called American Heritage is that Liberians have not had the common sense and vision to see that it has stunted their growth as a people and a nation.
"The American experience itself as practiced in the western hemisphere is dynamic and evolves with time. For instance, in 233 years since independence, the United States has amended its constitution 27 times making the change on the average of once every 9 years. What has Liberia, the American replica done constitutionally in 170 years?
The Liberian Constitution has been amended once in 1984 with all of its provisions remaining practically the same except the qualifying age of a Presidential aspirant which went from 36 to 32 and the term of office which went from 4 years to 6. From the look of it, I believe we went backwards instead," he said.
Poverty Reduction and Corruption
Mr. Woewiyu said not only were Liberians clutching borrowed legal concepts and governance practices that were not benefiting them but that they were also stooping under the weight of economic recovery prescriptions handed down by the World Bank and IMF in the hope of stopping corruption and reducing poverty.
According to him, the nation's woes were not responding to those foreign prescriptions largely because the prescriptions were not taking into consideration the needs of the majority of the people and the nation's drawbacks in terms of technology and manpower development.
"Liberia is a very small nation endowed with immense natural resources not parallel with any of its neighbors. Yet, she remains to be one of the poorest nations in the World. Why so? - Because of the lack of a national vision as a people.
"Liberian Leaders, one after another, commit themselves to a free market economical system under the weight of the World Bank and the International Monetary Funds. The market is so free in Liberia that Firestone, initially an American company has own the largest single rubber plantation in Liberia for close to 100 years.
"Yet, the political slogan of one Liberian Government after another is the reduction of poverty. The vision has not come to our national leaders yet that poverty cannot be reduced unless wealth is increased. Wealth cannot be increased if all the productive resources are owned by foreigners to the exclusion of Liberians," Mr. Woewiyu said.
He said as the result of what was happening within the free market vis-à-vis the growth and development of Liberia, it could be seen that the cancer of corruption has evolved and has become a pandemic that is eating up the nation rapidly.
He then wondered why Liberian civil groupings like the over 60 human rights organizations operating in the country, the Union of Liberian Associations in the Americas, and all the Liberian organizations under its umbrella were suddenly mute on anything about Liberia. "What is wrong? It is the absence of a national vision with the will and courage to pursue such vision," he asked rhetorically.
The TRC Report, a Distorted Vision
"In my initial reaction to the TRC report, I have warned my fellow Liberians to think more wisely as to whether retribution and revenge will bring peace to our nation and people
"I view the report as a distorted political vision in which the framers see themselves coming to power in Liberia and remaining there for a long time by politically destroying and disabling generations of Liberians by their surreptitious and, diabolical 30-year ban of certain individuals from politics in the country," Mr. Woewiyu said.
He said besides the fact that the ban is absolutely illegal and outside the term of reference of the TRC, Liberia does not have the capacity to endure and enforce such a ban without the derailment of the peace for which its citizens so eagerly yarning.
"The report in its total perspective denies any justification for the successful and resilient resistance of the Liberian People against tyranny and oppression as was imposed by succeeding governments from Joseph Jenkins Roberts to Charles Taylor, continuing with the Ellen Johnson Sirleaf government.
Clearly, the framers of this TRC report intend to discourage, prohibit and retard mass resistance in the future, contrary to the fact that such rights are guaranteed by the Constitution of the nation," he said. He said the US government was aware of the circumstances that led to the war in Liberia as it was aware of the extreme measures taken by Ghanaian revolutionary leader, Jerry John Rawlings to bring changes to Ghana.
But what mattered in the Liberia and Ghana scenarios, he said, was not what ultimate gambles the two nations have had to undertake but in what way the nations and their peoples benefited from the war and hard decisions. It is not clear whether Mr. Woewiyu was giving an apologia for his role in the Liberian civil war in Charles Taylor's infamous NPFL, but he said several historical missteps by successive Liberian government administrations necessitated the civil uprising of the 1990s.
These historical missteps, he said, were being overlooked in the TRC report, which largely sees as villains those who took steps to correct the missteps.
"Those who concocted this TRC report are not patriotic to the well being of Liberia. This report was fermented by a conglomeration of incongruent political interest groups that do not have real vested interest or constituency in the country. Some of them hold their money and wealth outside of Liberia. Some of them never worked a day in their lives waiting for the opportunity to take over government in order to steal," he claimed.
He said his criticism of the report in no way suggested that he condones impunity but that he dislikes deception. "If we do not have the guts and courage to bring people to justice through the due process of law, this TRC mass conviction by innuendos is a recipe or formula for a long term chaos," he said.
Governance and the Way Forward
Mr. Woewiyu said as far as he was concerned, his generation of politicians has realized its vision of a utopian Liberia complete with multi-party democracy and endowed with political and economical opportunities for all without regards to ethnic or tribal origin. He however noted that there was what he called "a few unfinished businesses". He did not elaborate.
He said the current Judicial, Executive, Legislative branches of government were broadly based on a genuine mosaic of the ethnic and geographical composition of the nation, but he wondered why "real democracy" was eluding Liberians. In response, he said the cause was the Constitution.
"The current constitution was designed for minority rule. Unless we have the vision, strength and courage to evolve a new body of laws geared towards majority rule, democracy of the people, by the people and for the people will continue to escape Liberia and its people."
He then challenged his Haywood Alumni Association and its Liberian and American guests to, "in addition to the vision you have for the education of Liberian youths, join in the pursuit of a national vision for our nation and people that will define who we really are and distribute power and wealth in accordance with a system based on justice and fairness. You need not be abrasive or confrontational to do so. Make your point with due respect".
Liberians in Spot on War Crimes Court
Gulf Times
August 31, 2008
Six years after the civil war, Liberian lawmakers have decided to mull slowly a Truth and Reconciliation Commission call for the president to resign over her role and for eight ex-warlords to be prosecuted.
“We asked the president not to act on the report while we are in recess. Wait until we get back to work” in January, Wesseh Blamoh, head of the House of Representatives peace and reconciliation committee, told journalists Friday.
“As representatives of the people we have decided that the people get involved because positively or negatively the people will be affected. So we want to get the people’s opinion. Every member of parliament will use the recess to consult his people,” Blamoh said.
Liberia’s leaders have been at pains to dissipate tensions that have risen since June when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) issued its final report on 24 years of violence.
“Reactions to the publication of the report have created fear, bitterness, and suspicion,” said Amos Sawyer, a university professor who became in 1990 Liberia’s first interim president.
“Since then Liberians are pointing fingers at each other while devoting themselves to conspiracy.”
For three years the TRC listened to testimonies of crimes committed from 1979 to 2003.
The TRC recommended setting up a war crimes court to prosecute eight ex-warlords. The commission also accused current President Ellen Sirleaf of supporting the war and recommended she be banned from office for 30 years.
During a hearing in February, Sirleaf denied being part of Taylor’s rebel movement but admitted having met him several times during the war and having collected funds for him in the 80s ahead of his unseating then president Samuel Doe.
According to a West African diplomat in Monrovia, Sirleaf “is going through a very difficult period. She wanted the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission when others were calling for resolution through discreet talks”.
“She did not know she was going to be subjected to these accusations by the TRC. It has become a serious problem because if she does not implement the TRC report that will imply that she has opted for impunity. And impunity is against the principles of democracy,” he added.
Liberian Diaspora in Atlanta Debates Truth Commission's
Final Report
Voice of America
By James Butty
August 31, 2009
Exactly two months after the Liberia Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) released its final report it seems Liberians at home and in the Diaspora are still confused about many aspects of the report.
For example, some want to know who has the responsibility to implement the report's recommendations – the Liberian government or the legislature?
The Carter Center in Atlanta, Georgia over the weekend hosted members of the Liberian Diaspora in Atlanta to discuss the findings and implications of the TRC's final report.
The Truth Commission was established at the end of Liberia's civil war to foster national reconciliation but at the same address the question of impunity.
Among the findings of its final report, the TRC recommends the prosecution of all warring faction leaders and their associates for committing notorious war crimes.
The commission also recommends that President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf and 51 other individuals be banned for 30 years from holding public offices for their roles in financing the war.
Walter Skinner, president of the Liberian Association of Metropolitan Atlanta said Liberians in the Diaspora have many questions about the TRC report.
"One of the questions that came out was how did the commission reach the criteria for the different lists that it has on the different penalties for which people had committed various crimes and various acts. People wanted to know when the recommendations would be implemented," he said.
Commissioner Massa Washington of the TRC said she told the gathering that the recommendations were based on three years of public hearings in Liberia and the Diaspora and in line with the TRC mandate.
"The TRC act says that the commission, having investigated the root causes and problems, we should then make recommendations for prosecution and accountability…so the central listings were mostly those we found culpable under standards for political accountability," Washington said.
The Liberian Diaspora in Atlanta also wanted to know which branch of government has the lead responsibility to implement the report.
Commissioner Washington said the executive branch headed by President Sirleaf must take the lead in making sure the report is carried out.
"The legislature is only there to accept the TRC report, and then the legislators will then serve as that primary instrument or arm of government to encourage or to work along with government to ensure that the executive branch of government implements the TRC report in every facet," she said.
Skinner said all Liberians have a duty to ensure the commission's final report is put into action
"If the executive, for example, does not do what it needs to do, the people need to stand up. And if the legislature does not do what it needs to do, the people need to come forward and say look we have these recommendations, we need to implement them," Skinner said.
Since its release, Liberians have been divided over how to implement the TRC's final report. Some have voiced support for retributive justice while others prefer restorative justice.
There have been reports the Liberian government had organized demonstrations against the report.
Commissioner Washington said the TRC believes the government at this time should have come up with a strategy or strategies for implementing the report.
She said the TRC views the naming of the Independent National Commission on Human Rights of Liberia as a first step in the right direction.
Skinner said the Liberian Diaspora in Atlanta, Georgia is planning a follow up forum after which it would send a resolution to all branches of the Liberian government asking them to act in the best interest of the country.
Tom Crick, associate director for conflict resolution said the Carter Center hosted the forum in its capacity as a member of the Atlanta Friends of the Liberian TRC.
He said the purpose of the Atlanta Friends of Liberia was to assist the Minnesota Advocates for Human Rights during the statement taking process for the TRC's work in the Diaspora.
Senate Reverses Freeze on TRC Report
Daily Observer
By Stephen Binda
September 4, 2009
MONROVIA – The Liberian Senate on Thursday, September 3, dismissed a ‘Joint Resolution’ by the Lower House seeking the suspension of a debate on the recently released final report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC).
The Senate said the action of the Lower House lacks legal basis, and that such a Resolution should be re-visited.
The TRC, which scrupulously investigated, among other things, the factors and causes of the Liberian conflict, as well as the widespread rights abuses that characterized the conflict beginning from 1989 to 2003, submitted its final but unedited Report to the Assembly August 26.
However, the Senate plenary, the highest decision making body in the Upper House, said the Joint Resolution, crafted and signed by members of the House of Representatives, could not be endorsed by the Senate.
The Senate described the Resolution as a ‘concurrence’ that only expressed the opinions of members of the Lower House.
The Senate plenary maintained that such a ‘concurrent resolution’ could be challenged in a competent court of law if passed by the Upper House.
“We don’t want to be brought into public disrepute. The TRC report is a very important document that cannot be handled in such manner,” one of the Senators said Thursday.
The Senate also disclosed that the Joint Resolution submitted by the Lower House contained ‘literature and structural problems’.
“The House of Representatives has blundered again. This document is trash. Let us send it back to them (members of the Lower House) now,” some Senators repeatedly said.
Other Senators pointed out that while they posed no objection to the Lower House’s suspension of the TRC’s final report, it should be done within the confines of the Liberian Constitution and the Standing Rules of both the Upper and Lower Houses of the National Legislature.
Speaking to the Daily Observer late yesterday, Acting Senate President Pro Tempore, Gbarpolu County Junior Senator, Daniel Nathan, said if the Lower House wanted to seek concurrence with the Senate on the report, it had to adopt a ‘binding Joint Resolution’.
Nathan added that such a binding resolution, when crafted, should have the signatures of members of the Legislature as well as the Liberian leader, President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.
“When this is done,” he explained, “it will prevent Government from taking action on the report as well as prevent the Liberian leader President Sirleaf from reporting to the Legislature on the implementation of the report.”
Asked whether the Senate was in the position to concur if said document was revisited by the Lower House as it was being suggested, Nathan retorted: “If there is to be any support for suspension of the debate on the report, it had to be done by the Senate’s Plenary.
“If Senators see it right to suspend action on the report, we will endorse it, but what matters now is that the resolution needs to be changed,” he contended.
Last Thursday, members of the House of Representatives affixed their signatures to a two-page resolution, distancing themselves from action on the unedited final report of the TRC.
According to the resolution, a copy of which is in possession of the Daily Observer, owing to inadequate time to deliberate on the report, the Legislature was suspending all actions on it.
The Joint Resolution, signed by more than 50 representatives, also gave legislators the right to consult with their constituencies during the House’s regular agriculture break beginning September 15, 2009.
The Resolution also states that while legislators were on break, all actions by the Executive Branch or otherwise, even if provided for in the TRC Act, shall be not be taken or performed on the content of the TRC Report.
The Joint Resolution noted further that following the return of the Legislature from the break, and as a matter of priority, it would deliberate on the Report and make appropriate dispositions.
The House of Representatives said they had taken legislative cognizance of the interactive and exciting public discussions and debate of the TRC Final Report.
According to the Legislature, it would stay abreast of the public debate on the issue as a way of ascertaining the Liberian people’s opinions and advice on what disposition should be made on the Report.
Stating additional reason for the suspension of the debate on the Report, the Lower House said it was on account of the fact that the TRC had submitted to it an unedited final report.
The House further said in the resolution that it could not act or make any decision on an ‘unedited document’.
The TRC submitted its Final Report to the National Legislature in keeping with section 43 of the Act creating it.
It is worth noting that the report, among other things, identified several individuals, many of whom are legislators, for their alleged involvement in supporting the Liberian armed conflict and for committing the human rights abuses that characterized it.
Meanwhile, the Senate has announced that it will hold regular session throughout next week beginning Monday, September 7.
According to the Acting Pro Tempore, the purpose of the holding of the sessions is to allow the Senate to clear its desk relative to issues of national concern.
Nathan said the regular sessions were in keeping with the certificate of extension signed by members of the Liberian Senate.
Liberia Lays War Victims to Rest
BBC News
By Jonathan Paye-Layleh
September 6, 2009
The killers used guns and machetes, witnesses said. The bones and skulls of hundreds of people killed in one of Liberia's worst war-time massacres have been buried.
Victims were residents of Kolokpai village, in central Liberia, as well as displaced people who had sought refuge there in September 1994.
The killings were blamed on rival rebel groups that overran the nearby main provincial town of Gbarnga.
The burial, in a mass grave, was organised by a women's group following the discovery of the remains.
In 1994, Gbarnga - 40km (25 miles) south of Kolokpai - was headquarters of the NFPL rebel movement of Charles Taylor, who later became president.
Eyewitnesses and survivors blamed the killings on the groups that invaded his headquarters, although there is no official version of events.
The bones and skulls were taken in wheelbarrows from a cocoa farm to be buried in a mass grave.
Village grieves
Grief-stricken people including church leaders and farmers stood with their hands folded as the remains were dropped into the 10ft (3m) pit late on Saturday.
The burial was organised by the group Young Women Organised for Sustainable Development.
Spokesman Grace Yeaney said they decided to bury the bones after doing research in the town and then finding the remains.
"The story we heard was that lots of people have been coming and seeing the bones and promising that they would carry out a ceremony like this, but that was not happening," she said.
"So we have come to give a befitting burial to these people who are Liberians and our own people."
She called for the prosecution of those responsible for this and for other mass killings during Liberia's 14-year war.
"People believe in Liberia that bygones should be bygones, but let people be punished for these actions," she said.
"I believe that people who did these things should be punished... or else people will do the same in the future."
Michael Biddle, a businessman from Gbarnga, rode into Kolokpai by motorcycle to witness Saturday's ceremony and was touched by what he saw.
"To see skulls upon skulls, bones upon bones just exposed in this manner after 15 years, I try to reflect on other massacres that took place during the war," he said.
"The culture of impunity should stop. People should be made to pay the price for these kinds of things," he added.
Witnesses said the killers had used guns and machetes, beheading people who had been bundled into buildings.
Church services for those killed continued into Sunday morning. Religious leaders prayed for forgiveness and for the peace of the town and its people.
The Liberian war killed more than 250,000 people between 1989-2003, and ended with the stepping down of Charles Taylor as president.
The country's post-conflict truth and reconciliation commission has recommended prosecution for former heads of warring factions.
Uganda (Truth & Reconciliation & Domestic Prosecutions / Non-ICC)
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Uganda
‘Strong leaders will stop Acholi land grabbers’
Monitor Online
By Yasiin Mugerwa
August 30, 2009
Sunday Monitor’s spoke to Aswa County MP, Reagan Okumu. Mr Okumu is also vice chairman Acholi Parliamentary Group. Excerpts:
Lately, you have been in the press making allegations against the national army for committing atrocities during the LRA war in northern Uganda. Why now? And don’t you think you’re opening fresh wounds when people are beginning to have peace?
Let me put records clear, this is not a matter of Opposition versus President Museveni’s government; it’s about human rights violations in northern Uganda, injustices committed to our people. In fact, I am happy that I have revealed the war crimes against UPDF and I want to assure you, as leaders from northern Uganda, we have more evidence to incriminate UPDF.
You’re asking me why I am opening fresh wounds? Yes I am opening fresh wounds because I want us to heal and the truth must be told because it’s not only LRA rebels who killed our people but also the government soldiers. They dropped bombs to drive our people into camps and also allowed rebels to attack ‘protected’ camps and in all these incidents we lost innocent people.
Are you considering taking the matter to court or would you like to seek compensation from President Museveni’s government?
None of what you’re saying. For us we want to correct the future so that such is not repeated again. We want this matter to be sorted out politically and admitting in our culture is taken as truth and reconciliation. If we wanted to take Museveni to court/UN we would have done so, but we don’t want that. All we want is government to institute a national truth and reconciliation commission and an independent human rights investigations. If they remain adamant, more serious evidence will be exposed. Otherwise, we must know the past to correct the future and the relatives of the people who died deserve to know the truth. There was a Luwero war commission of inquiry and we also want the same to solve the post-LRA war distress of human rights abuses.
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber
Petar Čivčić and Branko Topola Ordered into Custody
State Court of BiH
September 1, 2009
On 28 August 2009 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) issued a Decision ordering Petar Čiv čić and Branko Topola into one-month custody. Petar Čivčić and Branko Topola are suspected of the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172 of the Criminal Code of BiH. Pursuant to the Decision, custody may last until 27 September 2009.
Having considered the submitted evidence, the Court concluded that there was grounded suspicion that the Suspects had committed the foregoing criminal offence. Further, the Court ordered custody having found that there was sufficient evidence indicating that the Suspects, if released, might interfere with the criminal proceedings by influencing the witnesses or possible accomplices. Also, the Court ordered the Suspects into custody given that the crime in question carries a 10-year imprisonment penalty or a harsher sentence, so due to the manner of perpetration or the consequences of the crime, releasing the suspects would result in a public order disturbance risk.
No Mandate Extension for International Judges and Prosecutors
BIRN Justice Report
September 4, 2009
The State Parliament has not adopted changes and amendments to the Law on Court and Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which proposed an extension of the mandates of international judges and prosecutors.
The House of Representatives of the Parliament of Bosnia and Herzegovina did not vote in favor of the changes and amendments to the Law on the Court and Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, which proposed an extension of the mandates of international judges and prosecutors working with those two institutions.
The proposed changes and amendments were the subject of heated debate, but there was no entity-level support when voting took place. Delegates from Republika Srpska voted against extending the mandates of international judges and prosecutors.
The changes and amendments to the law have not been sent to the Commission for harmonization.
Under the proposed changes and amendments, the mandate of international judges with the second-instance chambers of the War Crimes Chamber with the State Court and prosecutors working with the War Crimes Section could be extended until the end of 2012.
International judges currently hearing first-instance war-crimes cases would complete those cases but would not be assigned new ones. At the same time international prosecutors would not be allowed to perform managerial functions or work on cases pertaining to organized and economic crime and corruption.
Representatives of judicial institutions have pointed out on several occasions that it is necessary to extend the mandates of international judges and prosecutors.
Delegates from Republika Srpska, however, argued that "Bosnia and Herzegovina cannot be a fully sovereign state if foreign personnel work with its judicial institutions".
"We are not satisfied with the fact that we have international judges and prosecutors working in the institutions, which have continuously used orchestrated political processes to put pressure on someone. We do not want to be under pressure when entering negotiations on important issues, such as the Constitution," said Milorad Zivkovic, Deputy Chairman of the House of Representatives and a member of the Association of Independent Social Democrats, SNSD.
On the same day, Republika Srpska Prime Minister Milorad Dodik called for the abolition of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina and its Prosecution, saying that this is a condition for constitutional reform.
Kravica: Seven Appeals
BIRN Justice Report
September 8, 2009
The Prosecution and the Defense of the indictees charged with genocide committed in Srebrenica call on the Court to overturn the first-instance verdict and order a retrial.
The Defense teams have appealed the verdict sentencing six former policemen to a total of 246 years in prison for participation in the shooting of more than 1,000 men in Kravica village, Bratunac Municipality. At the same time the Prosecution has appealed that part of the verdict acquitting Milovan Matic, a former member of the Republika Srpska Army, VRS.
Dragisa Zivanovic and Velibor Maksimovic, who were also acquitted of all charges by the same verdict, did not attend this hearing.
In July 2008 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina issued a first-instance verdict sentencing Milenko Trifunovic, Aleksandar Radovanovic and Brano Dzinic to 42 years, and Milos Stupar, Slobodan Jakovljevic and Branislav Medan to 40 years, and acquitting Maksimovic, Zivanovic and Matic of the shooting of Srebrenica male residents in the Agricultural Cooperative in Kravica on July 13, 1995.
The Prosecution contends that all the indictees except Matic were members of the Second Special Police Squad, whose Commander, according to the indictment and first-instance verdict, was Stupar.
At the Appellate Chamber session, the Prosecution was the first to present its appeal. It said that the part of the first-instance verdict acquitting Matic of all charges contained wrongly determined facts and violations of criminal procedure.
"The purpose of the appeal was to point to all the evidence that implied the place, time, identity and criminal responsibility of the indictee. The Prosecution calls on the Court to revoke this part of the verdict and order a retrial to be conducted in relation to this part," Prosecutor Ibro Bulic said.
Milos Peric, Defense attorney of Matic, said he considered the Trial Chamber had "made a correct decision", adding that this was not "a rushed, abrupt or too quickly reached verdict, but rather a lawful and correct one".
Appealing the first-instance verdict, Ozrenka Jaksic and Radivoje Lazarevic, Defense attorneys of Milos Stupar, called on the Court to overturn it and have a retrial conducted, adding that they would present new evidence at the retrial.
"The pronouncement of the verdict is unclear, incomprehensible and contradictory. There is no evidence to prove that Stupar was Commander of the Second Squad. He did not have effective control and we know that such control is the key to a person's command responsibility. Many, if not all, witnesses, said that they did not receive orders from him," Jaksic said.
Bosko Cegar, Defense attorney of Slobodan Jakovljevic, argued his appeal on the grounds of violation of criminal procedure and the Criminal Code and incorrectly determined facts, as well as the nature of the pronounced sentence. He said that "the first incorrectly determined fact pertained to the number of people killed in Kravica".
"Figures, ranging from 150 to 1,000, were mentioned. The Chamber admitted the highest figure, i.e. more than 1,000, "Cegar said, adding that he was not sure which pieces of evidence made the Trial Chamber "determine" Jakovljevic's "genocidal intention".
"The first-instance verdict lacks a precise and careful assessment of all the evidence. The verdict relies on fragmented statements given by Prosecution witnesses, making extensive use of previously determined facts, against which the Defense had no right to object. The first-instance Chamber violated the methodological principle," said Rade Golic, Defense attorney of Milenko Trifunovic.
Like the other attorneys, Golic said that the Trial Chamber had only partially taken into account the witnesses' statements, thus violating the provisions of criminal procedure, which call for equal consideration of prejudicial and favorable facts.
"The Chamber did not take into consideration the part of the statement given by S4, in which he said that the murder of policeman Krsto Dragicevic and an attack by the detainees was the direct provocation that led to the use of weapons in Kravica. This excludes the existence of a plan to execute the prisoners. The attack against the policemen and a call for escape justify the use of weapons. This was a forced reaction with no discriminatory intentions at all," Golic said.
The Defense of Trifunovic proposed that the Court overturn the first-instance verdict and order a retrial at which new evidence would be presented.
The Defense of Dzinic, Radovanovic and Medan will present their appeals at the next hearing, due to take place on September 9.
Marinko Ljepoja Ordered into Custody
State Court of BiH
September 9, 2009
On 8 September 2009 the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) issued a Decision ordering Marinko Ljepoja into one-month custody. Marinko Ljepoja is suspected of the criminal offence of Crimes against Humanity. Pursuant to the Decision, custody may last until 7 October 2009.
Having considered the submitted evidence, the Court concluded that there was grounded suspicion that the Suspect had committed the foregoing criminal offence. Further, the Court ordered custody having found that there was sufficient evidence indicating that the Suspect, if released, might interfere with the criminal proceedings by influencing the witnesses or possible accomplices. Also, the Court ordered the Suspects into custody given that the crime in question carries a 10-year imprisonment penalty or a harsher sentence, so due to the manner of perpetration or the consequences of the crime, releasing the suspect would result in a public order disturbance risk.
Stipe Zulj: Prosecution Files Custody Order Motion
BIRN Justice Report
September 9, 2009
The State Prosecution files a custody order motion against Stipe Zulj, who is suspected of a war crime committed in the Livno area in 1994.
Stipe Zulj is suspected, as a member of the Special Police of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the former Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna (CR HB) and the Police Administration in Livno, of having murdered a Serb prisoner of war in November 1994.
As stated by Prosecutor Sanja Jukic, in November 1994 Zulj killed a prisoner of war, a member of the Republika Srpska Army, VRS, in front of a family house in Livno. After that he allegedly robbed the man, "by taking 50 DM from his pocket and leaving the place in an unknown direction".
"There is a direct witness of this crime. The indictee's neighbor, Ante Dumancic, saw the murder. He will be one of the key witnesses at this trial. The Prosecution has been informed that the suspect threatened and intimidated the witness, thus obstructing the investigation, we propose that the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina orders him into custody," the Prosecutor said.
Jukic said that Zulj had a Croatian passport and citizenship, adding that, if he is not taken into custody, "there is a possibility that he may seek to flee to the Republic of Croatia".
Branka Praljak, Defense attorney of the suspect, said that he was "a family man and the only provider for his family", adding that he had no connection to the Republic of Croatia, "except for its citizenship".
"Stipe Zulj does not have anybody in Croatia. No friends or relatives. His family and his workplace are in Kupres. I claim there is no danger that the suspect might flee across the border. Instead of ordering him into custody, I propose that the Court confiscates my client's personal identification documents, thus making sure he will not go anywhere," Praljak said.
The Judge will render a decision concerning custody at a later stage.
Until his arrest, on September 8, 2009, Stipe Zulj worked as a policeman at the Police Station in Kupres.
The Croatian Republic of Herceg-Bosna was a political, cultural, economic and territorial entity of the Croat people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. It was established as a community in November 1991, and proclaimed a republic in August 1993. The CR HB was territorially and politically abolished in March 1994. Its leaders and founders are currently on trial at The Hague for war crimes.
Alija Osmic Arrested
BIRN Justice Report
September 9, 2009
The State Investigation and Protection Agency, SIPA, and police of the Central Bosnia Canton arrest Alija Osmic, suspected of crimes committed in the Bugojno area.
Under a warrant issued by the Prosecution of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Alija Osmic has been arrested in the Bugojno area on suspicion of having committed crimes against civilians in 1993.
SIPA officers also searched residential and other buildings in Bugojno, Jajce and Donji Vakuf.
BIRN - Justice Report has been told by the State Prosecution that Alija Osmic is one of "the direct perpetrators of the crimes committed in Bugojno".
The trial of four former members of the Public Safety Station, PSS, and the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina, ABiH, is currently underway before the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina. They are charged with crimes committed against Bosnian Croats in Bugojno during 1993 and 1994.
The indictment against Nisvet Gasal, Musajb Kukavica, Enes Handzic and Senad Dautovic alleges, among other things, that Alija Osmic, Amer Karagic, Mirso Merdjanic and a person named Sabic, as well as other members of the PSS in Bugojno, the ABiH and the Defense Headquarters of Bugojno "detained and kept in detention captured members of the Croatian Defense Council, HVO, and Croat civilians, whom they took out several times in order to physically and mentally abuse them".
The same indictment alleges that Alija Osmic and other members of the ABiH in Bugojno abused the detained HVO members, by "hitting them", after having taken them from the Marxist Center basement and the Cloister in Bugojno. The abuse was inflicted by punching, kicking and the use of "other objects on all parts of their bodies".
The indictment against the four men alleges that, on one occasion, detainee Vlatko Kapetanovic fell on the ground. After that Alija Osmic and another member of the ABiH from Bugojno "loaded him into a black Mercedes trunk, drove away in an unknown direction and killed him".
In the same period of time Osmic allegedly took a group of detainees, including Mario Zrno, to Vrbanja settlement to perform forced labor, which consisted of digging graves and burying killed members of the Army of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Osmic will be handed over to the State Prosecution, which will decide whether to file a custody order motion.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Arrest of Remaining Two Fugitives Major Concern for UN
Yugoslavia Tribunal
China View
August 29, 2009
The United Nations tribunal set up to try those responsible for alleged atrocities committed during the Balkan wars of the 1990s has once again called for the arrest of the two suspects who still remain at large, UN officials said here Friday.
Officials from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), as well as UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, have repeatedly stressed the importance of bringing Bosnian Serb military chief Ratko Mladic and the ethnic Serb politician Goran Hadzic to trial.
"The failure to arrest the remaining two fugitives remains a grave concern," the ICTY stated in its 16th annual report, which was made public here Friday and covers the period from August 1 2008 to July 31 2009.
Mladic faces numerous charges, including genocide, extermination, murder, persecutions, deportation, taking of hostages and inflicting terror on civilians.
Hadzic is charged with murder, persecutions, torture, cruel treatment and other war crimes and crimes against humanity related to his role as president of a self-proclaimed breakaway state of rebel Serbs in southern Croatia during the early 1990s.
The ICTY added that the apprehension of these two suspects is the "most critical aspect" of Serbia's cooperation with the Tribunal, which is based in The Hague.
Meanwhile, the Tribunal has concluded proceedings against 120 accused, out of 161 indicted. Appeals proceedings are ongoing for 12 people, while another 21 are currently on trial and four accused persons are at the pre-trial stage, said the officials.
As part of its completion strategy, 2009 is the last year of full trial activity before the Tribunal starts downsizing in 2010.The report cites the progress made in expediting the court's work, with 86 cases now fully completed.
It also noted cooperation between the Office of the ICTY Prosecutor and the authorities of the States of the former Yugoslavia in the area of domestic war crimes prosecutions.
Hague Prosecutors Trim Scope of Case Against Karadzic
Reuters
By Reed Stevenson
September 1, 2009<
Prosecutors trying Radovan Karadzic for war crimes during the 1992-95 Bosnian war scaled back the scope of their case against the former Bosnian Serb leader, cutting back on the time needed to present arguments.
Responding to a pre-trial judge's urgings to shorten the case and only focus on "reasonably representative" incidents or crime sites, prosecutor Alan Tieger modified plans for presenting evidence in a court filing Tuesday.
"Modifications to the form of presenting evidence will reduce the time necessary for the presentation of the prosecution's case," Tieger said in the filing at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.
Karadzic, who faces 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity including two of genocide, has been held in a detention facility in the Hague for a year as both sides prepare for trial. He was arrested last year after 11 years on the run.
The judge presiding over pre-trial proceedings said on August 20 that the case was now ready for trial. It is expected to start this year although no date has yet been set.
The prosecution, in its filings, reduced the number of municipalities where incidents related to the indictment took place, but kept nearly intact its planned testimony on the 43-month siege of Sarajevo and the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslims at Srebrenica, the worst atrocity in Europe since World War Two.
As result, prosecutors will call 152 witnesses, a reduction of 62 from its initial list, according to Tuesday's filing.
The prosecution asked for a total of 293 hours for witness examinations and sought permission to remove some municipalities, crime sites and incidents, as well as any guidance on length should judges order further trimming.
Karadzic has argued since his arrival that former U.S. peace mediator Richard Holbrooke offered him immunity if he disappeared from public life. Holbrooke has denied ever making such an offer and the court has said it would not be binding in any event.
An appeal related to the matter is still pending.
Created in 1993, the tribunal has said that it expects to wrap up its cases by the end of 2010 and appeals by end-2011, although the U.N. Security Council is expected to allow the court to finish the case against Karadzic.
Karadzic Seeks Time to Ready for War Crimes Trial
The New York Times
By Reed Stevenson
September 4, 2009
Former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic said on Friday he needs precisely 14,171 extra hours to prepare his defense against charges of war crimes committed during the 1992-95 Bosnian war, because of the sheer scope of documents and testimony that must be reviewed.
Karadzic's request comes days after prosecutors scaled back the scope of their case against him, in response to a pre-trial judge's urgings to shorten it and focus on main incidents.
The same judge said two weeks ago he thought the case was ready for trial.
"The prosecution has shown no serious inclination to significantly reduce the scope of this mega-trial," Karadzic wrote in a filing released by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Arrested last year after 11 years on the run, Karadzic faces 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity including two of genocide. He has been held in a detention facility in the Hague for a year.
In step-by-step calculations, Karadzic said he and his advisers would have to review 591,315 pages of selected documents, 5,420 hours of testimony by prosecution witnesses and other preparations, requiring in total 22,145 hours of preparation.
Assuming a 7.5 hour workday for his legal team and discounting hours already spent, Karadzic arrived at his final figure, which translates into 10.1 months.
Karadzic said he has "no incentive to delay the trial unnecessarily" but "cannot look forward to a trial for which he has had no proper opportunity to prepare."
Earlier this week, the prosecution reduced the number of municipalities where incidents related to the indictment took place and reduced testimony by about a quarter to 152 witnesses.
Created in 1993, the tribunal has said that it expects to wrap up its cases by the end of 2010 and appeals by end-2011, although the U.N. Security Council is expected to allow the court to finish the case against Karadzic. Triggered by the break-up of Yugoslavia, the war in Bosnia was the scene of some of intense fighting and ethnic cleansing. Karadzic, as well as his general Ratko Mladic, who is still at-large, face genocide charges over the 1995 Srebrenica massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys and the 43-month siege of Sarajevo.
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC)
Official Website of the Extraordinary Chambers
Official Website of the Khmer Rouge Trial Task Force
Official Website of the United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge Trials (UNAKRT)
Duch Mentally Stable Before Revolution: Doctor
VOA Khmer
By Kong Sothanarith
August 31, 2009
A Cambodian psychologist told Khmer Rouge tribunal judges on Monday that the defendant, Duch, did not have Òmental problemsÓ enough to lead him into the revolution and his eventual role as chief of the regimeÕs killing machine, Tuol Sleng prison.
Duch, whose real name is Kaing Kek Iev, had testified that the loss of a girlfriend and a bicycle, combined with arrests of friends under the Lon Nol regime, had lad him to the Khmer Rouge.
Dr. Ka Sun Bunnath, a professor at the University of Science and Health, in Phnom Penh, told the court Duch had managed as a successful math teacher before joining the guerrillas, and so did not have insurmountable mental problems.
His view was supported by another expert, Francoise Sironi-Guilbaud, a French psychologist.
Meanwhile, 28 civil parties boycotted MondayÕs hearing, following a decision by the court last week that they would not be allowed to question Duch regarding his personal character.
Khmer Rouge Victims Boycott Tribunal in Cambodia
San Francisco Chronicle
By Sopheng Cheang
August 31, 2009
Lawyers representing victims of Cambodia's murderous Khmer Rouge regime boycotted a tribunal trying its leaders after being barred Monday from questioning a defendant about his personality and state of mind.
The move by the victims' attorneys — who were granted courtroom rights similar to those held by the defense and prosecution — came after judges overseeing the U.N.-assisted tribunal said they could not question former Khmer Rouge prison chief Kaing Guek Eav about his character.
Kaing Guek Eav — better known as Duch — headed the Khmer Rouge's notorious S-21 prison, where up to 16,000 people were tortured and later taken away to be killed. Duch is charged with crimes against humanity and other offenses.
The tribunal is seeking justice for the estimated 1.7 million people who died in Cambodia from execution, overwork, disease and malnutrition as a result of the communist regime's radical policies while in power from 1975-79.
In court Monday, French psychologist Francoise Sironi-Guilbaud testified that Duch was not suffering any mental problems.
Victims' lawyers were later barred from questioning Duch about his mental health. It was unclear why the judges made the decision.
Chhum Mey, one of a handful of survivors of S-21 prison, said he was disappointed with the ban.
"As long as the tribunal is not allowing me or my lawyer to have the right to ask Duch about his personality and character, I will not attend the court," the 79-year-old told reporters, crying as he spoke. "Can we get full justice from this court?"
The tribunal is the first of its kind to integrate victims into legal proceedings. While introducing a human element, the inclusion of the "civil parties" has also complicated and slowed the trial.
Duch (pronounced DOIK), 66, is the first of five senior Khmer Rouge figures to face trial, and the only one to acknowledge responsibility for his actions. Duch faces a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Cambodia has no death penalty.
Also Monday, Australian William Smith was appointed acting international co-prosecutor of the tribunal. His appointment was an interim measure pending a decision on a permanent replacement for international prosecutor Robert Petit, whose resignation takes effect Tuesday. Smith had been a deputy co-prosecutor.
Petit announced his resignation in June, citing family reasons.
Tribunal Moves on Additional Inquiries
Phnom Penh Post
By Robbie Corey-Boulet
September 3, 2009
The Khmer Rouge tribunal opened the door to investigations of additional suspects Wednesday, ending a nine-month disagreement between the national and international co-prosecutors and reigniting a debate about whether further indictments would jeopardise national stability.
The disagreement emerged in November, when former international co-prosecutor Robert Petit told his Cambodian colleague, Chea Leang, that he wished to file supplementary submissions for the court's second case - currently set to try four top Khmer Rouge leaders - as well as introductory submissions for two additional cases.
Chea Leang opposed the idea, arguing in later filings that peace, stability and national reconciliation could be compromised, and that "ex-members and those who have allegiance to Khmer Rouge leaders may commit violent acts" if additional investigations were allowed to proceed.
In a filing dated August 18 and made public Wednesday, the tribunal's five-person Pre-Trial Chamber said it had failed to reach a decision on the disagreement. The tribunal's internal rules held that Petit's proposed submissions with the Office of the Co-Investigating Judges would be allowed to go forward in the absence of a "supermajority", or four-to-one vote.
The chamber split along national and international lines, with the three Cambodian judges ruling against the filing of additional submissions.
Acting international co-prosecutor William Smith told the Post that he was "pleased to get the decision". Chea Leang declined to comment in detail before conferring with Smith.
Petit, whose resignation went into effect Tuesday, had reportedly identified six more suspects as of December, though he declined to comment on the number in his farewell press conference.
Smith said Wednesday that his office had yet to decide whether to make the number or other details public when submissions are filed.
Prime Minister Hun Sen has said more indictments could jeopardise national stability, and in March he said he would "prefer to see the court fail than for war to come back to Cambodia".
Council of Ministers spokesman Phay Siphan said Wednesday that he could not comment on the August 18 filing because he had not seen it.
Long Panhavuth, a court monitor for the Cambodia Justice Initiative, dismissed concerns that more investigations would lead to violence.
He said the decision to allow further submissions was evidence of the court's "independence and integrity".
Sharp criticism of the decision came from former Khmer Rouge cadres, including Meas Muth, an army divisional commander who was cited as a possible suspect in the 2001 report "Seven Candidates for Prosecution: Accountability for the Crimes of the Khmer Rouge", by Stephen Heder and Brian D Tittemore.
"Why are they trying to make problems for living persons to find justice for the dead?" Meas Muth asked. "To satisfy the dead will not bring any good results and will instead lead to splits in society."
He added, though, that he was not concerned for himself.
"I have nothing to worry about," he said. "I have rice, vegetables and fruit to eat, and I sleep well. I did not commit any crimes directly. Only the top leaders did, and they know who they are."
Also Wednesday, former Tuol Sleng prison chief Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, testified that he became a Christian in part to prevent his daughter from becoming a whore.
Duch said he became particularly concerned about the welfare of his children after his wife was slain in 1995.
"I picked Christianity because I wanted to make sure that my children would be taken care of after I passed away," Duch said. "When I die, my children will be under the good care of the people at the church, and my daughter will not end up being a whore."
Judges Find Difficulty in Tribunal's Second Case
VOA News
By Kong Sothanarith
September 7, 2009
Judges at the UN-backed Khmer Rouge tribunal said Monday they face a number of complications in preparation of the court's second trial, the combined indictment of four senior leaders, which has stalled investigations.
The trial of Case No. 002 pits the court against alleged atrocity crimes suspects Nuon Chea, the chief ideologue of the regime; Khieu Samphan, its nominal president; Ieng Sary, foreign minister; and his wife, Ieng Thirith, social affairs minister.
"The investigation is not yet finished due to the complicities of the crime and difficulties for the crime which happened decades ago," said Judge Kong Srim, president of the Plenary Session of the tribunal, in his opening remarks.
The tribunal is currently undertaking the relatively straightforward trial of Kaing Kek Iev, also known as Duch, the former head of the regimeÕs lethal Tuol Sleng prison.
Judges and prosecutors are meeting for the full session, their sixth, every day this week, and are expected to discuss civil party status, procedures for the Supreme Court and participation of civil parties in Case No. 002.
"The co-investigating judges are interviewing, investigating and delegating to experts to report on the demography, and they are considering the request for some more investigations," said Judge Silvia Cartwright, deputy chairwoman of the Plenary Session.
Cambodian PM Opposes More Khmer Rouge Arrests
The Associated Press
September 7, 2009
Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen renewed his criticism of the country's U.N.-backed Khmer Rouge tribunal Monday, warning that arresting more suspects could spark civil war.
Hun Sen spoke in response to last week's ruling by the tribunal allowing prosecutors to pursue further arrests. The matter had been in contention because the Cambodian co-prosecutor opposed the idea, while his international counterpart supported it.
The tribunal is seeking justice for the estimated 1.7 million people who died in Cambodia from execution, overwork, disease and malnutrition as a result of the communist regime's radical policies while in power between 1975-79.
Critics allege that Hun Sen has sought to limit the tribunal's scope because other potential defendants are now his political allies. Hun Sen served as a Khmer Rouge officer, before changing sides, and many of his major political allies are also former members of the group.
Brad Adams, Asia director at New York-based Human Rights Watch, said he believed Hun Sen was seeking to protect members of his own Cambodian People's Party, who could be targets for prosecution. But he said it was unlikely more arrests would be made.
"(Hun Sen) has been saying the same thing for 10 years, since before the court was set up," Adams said. "It's never happened, and it's not going to happen."
He pointed out that the Khmer Rouge have been defunct for a decade, and that its former leaders are more interested in business than war, and even if they sought to fight, they would be unable to recruit anyone to their side.
The tribunal's long-awaited first trial — of the Khmer Rouge's chief jailer, for war crimes and crimes against humanity — opened in March. A joint trial with four other senior officials — the only others currently in detention — is expected in the next year or two.
Hun Sen said that if foreign aid donors stopped funding the tribunal, Cambodia would carry on the proceedings on its own, without the international participation it now has. The tribunal employs joint teams of Cambodian and international court personnel.
"I would like to tell you that if you prosecute (more leaders) without thinking beforehand about national reconciliation and peace, and if war breaks out again and kills 20,000 or 30,000 people, who will responsible?" Hun Sen said. He said he was not trying to use his influence against the court, but only stating the situation.
There was no immediate reaction to Hun Sen's comment by representatives of the tribunal.
The Khmer Rouge came to power after a bitter 1970-75 civil war, and after being ousted from power in 1979, carried out an insurgency from the jungle until 1999.
Hun Sen said that he had devoted several years of his life to persuading Khmer Rouge leaders and their soldiers to end their fighting, so he could not allow anyone to drag the country back into a new civil war.
"I will not allow anyone to destroy what I have achieved,Ó Hun Sen said. "The value of peace here is huge."
Hun Sen has dominated Cambodian politics for more than two decades. He ousted his former co-prime minister in a 1997 coup and has since ruled virtually unchallenged.
UN Says Khmer Rouge Tribunal Must Be Independent
The Associated Press
By Sopheng Cheang
September 8, 2009
The U.N. administrator for the Khmer Rouge tribunal issued a blunt reminder to Prime Minister Hun Sen that the panel is independent, after the Cambodian leader suggested that arresting more suspects for trial could spark a civil war.
The U.N.-backed tribunal ruled last week that prosecutors could pursue further arrests beyond the five Khmer Rouge leaders already indicted, in a decision opposed by the panel's Cambodian co-prosecutor but supported by his international counterparts.
Hun Sen said Monday that he had devoted several years to persuading Khmer Rouge leaders and their soldiers to stop fighting, so he could not allow anyone to drag the country back into a new civil war by putting additional suspects them on trial.
Knut Rosandhaug, Coordinator of the United Nations Assistance to the Khmer Rouge trials, subsequently issued a statement that he expects the tribunal to continue to work independently.
"It is a clearly established international standard that courts do not seek approval of advice on their work from the executive branch," he said.
The tribunal is seeking justice for the estimated 1.7 million people who died in Cambodia from execution, overwork, disease and malnutrition as a result of the communist regime's radical policies while in power between 1975-79.
Critics accuse Hun Sen of seeking to limit the tribunal's scope because other potential defendants are his current political allies. Hun Sen served as a Khmer Rouge officer, before changing sides, and many of his major political allies are also former members of the group.
Brad Adams, Asia director at New York-based Human Rights Watch, said he believes Hun Sen was seeking to protect members of his own Cambodian People's Party, who could be targets for prosecution. But he said it was unlikely more arrests would be made.
Adams pointed out that the Khmer Rouge have been defunct for a decade, and that its former leaders are now more interested in business than war.
The tribunal's long-awaited first trial, of the Khmer Rouge's chief jailer for war crimes and crimes against humanity, opened in March. A joint trial of the four other senior officials, the only others currently in detention, is expected within the next two years.
The Khmer Rouge came to power after a bitter 1970-75 Civil War, and after being ousted from power in 1979, carried out an insurgency from the jungles until 1999.
Hun Sen has dominated Cambodian politics for more than two decades. He ousted his former co-prime minister in a 1997 coup and has since ruled virtually unchallenged.
ECCC Judges' Plenary to Focus on Streamlining Role of Civil
Parties
Phnom Penh Post
By Robbie Corey-Boulet
September 8, 2009
The tribunal's weeklong plenary session is to focus today on the issue of civil party participation, five days after the Rules and Procedure Committee convened an "urgent meeting" to discuss ways to make that participation "more meaningful", Trial Chamber Judge Silvia Cartwright said during an opening speech Monday. "It is well-known that the Trial Chamber has found the process of involving victims as civil parties to be cumbersome, and that it has frequently had the unlooked-for effect of slowing the trial while not providing for the victims' needs, which include achieving timely justice for their suffering," she said. The tribunal has received a total of 2,210 civil party applications, Plenary President Kong Srim said. The vast majority of those applications are for the court's second case, for which Kong Srim said the civil party process "could be an ultimate failure" if changes aren't made. On Monday the plenary was briefed on a budget proposal for 2010 and 2011. UN court spokesman Lars Olsen said the court aims to present a budget proposal to the Group of Interested States by mid-October. Also Thursday, the Cambodian Centre for Human Rights (CCHR) submitted an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief to the Pre-Trial Chamber pertaining to a decision by the Office of the Co-Investigating Judges (OCIJ) regarding the use of "torture-tainted evidence". The OCIJ in July dismissed a request from Ieng Thirith's defence team to deem all such evidence inadmissible. Lawyers for the former minister of social action appealed that decision. In its brief, CCHR called for the OCIJ decision to be overturned.
Indictments Hint at Tribunal Independence: Scholar
VOA News
By Men Kimseng
September 9, 2009
An American professor who has been following and writing crucial articles about the UN-backed Khmer Rouge tribunal on Monday offered a cautious congratulations to the court's latest development which could lead to more prosecutions of the regimeÕs senior leaders.
John Hall, a law professor at Chapman University School of Law, said in a letter to VOA Khmer that "by deciding to open the door to additional prosecutions, the tribunal has proclaimed its determination to remain above political manipulation."
Hall was referring to a decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber last week to move five more indictments to the investigating judges, following the recommendation of the international prosecutorÕs office and against the judgment of the Cambodian prosecutor.
Prime Minister Hun Sen has warned that further indictments could lead to instability or war, fears echoed by Cambodian officials and judges. (Three Cambodian Pre-Trial judges decided against moving the indictments forward, but with two international judges in favor of the move, the chamber did not reach the super-majority necessary to kill the prosecutionÕs submissions to investigating judges.)
"The apparent willingness of the tribunal to move forward with additional prosecutions suggests that the international judges at least are unwilling to allow Hun Sen to influence the legal proceedings with alarmist threats of impending civil war," Hall wrote.
The concern of instability has little basis in the reality of contemporary Cambodia, Hall said, calling the split decision "particularly worrying, because the argument against additional prosecutions—a vague and less unconvincing threat of civil war from the prime minister—is clearly not a legal argument adequate for the court to reject additional indictments, such as an insufficiency of evidence."
Now, Hall said, a worry lingers over whether Cambodian officials will cooperate with the court if the indictments move even further through the process.
"How will the Cambodian government respond if indictments are brought against former senior Khmer Rouge who are currently active supporters of Hun Sen and the CPP?" he asked, referring to the ruling party. "Will the prime minister then use the excuse of national stability to pull the plug on the hybrid tribunal, perhaps proceeding with a purely domestic trial only of the current five defendants?"
The tribunal is currently trying Kaing Kek Iev, the former prison chief known as Duch, and is holding Nuon Chea, Khieu Samphan, Ieng Sary and Ieng Thirith, four of the senior-most leaders.
At least one former Khmer Rouge commander, Meas Muth, a probable suspect for indictment who serves an advisory role to the Ministry of Defense, has said he does not fear prosecution for his role in what he says was defense of the country from foreign invasion.
Official Website of the Iraqi High Tribunal
Grotian Moment: The Saddam Hussein Trial Blog
Iraqi Court Issues Warrant for Anti-Graft Official
Reuters
September 8, 2009
A top Iraqi court has issued an arrest warrant for a senior anti-corruption official who is himself probing questionable accounting at the court, on charges he wasted money as a civil servant under Saddam Hussein.
Abdul-Basit Turki, the head of Iraq's Board of Supreme Audit, one of a handful of government agencies dedicated to fighting widespread corruption, stands accused of "wasting national funds in the past government", Iraqi High Tribunal chief judge Aref al-Shaheen told Reuters late on Monday.
"He occupied an important position in the presidential office ... during Saddam's time," Shaheen added.
But in a news conference on Tuesday, Turki said he was himself investigating officials at the court over accounting irregularities. He questioned the timing of the warrant.
"I'm surprised to hear about this warrant," Turki said. "I have no idea what their goals are."
The Iraqi High Tribunal was set up after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to try Saddam and former members of his government. It has handed down death sentences and long prison terms to officials loyal to the former leader, who was executed in 2006.
Turki declined to comment on whether the warrant was politically motivated, but said he had recently compiled a report documenting numerous violations of accounting rules at the tribunal. This was a follow-up to a report in July last year that first reported such a problem.
"We are now investigating their files for this year and we will highlight the violations that they still have not addressed," he said. "The new annual report about those violations is due to be issued this month."
Iraq has several agencies in place dedicated to combating corruption, including the Board of Supreme Audit, an executive Integrity Commission, and inspectors general across ministries.
Nonetheless, corruption is considered to be of epidemic proportions in Iraq, and is likely to figure prominently as a key issue in the lead-up to national elections in January.
In 2008, only Somalia and Myanmar were seen as more corrupt than Iraq, according to Transparency International.
Iraqi Officials Cleared of British Troop Murders
Reuters
September 9, 2009
An Iraqi court acquitted two former officials of Saddam Hussein's government on Wednesday of war crimes for the alleged murder of two British soldiers during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.
The Iraqi High Tribunal found insufficient evidence to convict Khalaf Hussain and Faisal al-Sadoun for the murders.
Staff Sergeant Simon Cullingworth, then 36, and Sapper Luke Allsopp, who was 24, were captured near the southern oil city of Basra during the invasion and then executed in captivity.
Their bodies were later shown on television lying by a roadside and surrounded by an exultant mob.
Judge Nazar al-Moussawi read the verdict in the tribunal, a special court set up after Saddam was toppled to try officials from his era for war crimes.
"The court decides to drop charges of war crimes in the case against Khalaf Hussain and Faisal al-Sadoun for lack of evidence and it orders their immediate release," he said.
Saddam executed in December 2006 after the tribunal convicted him of crimes against humanity for the killing of 148 Shi'ite Muslim men after a 1982 assassination attempt.
In Focus: Special Tribunal for Lebanon (UN)
International Tribunal Signs 'Interim Agreement' with
INTERPOL
Naharnet Newsdesk
September 3, 2009
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon and the International Criminal Police Organization have concluded an interim agreement on INTERPOL's assistance to the international court with regard to its investigations and other proceedings that pertain to the crimes that fall under its jurisdiction.
The Interim Agreement was signed by President Antonio Cassese, on behalf of the STL pursuant to article 10 of the Tribunal's Statute, and by Ronald K. Noble, the Secretary-General of INTERPOL, on behalf of his organization, said a statement issued by tribunal on Thursday.
It said the agreement, which entered into force on Aug. 24, is aimed at enabling the STL to request assistance from INTERPOL for the purposes of the ongoing investigations carried out by the Office of the Prosecutor of the Tribunal and other proceedings undertaken by the tribunal in discharging its mandate, until a more comprehensive cooperation agreement that is currently being negotiated between the two bodies is concluded and enters into force.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the STL (OTP), which took a very active part in the negotiation of the interim agreement, and the Operational Support Directorate at INTERPOL's General Secretariat are responsible, on behalf of their respective organizations, to ensure the implementation of the Interim Agreement.
This responsibility, according to the statement, entrusted to the Office of Prosecutor stems from the fact that the interim agreement was concluded to primarily address immediate assistance needs of the OTP during the investigative stage of its work. The agreement ensures continuity of the cooperation that existed between INTERPOL and the U.N. International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC).
Syrian Sought over Hariri Killing Asserts Innocence
The National
By Marten Youssef
September 7, 2009
A former Syrian intelligence officer who may be a key witness in the 2005 assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri appeared in the Federal Supreme Court yesterday for the first time since his arrest in Sharjah last April.
MZS, who has been held on State Security authority ever since, appeared in open court yesterday accused of "entering the UAE on false documents". It was the first confirmation that he is being held in the UAE and came months after his arrest was widely reported in the international media.
In October 2005, Lebanese prosecutors charged MZS in absentia with murder in connection with the assassination of Mr Hariri and 21 others in a car bombing in February that year.
The incident fuelled tensions between Lebanon and Syria, eventually compelling Damascus that same year to withdraw its troops, which had entered its smaller neighbour in 1976 during the civil war and had stayed on after it ended 14 years later.
It also led to the creation of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon by the UN to investigate and prosecute the killing. Lebanese prosecutors issued an international arrest warrant for MZS and he was picked up days later in Paris, but on different charges of providing false information to the tribunal investigators.
In an interview with a Kuwaiti newspaper, MZS was reported as saying he had testified to the UN investigators that Syria had played a major role in Mr Hariri's death. After the killing, he had fled to France.
Justice Khalifa al Muhairi yesterday highlighted the point that MZS was "a key witness to the assassination of Rafik Hariri".
"You are wanted in Lebanon in connection with the assassination. Do you know that?" Justice al Muhairi asked him. MZS said he was innocent. "All I want is a fair trial. I beg you, either release me or execute me," he said.
"I was released by France because I am an innocent man," he said. Although Lebanon had sought his extradition, France denied it on the grounds that he could be subject to the death penalty. He was released in 2006 and continued to live in France until March 2008, when he came to the UAE.
The State Security Public Prosecution has accused MZS of entering the UAE in March 2008 using false documents. He is also accused of possessing fraudulent French identification papers. It is not known if the document referred to in the charge is his passport.
Since his arrest was first reported in April, both Lebanon and Syria have sought his extradition. His trial, however, continues in the UAE.
MZS told the judge that he had been held in solitary confinement. "I am treated like a dog. I am not allowed to make phone calls. I am not allowed to speak to a lawyer. I am not even allowed to pray," he shouted. He was restrained by guards from approaching the judge.
His wife, son and daughter attended the hearing.
"I did not enter this country illegally. I had a valid French passport," MZS protested. He was escorted by a member of State Security outside the courtroom while shouting: "Someone please contact the human right authorities." He sat on the floor in protest against the guards shackling him.
Judge Denies Kuwaiti’s Request for Gitmo Release
The Associated Press
By Nedra Pickler
September 1, 2009
A judge ruled that evidence suggests a Kuwaiti man held at Guantanamo Bay was part of terrorist forces, even though in a bid for freedom he claimed to be an Islamic studies teacher who didn't associate with extremists.
Fawzi al-Odah, 32, sued for his release from the terrorist detention facility in Cuba more than seven years ago, making his the longest pending case claiming unlawful detention at Guantanamo Bay. But his case was caught up in a legal dispute over whether Guantanamo prisoners could sue for their release in U.S. courts that eventually was decided in favor of the detainees by the Supreme Court last year.
Al-Odah is the seventh Guantanamo detainee to be denied release by a federal judge; 29 have been granted release.
Al-Odah said he traveled to Afghanistan a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States not to join the Taliban and al-Qaida but to teach Islam to the poor. He was 24 years old at the time, an Islamic studies graduate of Kuwait University from a wealthy and prominent family who had taught at a public school and in a prison.
U.S. government attorneys argued at an Aug. 11 hearing that al-Odah had a "consuming interest" in Islamic terrorism and trained at a Taliban-operated camp. They said he then traveled with a Taliban-issued AK-47 into the Tora Bora mountains where he remained during battles with U.S. forces after the Sept. 11 attacks and was eventually captured by Pakistani border agents in mid-December.
Al-Odah argued that the camp where he trained with firearms was not for terrorists, but a children's camp. And he said he was only in Tora Bora because he was trying to get out of Afghanistan as the war began.
But U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, who denied his release, wrote in an opinion that she found inconsistencies and a lack of detail in al-Odah's statements that suggested he was not credible.
"The court finds that this record supports a reasonable inference that al-Odah may have also been traveling to Afghanistan to engage in jihad, and not to teach the poor and needy for two weeks," she wrote in an opinion released Monday.
Canada’s Top Court to Hear Guantanamo Inmate Case
Reuters
By David Ljunggren
September 4, 2009
Canada's Supreme Court will hear an appeal by the federal government of lower court decisions that ordered Ottawa to press the United States to release a Canadian imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay, the court said on Friday.
Two courts have already told the Conservative government it must ask Washington for the return of Omar Khadr -- a Canadian citizen and the last Western inmate at the U.S. prison in Cuba -- on the grounds that his rights have been infringed.
The court will hear the government's appeal on November 13 this year. It usually takes between six to eight months to issue a ruling but the court is likely to reveal its decision more quickly in this case, given the sensitivity of the matter.
The government has consistently shrugged off pressure to intervene in the Khadr case, saying the 22-year-old is facing serious charges.
The United States accuses Khadr of throwing a grenade that killed a U.S. soldier and wounded another during a firefight in 2002 at an al Qaeda compound in Afghanistan. Khadr was 15 at the time.
Panel Rules Against Ashcroft in Detention Case
New York Times
By John Schwartz
September 4, 2009
Former Attorney General John Ashcroft may face personal liability for the decisions that led to the detention of an American citizen as a material witness after the Sept. 11 attacks, a federal appeals court panel ruled on Friday.
In the decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, was sharply critical of the Bush administration’s practice of holding people it suspected of terrorism without charges, as material witnesses.
“We find this to be repugnant to the Constitution, and a painful reminder of some of the most ignominious chapters of our national history,” said the opinion, written by Judge Milan D. Smith Jr.
The lawsuit was brought in 2005 by Abdullah al-Kidd, who was born Lavoni T. Kidd in Kansas and converted to Islam in college. He was arrested in 2003 at Dulles Airport as he prepared to fly to Saudi Arabia for graduate work in Islamic studies, and was held for weeks under a law that allows the indefinite detention of material witnesses to a crime. After his detention, he was ordered to stay with his in-laws in Las Vegas; his travel was restricted over the next year.
Mr. Kidd, who was not called as a witness in the case in which he was detained and was never charged with a crime, sued Mr. Ashcroft and other officials in 2005, challenging his detention as unconstitutional and saying it cost him his marriage and his job. His lawyers argued that he was held as part of a secret Bush administration policy to use the material witness statute as a tool to detain and interrogate people when there was insufficient evidence to charge them with a crime.
Mr. Ashcroft, who was represented by the Justice Department, disputed Mr. Kidd’s version of the facts and claimed his position granted him immunity.
Lee Gelernt, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union who represented Mr. Kidd, called it “an enormous decision” that says “no official, including the attorney general of the United States, can be immune if he adopts and implements an unconstitutional policy.”
Material witness laws, said Ronald L. Carlson, a law professor at the University of Georgia, have generally been used to hold witnesses briefly if they have crucial information but are thought to be likelier to flee than to testify. But during the Bush administration, the use of the law was expanded for use in terrorism investigations, and “the net swept pretty widely,” Professor Carlson said.
Charles S. Miller, a spokesman for the Justice Department, said, “We’re reviewing the court’s ruling.” Mark Corallo, a spokesman for Mr. Ashcroft, would say only that Mr. Ashcroft was reviewing the decision as well.
A report in 2005 by Human Rights Watch and the A.C.L.U. said that 70 people were improperly detained under the material witness law after 9/11. Although the decision could conceivably apply to those people, few, if any, of them could now sue because of the statute of limitations, Mr. Gelernt said.
Judge Smith, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, was joined in the majority opinion by Judge David R. Thompson, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan. The third judge on the panel, Carlos T. Bea, filed an opinion that concurred in part and dissented in part. Judge Bea, who was also appointed by President Bush, argued that Mr. Ashcroft should have immunity in the case, and that the majority was wrong to allow Mr. Kidd “to seek redress from the wallet of a federal cabinet-level official.”
Unless Mr. Ashcroft appeals the decision, the case will go back to federal district court for further hearings, which could involve extensive investigation of the former administration’s antiterrorism policies.
Belgium Agrees to Accept Gitmo Detainee
United Press International
September 5, 2009
Belgium officials say they have agreed to accept a U.S. Guantanamo Bay terrorism detainee who has been cleared by U.S. courts.
A statement Friday from the Belgium Foreign Ministry didn't reveal the detainee's identity or specify his nationality, nor did it detail a timeline for the transfer, The Miami Herald reported.
"The individual in question is no longer facing prosecution,'' the statement said, which the Herald said suggested he was among the 19 detainees still held at Guantanamo who have been ordered freed by federal judges on habeas corpus grounds.
With the move, Belgium joins France and Portugal -- which have accepted two Syrian detainees for resettlement -- and Ireland in agreeing to repatriate Guantanamo inmates, the newspaper said.
U.S. President Barack Obama has ordered the prison be closed by early 2010. Some 226 captives have reportedly been cleared for release, but are fearful of returning to their own countries for fear of retaliation.
Guantanamo Captives Winning Lawsuits 29-7
The Miami Herald
By Carol Rosenberg
September 7, 2009
In one federal courtroom last month, a defense lawyer argued that the U.S. military had coerced a false confession out of a 50-year-old Kuwaiti who has been at Guantánamo for seven years.
In another, a Maryland attorney proposed that his Pakistani client, being held as an alleged al Qaeda facilitator, be allowed to post bail and stay with family -- in Brooklyn.
Congress returns Tuesday from its summer recess but there was no break for the judges at the U.S. District Court midway between The Capitol and The White House who have been busy plowing through more than 200 lawsuits brought by Guantánamo detainees.
And, if the first 36 cases suggest a trend, the court is hardly persuaded that the Pentagon has the ``worst of the worst'' penned up at the base in southeast Cuba.
Fifteen months after the U.S. Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration by ruling that Guantánamo captives can sue for their freedom, civilian judges have ordered the release of 29 detainees and sided with the Defense Department only seven times.
Those ordered freed include four Muslim men from China, ethnic Uighurs now working as groundskeepers at a golf course in Bermuda; a young Afghan who went home last month after growing into adulthood behind the razor wire at Camp Delta; and an Algerian now living in an apartment with his wife and daughters in the south of France.
`UNPRECEDENTED'
The seven men whose habeas-corpus petitions for release were denied include a one-legged Yemeni fighter captured in 2001, a Taliban cook, and an Algerian who allegedly helped jihadists reach Afghanistan.
``I think the number of difficult questions presented by the Guantánamo cases is unprecedented in our court,'' Chief Judge Royce Lamberth told The Miami Herald. ``In our court, mostly settled law applies. It makes it interesting. But it really is time-consuming because of the need to proceed carefully'' and decide ``precedents for future wars as well as this war.''
Lamberth said he and his 13 fellow judges are engaged in a balancing act: Developing definitions and procedures to judge which detentions are lawful while trying to quickly hear the cases of detainees who were denied civilian-court review for seven years until the Supreme Court ruling.
Pro bono defense lawyer David Remes, once a corporate attorney who worked on tobacco, oil and IBM cases, calls Guantánamo case work routine ``nuts-and-bolts litigation'' that requires interviewing clients, combing through paperwork and filing and arguing motions -- a characterization government attorneys dispute.
`EXTRAORDINARY'
Justice Department spokesman Dean Boyd said its Civil Division has assigned 50 lawyers to defend the Defense Department detentions.
``The Justice Department's habeas team has been producing and continues to produce an extraordinary volume of information to attorneys for Guantánamo Bay detainees in complying with discovery requests,'' Boyd said. ``As part of this process, the Defense Department and the intelligence community have processed thousands of individual documents containing tens of thousands of pages for declassification in connection with the cases.''
Before they ever hear cases, the judges are ordering the government to turn over intelligence, deciding how much hearsay to allow then sorting out the truth between the Pentagon's argument for continued detention and the detainee's case for release.
LOGISTICS
Logistically, it has put on a huge pile of work, not just the legal questions but the logistics of suddenly handling about 200 cases relying on classified evidence, says Lamberth. ``We've never done it on this scale before,'' he said. ``If a court has one at a time, that's unusual.''
To keep some judges' calendars clear, he said, he outsourced some non-detainee cases to federal judges in Maryland and West Virginia.
The Guantánamo cases are being heard in the same courthouse opposite the National Gallery of Art where a grand jury heard the sordid details of the Monica Lewinsky affair and Judge John Sirica sorted out the Watergate scandal.
So far, none of the cases of former CIA-held captives now at Guantánamo has had full-blown habeas hearings. Those cases are certain to be even more complex as intelligence agencies seek to shield clandestine interrogation techniques and sites from judicial scrutiny.
Sometimes, the U.S. defense lawyers who have volunteered their services have the captives testify in their own defense via secure video feed. Many have not, arguing it is the government's burden to defend the detention.
EXAMPLE
The recent opening arguments in the case of Fouad al Rabia v Barack Obama was a case in point.
Rabia listened over a sometimes-muted telephone line from Guantánamo while Justice Department attorney Sarah Maloney stood in the marble and wood-paneled court and defended his seven-year detention.
Military-intelligence agents concluded, she said, that the father of four with a master's degree from the Daytona Beach campus of Embry Riddle Aeronautical University was a logistics and supply officer at the December 2001 battle for Tora Bora between U.S. Special Forces hunting Osama bin Laden and the al Qaeda founder's fanatical followers.
DEFENSE CASE
Defense attorney David Cynamon argued that the logistics officer was killed in the shock-and-awe assaults on Tora Bora in Afghanistan.
Rabia did ``confess,'' Cynamon countered, adding that he told interrogators what they wanted to hear after a U.S. military program of relentless interrogation, isolation, misidentification and the misguided belief that mimicking his interrogators story was the way back to his wife and four kids in Kuwait.
Fouad would not testify. Instead, the lawyers would guide Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly through thousands of pages in the case, brought to court inside binders stamped SECRET in red to help her decide whether the Pentagon has the power to still hold him -- or to instruct President Obama's administration to arrange for his release. The judge has yet to rule.
NOT CITIZENS
Scholars trace the concept of a writ of habeas corpus to the time before the Magna Carta when Anglo-Saxon kings exercised an unchallenged power to banish a subject to the dungeon. In a classic U.S. habeas corpus ruling, a judge could order the captive brought before the court -- and set free on the spot.
That's difficult to do in the Guantánamo cases because none of the captives is a citizen. The detainees' release orders instruct the State Department to arrange diplomatic transfers from the Guantánamo prison camps.
The courts are also holding hearings as an Obama administration task force is deciding which of the men to let go as part of a White House mandate to close the prison camps by Jan. 22.
Some judges have put cases on hold until the task force decides; others are pressing ahead.
OTHER CASES
In January, Judge Richard Leon sided with the Pentagon's decision to detain Saudi-born Ghalib al Bihani, 29, as an enemy combatant. Taken to Guantánamo a week after Camp X-Ray opened, he had denied that he ever took part in al Qaeda basic weapons training, but admitted to working as a cook for the Taliban.
``As Napoleon himself was fond of pointing out: `An army marches on its stomach,' '' Leon wrote.
Seven months later, Judge Gladys Kessler ordered the release of Mohammed al Adahi , a 47-year-old Yemeni who admitted he went to a wedding party for his sister put on by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan and also attended al Qaeda boot camp, but washed out.
Although ``sensational and compelling,'' she wrote in her 24-page ruling, it ``does not constitute actual, reliable evidence that would justify the government's detention.''
Adahi remains in Cuba while diplomats seek a repatriation agreement with Yemen.
`FRUSTRATIONS'
Lawyers liken these to ``show-cause hearings,'' a criminal proceeding under the most unusual circumstances -- using seven-year-old files, some classified, gathered not for prosecution but intelligence efforts.
Two weeks ago, Judge Paul Friedman struggled aloud with the question of whether detainee Saifulla Paracha, 62, might post bail.
``That's one of the great frustrations that judges have,'' Friedman said. ``They reach a decision, then do they have the power to release them into the United States or into Cuba?''
Government lawyers are still combing through Guantánamo documents to decide which his lawyers may see, and an actual merits hearing won't be held until next year.
RENDITION CASE
Meantime, Maryland defense attorney Gaillard Hunt said, Paracha could be fitted with a tracking device on his ankle and move to a family home in Brooklyn, or await his hearing in Karachi, Pakistan.
In 2003, masked men seized Paracha as he was leaving the airport in Bangkok, Thailand, according to his petition for release. His captors then spirited him to Afghanistan, a technique now known as rendition, for a year of U.S. interrogation and detention before he was sent to Cuba in September 2004.
He has never been charged with a crime, nor has he ever claimed his American captors tortured him. He has a heart condition but refused a U.S. military plan to treat him with angioplasty.
Rather than rule immediately on bail, Friedman gave the government two months to start providing Paracha's lawyers with the paperwork -- and asked for a formal response on the bail question by Halloween.
U.S. Tried to Soften Treaty on Detainees
Washington Post
By R. Jeffrey Smith
September 8, 2009
From 2003 to 2006, the Bush administration quietly tried to relax the draft language of a treaty meant to bar and punish "enforced disappearances" so that those overseeing the CIA's secret prison system would not be criminally prosecuted under its provisions, according to former officials and hundreds of pages of documents recently declassified by the State Department.
The aim of the global treaty, long supported by the United States, was to end official kidnappings, detentions and killings like those that plagued Latin America in the 1970s and 1980s, and that allegedly still occur in Russia, China, Iran, Colombia, Sri Lanka and elsewhere. But the documents suggest that initial U.S. support for the negotiations collided head-on with the then-undisclosed goal of seizing suspected terrorists anywhere in the world for questioning by CIA interrogators or indefinite detention by the U.S. military at foreign sites.
Instead of embracing a far-reaching ban on arrests, detentions and abductions of people without disclosing their fate or whereabouts or ensuring "the protection of the law," the United States pressed in 2004 for a more limited prohibition on intentionally placing detainees outside legal protections for "a prolonged period of time." At the time, the CIA was secretly holding about a dozen prisoners.
Foreign governments criticized the U.S.-preferred wording, calling it vague and saying that proving intent would be hard and should not be necessary.
In the end, the Bush administration declined to endorse the treaty's broadly worded ban, which at least 81 countries have now signed, including all members of the European Union and many nations with checkered human rights records, such as Algeria, Argentina, Cuba and Guatemala.
A White House official said the Obama administration is reviewing the previous U.S. stance on the treaty as part of a wider look at international human rights accords that Washington has not signed. The official did not say when a decision might be made.
The administration has already reversed its predecessor's decision to shun the U.N. Human Rights Council, which is monitoring the treaty's implementation. But it has also said it will retain the ability to capture and transfer suspects to third countries, a practice known as rendition, while stressing that it will not do so if detainees are at risk of torture.
The documents detailing U.S. proposals to loosen some of the treaty's key language were released last week in response to a Freedom of Information Act request made by Amnesty International, but many passages were redacted, and the remaining portions make no direct reference to specific CIA or Defense Department objections.
A senior Bush administration policymaker confirmed in an interview last week, however, that the existence of the CIA prisons and the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where the Defense Department has held hundreds of suspected terrorists without initially disclosing their names, was "a complicating factor" in U.S. deliberations on the treaty.
"Our negotiators were certainly aware that there was this program where people were being held, and were not in touch with people, and they had to be careful to ensure that there was room" for that program to continue, the official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the deliberations. He added that the treaty's proposed definition of "enforced disappearances" was only one of several problems Washington had with the draft.
"As with a number of previous human rights treaties, the language was just so broad that . . . we were not going to be able to sign," he said.
The treaty requires member countries to enact domestic criminal penalties for state-orchestrated disappearances and to compensate victims, but it has not taken legal effect because it has not been ratified by at least 20 nations, the minimum required. That leaves U.N. investigations of such cases in the hands of a five-member group chaired by a South African, which last year sent 1,203 new allegations of enforced disappearances to officials in the 28 countries said to be involved. A total of 42,393 alleged such disappearances in 79 countries remain unresolved by the group, according to its most recent annual report.
The U.N. group complained to the Bush administration last year about reports of the "enforced disappearance for a certain period of time" of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, a radical Egyptian cleric who was abducted by the CIA from a Milan street in 2003 and sent to Egypt, where he says he was tortured. When the State Department responded that U.S. policy bars such renditions if torture is anticipated, the U.N. group highlighted the gulf between the global treaty's view of "intentionality" and the Bush administration's view.
"Intentionality is essentially irrelevant," the group said in its response to Washington, "in the sense that any act of enforced disappearance has the consequence of placing the persons subjected thereto outside the protection of the law, regardless of the pursued purposes." U.S. negotiators had argued to the contrary in 2006 -- that proving intent is "an essential ingredient of the crime."
During the negotiations, China and a few other countries joined the United States in repeatedly attempting to slow the pace of the drafting, citing the complexity of the underlying issues. But a February 2004 State Department cable described the United States as "isolated" in urging that the text include language allowing those participating in enforced disappearances to be exempt from prosecution if they thought they were following lawful orders.
The documents also spell out how the Bush administration was "virtually alone" in objecting to a treaty provision stipulating that anyone "with a legitimate interest," such as a relative, be given an explanation and accounting of an individual's detention by the government as well as information on the person's whereabouts and health. U.S. negotiators called that provision unacceptable in a 2004 document, saying it "could impair national security, law enforcement, or privacy interests."
David Kaye, a State Department lawyer from 1999 to 2002 who directs the International Human Rights Program at UCLA Law School, said after reviewing the documents that "it's clear that the 'right to know' was at the heart of the effort to draft this new instrument." In that context, he said, "the failure to come up with a creative way to solve the American problem with this language plainly looks like the Bush administration objected to the purpose of the treaty itself -- and that our allies roundly rejected the U.S. position."
He added: "I think a lot of the 'problems' in the text could be resolved and that the United States should consider joining this treaty."
Allen Weiner, another former State Department lawyer who is co-director of the Program in International Law at Stanford Law School, similarly said that many of the apparent U.S. concerns were "solvable" or could have been addressed in legal "reservations," whereby the U.S. government spelled out its plans to implement the treaty's language.
The senior Bush administration official noted, however, that Washington's ability to gain concessions from others was undermined by public revelation of the CIA prisons in 2005. "I doubt that other countries would have been pushing quite so hard on this particular convention at this time were they not trying to cause problems for the administration," he said.
The context, he said, enabled "both the Europeans and the Latins" to "join forces" in arguing against the U.S. proposals.
Video That Reveals Truth of Sri Lankan 'War Crimes'
The Independent
By Andrew Buncombe
August 27, 2009
The naked man, his hands bound behind his back, is pushed to the ground. Then a man in military uniform delivers a forceful kick to the back of the prisoner's head with the heel of his boot. As the prisoner slumps forward, another soldier points his automatic weapon and fires a single shot. The man's body jolts. "It's like he jumped," laughs one of the giggling soldiers.
As gunfire rattles, the camera pans left to reveal a further seven bloodstained bodies, all handcuffed and bound, and – with one exception – similarly naked, strewn on the ground. The camera then pans right again, as another naked man is forced to the ground and shot in the back of the head. This time the body falls backwards.
These scenes, captured on video, allegedly show extra-judicial killings of Tamils by Sri Lankan troops earlier this year in the bitter and bloody endgame of the country's civil war. As government forces made a decisive thrust into the stronghold of rebel forces to end the decades-long conflict, a Sri Lankan soldier apparently took this footage, which was then smuggled out of the country by activists. It may constitute the first hard evidence for those who believe war crimes were committed in the effort to crush the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). The significance of this footage – particularly shocking for the seemingly casual way in which the killings were carried out – is even greater given the way that journalists and independent observers were prevented by the government from reaching the war zone. The UN has estimated that 10,000 civilians were killed in what was, in effect, a war with no outside witnesses.
Last night the Sri Lankan army dismissed the footage as the latest in a series of fabrications designed to damage the country's image. But campaigners and Tamil politicians said it was vital that a full inquiry be carried out into the alleged killings. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has voiced his support for an investigation into possible war crimes if convincing evidence emerged.
So too has Amnesty International's Asia-Pacific director, Sam Zarifi, who said: "We have received consistent reports that violations of the laws of war, as well as international human rights law, were committed by both sides in the conflict and we call once again for an international, independent and credible investigation into what took place during the final days of the conflict."
The footage was obtained by Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka (JDS), an organisation made up of several dozen Sri Lankan journalists who have fled into exile in recent years as the intimidation and killing of media professionals has soared. The group, whose members now live mostly in Europe, said the film was taken by a Sri Lankan soldier in January using his mobile phone as the army was battling to take the LTTE's de facto capital, Kilinochchi.
A spokesman for the group, who asked not be identified, said: "It was as if someone was filming it for fun. This was being circulated by the soldiers. It has been going round for a while. It was taken as if it was a souvenir." He said rumours of such footage had existed for a long time but that this was the first time such film had entered "the mainstream".
There is no way to confirm the authenticity of the footage, first broadcast by Channel 4 News. Likewise, there is no way of proving that the people apparently shot dead are Tamils, as the JDS has claimed. But this is not the first time that images from the war zone, captured on mobile phones, have been circulated within Sri Lanka.
Earlier this year a man in the eastern city of Trincomalee showed The Independent pictures of a naked, dead woman. He said the woman was apparently an LTTE fighter, killed as government troops advanced on rebel positions to the north.
Nor is it the first time that the army has been accused of carrying out summary justice. In May, when the rebels' final position in the north-east was overrun by government soldiers and the LTTE's leader, Velupillai Prabhakaran, was killed, it emerged that two other leading rebels had been shot dead while trying to surrender. Tamils living outside Sri Lanka said the two men were carrying a white flag when they were shot by troops. A senior government official admitted that the two men had been trying to give themselves up for several days. At the time, the EU called for an inquiry into possible human rights abuses committed during the final months of the war.
A spokesman for the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights (UNHCR) said: "If it can be verified, this footage could be evidence of the sort of war crimes we fear were committed by both sides. We have repeatedly said there should be an investigations into the closing stages of the conflict. There needs to be some sort of accountability."
The final assault on the LTTE ended a war that had raged for almost three decades and cost at least 70,000 lives. The LTTE, fighting for a Tamil homeland, had long waged a brutal insurgency and used suicide bombers to attack both civilian and military targets. Since the war ended, the popularity of President Mahinda Rajapaksa, whose brother heads the powerful defence ministry, has soared among the country's Sinhala majority.
The resulting peace has also seen a 25 per cent increase in the number of visitors to Sri Lanka, lured by its beaches, tropical forests and gently paced culture. Already about 100,000 visitors from the UK travel to the island each year, according to the Sri Lankan tourist board, and officials are hopeful that the tourist numbers will increase further.
When he announced an end to the war, the president said that Sinhala, Tamils and Muslims must live as "equals". Yet some Tamils say the government has done little to placate its population or to offer them a political "settlement". This summer, in local elections held in the north, the government's party won in the city of Jaffna, but in Vavuniya victory went to the Tamil National Alliance (TNA), which has previously voiced some support for the LTTE.
Yesterday Sri Lankan opposition MPs urged the government to release nearly 300,000 war refugees held in state-run camps, saying the detentions brought discredit to the country.
"These camps stand as a symbol of shame and disgrace to our proud Sri Lankan history," said Mano Ganesan, an opposition MP and leader of a group calling itself Parliamentarians for Human Rights. "They are like prisons. People are kept against their will and that's illegal."
UN Condemns E Timor Militia Leader's Release
AFP
September 1, 2009
The United Nations condemned Tuesday the release of an Indonesian former militia leader accused of taking part in a massacre of civilians in East Timor in 1999.
The UN said earlier this week that Martenus Bere had been released Sunday ahead of national celebrations commemorating 10 years since East Timor won independence from Indonesia in a UN-backed referendum.
East Timor's government has refused to confirm Bere's release but Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman Teuku Faizasyah told AFP on Tuesday that Bere had already been moved from detention to Indonesia's embassy in Dili.
"He's still in Dili and we're now processing his return to Indonesia," Faizasyah said.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon's spokeswoman Marie Okabe said in a statement Tuesday that the UN position was clear.
"If the reports are true, his release is contrary to the Security Council resolutions which set up the UN Mission in (East Timor) and seriously undermines the global principle of accountability for crimes against humanity," Okabe said.
"The UN's firm position is that there can be no amnesty or impunity for serious crimes such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.
"In that context, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights strongly opposes the release of someone for whom an arrest warrant of this nature has been established."
Bere was detained in East Timor on August 8, five years after being indicted for his role in the 1999 Suai Church massacre, in which up to 200 people were killed.
Timor's leadership has been criticised for opposing prosecution for those responsible for abuses during Indonesia's bloody 1975-1999 occupation of the half-island, which killed around 100,000 people.
President Jose Ramos-Horta says restoring good relations with Indonesia is more important than "prosecutorial justice", and has said he will not let his country be used as an "experiment" in international justice.
The opposition Fretilin party however says he is out of touch with the East Timorese people, many of whom continue to demand justice for gross human rights abuses committed during the Indonesian occupation.
U.N.'s Ban Raises Alleged Killings with Sri Lanka Aide
Reuters
By Patrick Worsnip
September 3, 2009
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon raised with Sri Lanka's human rights minister on Thursday allegations that his country's troops summarily executed Tamil rebels, the United Nations said.
British television aired a video last week that, according to a Sri Lankan advocacy group, shows the troops killing unarmed, naked, bound and blindfolded Tamils during the army's final assault to smash Tamil Tiger rebels earlier this year.
Ban discussed the refugee crisis that followed the defeat of the Tigers during a meeting in Geneva with Mahinda Samarasinghe, Sri Lanka's minister for disaster management and human rights, the United Nations said.
"They talked about the importance of reconciliation," said a summary of the meeting issued in New York. "They also discussed accountability, particularly in the light of the recent accusations of extrajudicial executions."
U.N. officials confirmed that Ban had raised with Samarasinghe the allegations in the video, broadcast by Britain's Channel 4 television, which said it got the footage from advocacy group Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka.
The officials did not say how Samarasinghe had responded, but Sri Lanka's government has dismissed the video as fake.
Ban's raising of the issue on the sidelines of a climate change conference in Geneva came after the United States voiced concern on Wednesday about the video footage.
"These reports are very disturbing, they are of grave concern," U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice told reporters. "We'd like more information as we formulate our own national response."
Philip Alston, U.N. special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said on Tuesday he hoped the United Nations would open an investigation to determine whether Sri Lankan soldiers did in fact summarily execute Tamils, which would be a violation of international law.
Ban, who traveled to Sri Lanka just after the defeat of the Tigers in a visit some critics said was ill-timed, has not so far called for such an inquiry. But he did say in June that any allegations of war crimes should be investigated.
Sri Lanka's government has repeatedly denied that its forces were guilty of war crimes or human rights breaches in the last months of its 25-year war against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE), whom it defeated in May.
UN Sees Possible War Crimes in Eastern Congo
VOA News
September 9, 2009
Two men ride a motorcycle past the bodies of two soldiers from the Congolese Army that were killed near their front line position near Goma, 12 Nov 2008
The United Nations says it is likely both government and rebel forces have committed war crimes in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.
Two U.N. reports released Wednesday say most of the transgressions took place last October and November as Congo's army battled the CNDP, an ethnic Tutsi militia.
The alleged crimes include arbitrary murders, rapes and pillaging of towns and villages.
The U.N. peacekeeping mission in Congo and the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights issued the reports.
Meanwhile, hundreds of former eastern rebels have deserted the Congolese army. A renegade battalion led by a former rebel commander known as Jaguar abandoned their posts late last week.
Lieutenant Colonel Jean-Paul Dietrich, a spokesman for the U.N. mission in Congo said issues with salary played a role in the desertion.
The ex-rebels looted Kitcharo, a village in North Kivu province.
Congolese army officers describe the incident as an act of indiscipline, and say the problem is being sorted out.
Congo's government is still trying to assert control over North Kivu more than six years after the end of a bloody civil war.
Rebel groups and militias continue to operate in the area despite repeated attempts by the army and U.N. forces to stabilize the region. Efforts to integrate rebels into the armed forces have been only partially successful.
Advisors
Professor Michael P. Scharf
and Brianne M. Draffin
Editor in Chief
Sarah Greenlee
Managing Editor
Matthew T. Wholey
Senior Technical Editor
Alexander McElroy
Associate Technical Editors
David O’Brien
Heather Noel Ludwig
Shelley Starzyk
Steven Chang
Contact: warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org
ICC - Central African Republic &Uganda
Alexis Parker, Senior Editor
Selene Geoppo, Associate Editor
ICC - Darfur, Sudan
Nicole Estock, Senior Editor
James Pasch, Associate Editor
ICC - Democratic Republic of the Congo
Jacqueline Greene, Senior Editor
Adrienne Cavender, Associate Editor
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda
Jennifer Mesko, Senior Editor
Sarah Pierce, Associate Editor
Special Court for Sierra Leone
David Vineyard, Senior Editor
Brandon Wheeler, Associate Editor
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia
Kate Gibson, Senior Editor
Shannon Pagano, Associate Editor
Uganda (Truth & Reconciliation & Domestic Prosecutions / Non-ICC)
Kevin Griffith, Senior Editor
Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Section
Sarah Kostick, Senior Editor
Andrea Ball, Associate Editor
Nicole Cellone, Associate Editor
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia
Michael McGregor, Senior Editor
Elisabeth Herron, Associate Editor
Thomas Renz, Associate Editor
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
Lindsay Baruffa, Senior Editor
Allison Kretz, Associate Editor
Rochelle Swan, Associate Editor
Iraqi High Tribunal
Gadeir Abbas, Senior Editor
Esben Munksgaard, Associate Editor
Special Tribunal for Lebanon
Christine Chambers, Senior Editor
Martha Allee, Associate Editor
Canada's Truth and Reconcilliation Commission
Matthew Wholey, Senior Editor
Melissa Yasinow, Associate Editor
The Trial of Alberto Fujimori
Jacqueline Greene, Senior Editor
United States
Matthew Wholey, Senior Editor
Melissa Yasinow, Associate Editor
NGO Reports
Amanda Koeth, Senior Editor
Jennifer Hoover, Associate Editor
UN Reports
Traci Pribbenow, Senior Editor
Elizabeth Ford, Associate Editor
War Crimes Prosecution Watch is prepared by the
International Justice Practice of the Public International Law & Policy Group
and the Frederick K. Cox International Law Center of
Case Western Reserve University School of Law
and is made possible by grants from the Carnegie Corporation of New York
and the Open Society Institute.
Grotian Moment: The International War Crimes Trial Blog:
http://law.case.edu/grotian-moment-blog/
Frederick K. Cox International Law Center:
http://law.case.edu/centers/cox/
Cox Center War Crimes Research Portal:
http://law.case.edu/war-crimes-research-portal/
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this newsletter, please email warcrimeswatch@pilpg.org.
