Michael P. Scharf and |
War Crimes Prosecution Watch Volume 4 - Issue 23 |
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
Court of Bosnia & Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in Darfur, Sudan
Groups Welcome Appeal of Genocide Charges Against Sudan’s
Bashir
Voice of America
February 4, 2010
Reactions to Wednesday’s International Criminal Court (ICC) appeal of genocide charges against Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir range from a broadside against the U.S. government by Sudan’s foreign ministry, to measured comments from members of the American anti-genocide community.
In Khartoum, foreign ministry spokesman Ambassador Mu’awiya Uthman Khalid blamed Washington for slowing the peace process by sending “negative signals at all times.” He singled out the Save Darfur alliance of American anti-genocide organizations, which he accused of directly hampering the peace process.
In Washington, the president of the largest organization in the alliance, Jerry Fowler of the Save Darfur Coalition, said that Wednesday’s ruling rectifies legal errors that will provide hope to Darfur victims and rebel groups, but will not likely alter the pace of current peace talks in Doha, Qatar or influence the conduct of April presidential elections in Sudan.
“For victims of attacks in Darfur, most of whom believe that they are victims of genocide, it gets a reconsideration of that particular charge. I think in the broader scheme of things, it underscores, though, that regardless of the ultimate outcome on this charge, President Bashir remains a fugitive internationally, and his ability to travel is very limited, and the prospects that he will ultimately face justice continue to be strong,” said Fowler.
Last March, Sudan’s President became the first sitting head of state to be indicted by the International Criminal Court. In their original ruling, the judges of the ICC’s Pre-Trial Chamber issued an arrest warrant against Mr. Bashir for a total of five counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, but the panel threw out charges of genocide that had also been requested by Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo.
Justices said last year that there were insufficient grounds to charge the president with genocide. Save Darfur’s Jerry Fowler says that Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo advanced his appeal of that ruling on Wednesday by convincing the appeals panel that President Bashir should be held accountable for masterminding a campaign of rape, murder, and other crimes against civilians in Darfur.
“The statute of the International Criminal Court is pretty clear in saying that at the arrest warrant stage, you just have to establish a reasonable basis that the crime was committed. And the Pre-Trial Chamber kind of twisted that standard, and they basically insisted that the only reasonable inference from the evidence would be genocide, which made it that the Prosecutor had to show beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think what the Appeals Chamber did was put it back into perspective that at this stage, you have to establish a reasonable basis to believe that the crime was committed,” he explained.
If President Bashir goes on to face trial, Fowler suggests, that is when the standard of proving genocide charges beyond a reasonable doubt will apply. Moreno-Ocampo indicated after Wednesday’s ruling that he would seek permission to furnish additional evidence of what he calls Mr. Bashir’s “genocidal intention.”
The Prosecutor indicated that last year’s eviction of international humanitarian groups from Sudan following the issue of the arrest warrant could constitute part of his new submission.
African countries ranging from neighboring Uganda, to South Africa, Nigeria, and Ghana have told Sudan’s president that as nations abiding by governing ICC statutes, they would have to honor an international arrest warrant if he travels to their territories. Mr. Bashir is visiting Doha, Qatar this week to take part in peace talks between Sudanese government officials and members of selected Darfur rebel groups. Qatar and other countries visited by President Bashir during the past year are not parties to the ICC, and are not under legal obligations to arrest him.
Toward Monday’s close of the African Union summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, delegates drafted a resolution voicing the A.U.’s regret that the U.N. Security Council has not called on the Criminal Court to have all charges dropped against the Sudanese president. Since last year, the A.U. has rejected the Bashir indictments on grounds that they would upset peace efforts in Darfur and in southern Sudan. But Save Darfur’s Fowler says that the evidence does not bear out that argument.
“The experience of the last year and a half since the Prosecutor first requested the arrest warrant, which happened in July of 2008, is that it’s not affecting peace negotiations. They’re being driven by their own political dynamics, and in fact, peace negotiations picked up steam after the Prosecutor first requested the arrest warrants. So to that extent, they seem to have a positive impact,” he argued.
Following the March, 2009 ICC indictments, President Bashir’s eviction of dozens of humanitarian NGO’s alarmed western governments concerned about the violence in Darfur and the displaced civilians of southern Sudan. Fowler says that the Obama administration and other governments need to make it clear that the international community will not tolerate a similar expulsion in retaliation for the genocide charges being considered against Sudan’s president.
“I certainly hope that they don’t retaliate, and I think that it’s very important that the United States government and other governments make clear that a retaliation is unacceptable. For the danger that civilians were put into by the expulsions last year was averted only by the heroic efforts by the United Nations and by aid agencies that were left behind. And even now, the civilians are much more vulnerable than they were. So it’s very important that the United States and African governments and other governments make clear to President Bashir that further endangering civilians will not be tolerated,” he said.
The International Criminal Court at the Hague is an independent judicial institution with judges from all over the world. It operates by statute that is signed onto more than 110 countries, including 31 African countries.
Al Bashir Case: The Appeals Chamber Directs Pre-Trial
Chamber I to Decide Anew on the Genocide Charge
International Criminal Court Press Release
February 3, 2010
Today, 3 February, 2010, the Appeals Chamber rendered its judgment on the Prosecutor’s appeal, reversing, by unanimous decision, Pre-Trial Chamber I’s decision of 4 March, 2009, to the extent that Pre-Trial Chamber I decided not to issue a warrant of arrest in respect of the charge of genocide. The Appeals Chamber directed the Pre-Trial Chamber to decide anew whether or not the arrest warrant should be extended to cover the charge of genocide.
Judge Kourula, presiding judge on this appeal, delivered a summary of the judgment. The Appeals Chamber explained that it was not concerned with the question of whether Mr Omar Al Bashir is, or is not, responsible for the crime of genocide. Rather, the Appeals Chamber addressed a question of procedural law, namely whether the Pre-Trial Chamber applied the correct standard of proof when disposing of the Prosecutor’s application for an arrest warrant.
In its 4 March, 2009, decision, Pre-Trial Chamber I rejected the Prosecutor’s application in respect of genocide stating that it would issue an arrest warrant for genocide only if the only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from the Prosecutor’s evidence, based on “proof by inference”, was that there were reasonable grounds to believe in the existence of genocidal intent. The Appeals Chamber found that demanding that the existence of genocidal intent must be the only reasonable conclusion amounts to requiring the Prosecutor to disprove any other reasonable conclusions and to eliminate any reasonable doubt. The Appeals Chamber found this standard of proof to be too demanding at the arrest warrant stage, which is governed by article 58 of the Rome Statute. This amounted to an error of law.
Although the Appeals Chamber reversed the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision, the Appeals Chamber rejected the Prosecutor’s request to make a finding that there were reasonable grounds to believe that Omar Al Bashir acted with genocidal intent, as this is a matter to be determined in a new decision by the Pre-Trial Chamber, using the correct standard of proof.
Background information
Pre-Trial Chamber I issued, on 4 March, 2009, the “Decision on the Prosecution’s Application for a Warrant of Arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir”. In its decision, the Pre-Trial Chamber issued a warrant of arrest against Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir for crimes against humanity and war crimes, but rejected the Prosecutor’s application in respect of the crime of genocide.
On 6 July, 2009, the Prosecutor filed an appeal against this decision. The Appeals Chamber granted the Sudan Workers Trade Unions Federation and the Sudan International Defence Group leave to make submissions as amicus curiae. Eight victims were also authorised to present submissions to the Appeals Chamber.
The situation in Darfur was referred to the International Criminal Court by the United Nations Security Council’s resolution 1593, on 31 March, 2005. In this situation, three cases are being heard: The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Muhammad Harun (“Ahmad Harun”) and Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb”); The Prosecutor v. Omar Hassan Ahmad Al Bashir; and The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda.
The International Criminal Court is the only permanent international court established with the mission to help put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes.
Pre-Trial Chamber I Declines to Confirm the Charges Against
Bahar Idriss Abu Garda
International Criminal Court Press Release
February 8, 2010
Today, Pre-Trial Chamber I of the International Criminal Court issued a decision declining to confirm the charges in the case of The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda.
The Chamber was not satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds to believe that Bahar Idriss Abu Garda could be held criminally responsible either as a direct or as an indirect co-perpetrator for the commission of the crimes with which he was charged by the Prosecution. Abu Garda was charged with three war crimes, namely violence to life, intentionally directing attacks against personnel, installations, material, units and vehicles involved in a peacekeeping mission, and pillaging, allegedly committed during an attack carried out on 29 September, 2007, against the African Union Mission in Sudan (“AMIS”), a peace-keeping mission stationed at the Haskanita Military Group Site (“MGS Haskanita”), in the locality of Umm Kadada, North Darfur.
The Chamber stressed that the case was of sufficient gravity as the consequences of the attack had affected not only the AMIS personnel and their families, but also the local population as AMIS, involved in a peacekeeping mission, established under the auspices of the African Union, first suspended, and finally reduced its activities in the area. The Chamber also found that there were substantial grounds to believe that AMIS personnel and installations, material, units and vehicles stationed at the MGS Haskanita were entitled to protection given to civilians and to civilian objects under the international law of armed conflicts. The Chamber found, however, that the Prosecution’s allegations that Abu Garda participated in the alleged common plan to attack MGS Haskanita were not supported by sufficient evidence.
The Chamber’s decision was taken by unanimity, and one judge filed a separate opinion. The decision does not preclude the Prosecution from subsequently requesting the confirmation of the charges against Abu Garda if such request is supported by additional evidence. The Prosecution can also submit a request to Pre-Trial chamber I for leave to appeal the decision on the confirmation of charges.
Background information
On 18 May, 2009, Bahar Idriss Abu Garda appeared for the first time before the Court, in compliance with a summons issued under seal by Pre-Trial Chamber I on 7 May, and unsealed on 17 May. The confirmation of charges hearing in the case of The Prosecutor v. Bahar Idriss Abu Garda was held from 19 to 30 October, 2009.
The situation in Darfur was referred to the International Criminal Court by the United Nations Security Council’s resolution 1593, on 31 March, 2005. Three warrants of arrest have been issued by Pre-Trial Chamber I for Ahmad Harun, Ali Kushayb and Omar Al Bashir for crimes against humanity and war crimes. The three suspects remain at large.
The International Criminal Court is the only permanent international court established with the mission to help put an end to impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely the crime of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, and thus to contribute to the prevention of such crimes.
Democratic Republic of the Congo (ICC)
Official Website of the International Criminal Court
ICC Public Documents - Situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Second Defense Witness Testifies Without Protective Measures
LubangaTrial.org
By Wairagala Wakabi
February 2, 2010
The second defense witness to appear in the Thomas Lubanga war crimes trial today gave evidence without protective measures such as face and voice recognition – but he gave almost all of his evidence in closed session.
Because he said little in sessions which were open to the public, it was not known in what capacity he was testifying. The first defense witness, who completed giving his evidence yesterday, told court that his son had appeared at the Lubanga trial and lied that he had served as a child soldier in UPC. According to his testimony, the boy never served in any armed group.
When today’s witness was set to start giving evidence, Judge Adrian Fulford counseled him not be nervous about anything that would be happening during the course of his evidence.
“Though there are a lot of people in the courtroom with a number of lawyers who will be asking you questions, the judges will ensure that questions put to you are straightforward, readily understandable and clear, and that you are treated wholly fairly,” said the judge.
The judge added that during the course of his evidence, they would try as much as possible to remain in public session so that the public, including those who were watching the proceedings on the internet, would be able to hear his evidence. “But there will be occasions when we will need to go into private so as to protect the identities of particular individuals who need to be safeguarded against possible recriminations if their identities become known,” Judge Fulford said.
As it turned out, the witness gave almost all his testimony in closed session. In the public sessions, he was asked whether he knew a social worker whose name was only mentioned in closed session, and who worked with an organization that helped demobilize fighters in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). The witness said he knew the social worker, who according to the prosecution’s Nicole Samson collaborated with the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP) in identifying their witnesses.
It is expected that the prosecution will question the second defense witness on Monday when the trial resumes.
Before today’s hearing came to an end, Judge Fulford told Lubanga’s lead counsel that said it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the prosecution to commence questioning the witness on the basis of the evidence he had given if prosecutors had not been provided with some advance notice of what the witness was going to say. He said evidence of that kind required an element of reflection, preparation and probably investigation before prosecutors could deal with it adequately by way of questioning.
“It may be that you come to the view that on a wholly voluntary basis, for the witnesses to come, particularly those in this category, it may be desirable for there to be a realistic element of additional disclosure to the prosecution in advance so that they are not going to be put in the position Ms. Samson was describing earlier of needing to request an adjournment every time questioning from you has finished so that they can prepare for their questioning,” said the judge.
He said if that were to happen, it would lengthen the trial dreadfully.
The ICC alleges that Lubanga was the commander-in-chief of the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo (FPLC), a militia group that used child soldiers in inter-ethnic fighting in DRC.
But Lubanga’s defense team has said it will show that prosecution witnesses who testified as former child soldiers actually never were, and that they deliberately told judges lies with the collusion of agents of the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP).
No more hearings in the Lubanga trial will be held this week. The defense case will resume next Monday, February 8.
Judges Fault Prosecutors as Second Defense Witness Appears
LubangaTrial.org
By Wairagala Wakabi
February 4, 2010
As the second defense witness in the Lubanga trial started testifying on Tuesday this week, judges berated the prosecutors for failing to tell the accused’s lawyers some important information they had collected about two of the defense witnesses in a timely way.
The contest over the disclosures came after the first defense witness had finished his testimony, in which he said his son had appeared at the trial as a prosecution witness and lied that he had been a child soldier in the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), the group Thomas Lubanga is alleged to have led.
Lubanga is on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) on war crimes charges related to the use of child soldiers. The ICC alleges that he was the commander-in-chief of the Patriotic Forces for the Liberation of Congo, a militia group that used child soldiers in inter-ethnic fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). He denies the charges.
Catherine Mabille, Lubanga’s lead counsel, protested to court that it was only last Thursday (January 28, 2010) that prosecutors disclosed the information relating to ‘Witness 003′ and ‘Witness 004′ who were the second and third witnesses respectively the defense would be calling.
“Why were these investigators’ notes not disclosed to us in time? We felt that this put the defense in a situation where we could not ask the witnesses who are coming today or next week to give us explanations on a certain number of events which were related in these investigators’ notes,” she said.
Mabille added: “The prosecutor had a statutory obligation of disclosing these elements pursuant to rule 77 and on exculpatory evidence, and so we are wondering why this disclosure was done late. This has put us in a difficult situation.”
Judge Adrian Fulford directed prosecutors to explain why they took long to fulfil their disclosure obligations. “The material contained in these reports is not only self-evidently disclosable but also self-evidently of significance for the two witnesses defense is about to call,” he said.
During the public sessions of the trial, none of the parties explained what exactly the information in the investigators’ notes related to.
Mabille told court that since last August the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP) had known the identities of the defense witnesses and should therefore have made its disclosures to the defense much earlier.
The prosecution’s Nicole Samson explained that although they had indeed received the names of defense witnesses last August, they had to make additional investigations relating to defense witnesses 003 and 004.
Such investigations were made, Ms. Samson said, after prosecutors established that the information provided to the OTP by the defense was not consistent with what was in the OTP’s database regarding the identities of the witnesses. She said the extra investigations also took place after it emerged that there was an important connection between ‘witness 297′ and defense witnesses 003 and 004. Prosecutors only became aware of these links either in December or in January, she said.
Samson said ‘witness 297′ was previously set to testify for the prosecution, then fell off their witness list but had continued cooperating with the OTP.
The judge nonetheless faulted prosecutors for making the disclosures “markedly too late”.
“This should have happened at the very least in late December (2009) if not substantially earlier once the identities of these two witnesses were revealed to you,” Judge Fulford said. “We request you please to review how disclosure is approached where you have the names of the witnesses… so as to ensure that we are not placed in this position again in future.”
Mabille said the defense felt it needed extra time before calling the two witnesses. However, they had decided not to request this additional time, since the witnesses were already in The Hague “and as such we can not ask for an adjournment because this would be unrealistic at this juncture.”
Judges had said they were ready to give the defense an adjournment to study the disclosure documents and to meet their witnesses before they were called to testify.
Witness 003 subsequently appeared on Tuesday and gave evidence without protective measures such as face and voice recognition. But he gave almost all of his evidence in closed session.
Because he said little in sessions which were open to the public, it was not known in what capacity he was testifying. The first defense witness, who completed giving his evidence on Monday, was the father of a prosecution witness who said his son lied to the ICC about having been a child soldier.
Witness 003, who will continue his testimony next week, was asked whether he knew a social worker whose name was only mentioned in closed session, and who worked with an organization that helped demobilize fighters in DRC.
This social worker is the same person as ‘witness 297’ who was withdrawn from the prosecution’s list of witnesses. The witness said he knew the social worker.
But before prosecutors could question witness 003, Judge Fulford told Lubanga’s lawyers that said it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the prosecution to commence questioning the witness on the basis of the evidence he had given if prosecutors had not been provided with some advance notice of what the witness was going to say.
He said evidence of that kind required an element of reflection, preparation and probably investigation before prosecutors could deal with it adequately by way of questioning.
“It may be that you come to the view that on a wholly voluntary basis, for the witnesses to come, particularly those in this category, it may be desirable for there to be a realistic element of additional disclosure to the prosecution in advance so that they are not gonna be put in a position Ms. Samson was describing earlier of needing to request an adjournment every time questioning from you has finished so that they can prepare for their questioning,” said the judge.
He said if that were to happen, it would lengthen the trial dreadfully.
The current clash over disclosure issues is not the first to impact the Lubanga trial. Concerns about the prosecution’s failure to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence threatened to derail the trial in back in 2008 as judges were concerned that it would impact Mr. Lubanga’s fair trial rights. Those disclosure issues were addressed over a series of months, the judges eventually were convinced that Mr. Lubanga’s fair trial rights could be respected, and the trial was able to go ahead in January 2009.
Mr. Lubanga’s defense case continues next week.
Lubanga Witness Says He Was Paid US$200 to Tell Lies
LubangaTrial.org
By Wairagala Wakabi
February 8, 2010
A witness today told the war crimes trial of Thomas Lubanga that intermediaries of the International Criminal Court (ICC) gave him US$200 as payment for convincing his nephew to give false testimony against the accused.
The boy subsequently testified as a prosecution witness and claimed that he was a former child soldier in Lubanga’s militia group, according to evidence heard today and last week. The boy’s father was the first witness called by the defense, and he told court that his son who never served in any armed group had lied to court that he was a fighter with the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), the group Lubanga is alleged to have led.
Today’s witness, who started giving evidence last week, said that for the US$200 he was given, he also had to give ICC officials permission to take x-ray images of the boy to help determine his age. In addition, he had to lie to the court’s officials that he knew Lubanga, and that he was aware that UPC had used child soldiers.
Describing himself as a farmer in the eastern Congolese town of Bunia, the witness told the trial presided over by Judge Adrian Fulford that the ICC officials whom he met during 2007 did not realize that their intermediaries had paid him.
He said he met the ICC officials and their intermediaries on two occasions, in the town of Beni in Ituri province in eastern Congo, and in the country’s capital Kinshasa. “They were three white persons, and one black person. The second time it was two white persons and two black persons,” he said of the meetings.
Defense counsel Catherine Mabille asked the witness why he told them he knew Lubanga yet in court he said he did not know him.
“I was acting, saying what had been concocted [by the intermediaries]. It was a money issue. The white people didn’t know this, but we the blacks knew. I was told what to tell them,” he said.
The boy who would later testify as a prosecution witness also met these officials, the witness said. He added that by the time he met the ICC officials, he had already agreed with the intermediaries that the boy would consent to whatever ICC officials requested him to do.
This witness testified without protective measures such as face and voice recognition, and provided his name to the court. But he gave some of his testimony in closed session. The first defense witness asked for protective measures although at first he had indicated that he would testify in public view.
The evidence given by these first two defense witnesses has supported Mabille’s claim that she would provide evidence to show that all witnesses who testified as former child soldiers were bogus, and that intermediaries of the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP) fabricated evidence and coached prosecution witnesses.
Today’s witness said while the ICC’s intermediaries initially promised that they would relocate him to neighboring Tanzania or move him to another Congolese town, they subsequently threatened to imprison him if he “betrayed” them.
Life had got harder for him when his family and neighbors learnt about his dealings with ICC officials and threatened to harm him, he said. He said his wife deserted their home and he himself fled his house and took refugee in the bush for fear of being attacked.
“People wanted to hurt me, people from my own family,” he said. “What we did was not right because we almost sold someone’s child… they gave us 200 dollars but that was for food. It wasn’t even enough to buy him clothes.”
Prosecutor Nicole Samson asked who in his family wanted to harm him.
“Even my big brothers put pressure on me… I was told that I was selling people, or that I was taking money to betray people,” he said.
The witness said he subsequently went to the village chiefs to ask for forgiveness. The chiefs put him in touch with the UPC secretary-general, who then advised him to talk to Lubanga’s lawyers.
Samson asked the witness whether UPC officials had paid him money to testify as a defense witness.
”They categorically said no,” the witness replied. “Personally I asked for money and they said no… They said they were not thieves and were not wishing to buy my testimony.”
Witness: I Was Falsely Paraded as a Child Soldier
LubangaTrial.org
By Wairagala Wakabi
February 9, 2010
The Thomas Lubanga defense today called their third witness who testified that although he was never in the armed forces, he and other boys who had equally never served in any military group were paraded before some unnamed people as former child soldiers.
The witness, Claude Nyéki Django, said a man known as Dudu took him and other boys to a meeting in the Congolese town of Beni where it was claimed they were former fighters. During the brief moments when he testified in public session, Django did not say what the mission of that meeting was.
But he recalled that together with Dudu’s son and “many” other boys who met the unnamed people in Beni, they were moved from eastern Congo to a house in the capital Kinshasa, where they were confined for several months.
Django, who said he is aged 20 years, testified with his face fully visible and his voice undistorted. Most prosecution witnesses testified with voice and face distortion in order to safeguard them from possible reprisals. But the defense has charged that such extensive protective measures offered cover to witnesses who were deliberately intent on telling court lies.
Although Django did not have protective measures, he testified in public session for less than one hour and then gave the rest of his testimony in closed session. It was therefore not known what role, if any, he and the other boys subsequently played in the Lubanga trial.
The two defense witnesses who preceded Django recounted how intermediaries of the Office of The Prosecutor (OTP) bribed relatives of young boys to fabricate evidence that they were former child soldiers. One of those boys appeared as a prosecution witness at the Lubanga trial and claimed he was a former child soldier in the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), according to the defense’s second witness who claims he is his father of that witness.
Lubanga, whom the International Criminal Court (ICC) alleges was the leader of UPC and the commander-in-chief of its armed wing, faces the war crimes of enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers. He is is said to have committed the crimes during 2002 and 2003.
Defense counsel Marc Desalliers today questioned Django about the meeting in Beni:
Desalliers: Did Dudu know that you had never served as a child soldier?
Django: He knew that very well.
Desalliers: Could you tell us what Dudu told the individuals you met in Beni with respect to that fact?
Django: Dudu did not say in his own words that I was not a child soldier. Why didn’t he do that? He expected me to be the one to give the account. He simply told me what I had to say and he told me to accept that I had served as a child soldier.
Django said he had wanted to tell the people in that meeting that he had never been a soldier. But when he tried to talk, one of the men ordered him to remain quiet.
Dudu’s contacts later took the boys to Kinshasa with promises of offering them vocational training. Instead, they were locked up in a house for months. “We slept all day and at night time we slept as well… we were just in the compound, we couldn’t even move about.”
From this point, Django gave his testimony in closed session so it was not clear what subsequently happened to him and the other boys in the house. His testimony continues.
Witness Says Lubanga Didn’t Conscript Children
LubangaTrial.org
By Wairagala Wakabi
February 10, 2010
A defense witness today told court that the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) – the group Thomas Lubanga is alleged to have led – did not conscript any children. Instead, children who had no parents, and those who adored soldiers that extorted money from civilians, voluntarily joined the group.
Claude Nyéki Django, the 20-year-old defense witness who was continuing his testimony from yesterday, also said that UPC recruits who did not cope with the conditions in training camps were free to quit the group and return to their homes.
Prosecutor Nicole Samson asked him how he knew this and he responded that he had been told by those who served in UPC. Django himself did not serve in UPC. But when he first appeared in court yesterday, he said a man known as Dudu took him and other boys to a meeting in the Congolese town of Beni where it was claimed they were former child soldiers.
The testimony by this witness contradicts what most prosecution witnesses told court, namely that trainees at UPC camps were routinely tortured, and that those who attempted to leave the militia group could be killed. Several prosecution witnesses, including those who claimed to have been child soldiers, testified that they were forced to join UPC.
Lubanga faces the war crimes of enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers in inter-ethnic fighting in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) during 2002 and 2003. He has denied the charges, and his defense team has declared that it will prove to court that none of the prosecution witnesses who claimed to have been former child soldiers actually were.
In court today, Django dismissed claims that UPC conscripted children, arguing that the children in UPC were mainly former street children who enlisted although there were also some who abandoned school to join the group when they saw soldiers of their age extorting money from civilians.
“People were not forced to become child soldiers. They were street children who in view of the difficulties they were up against saw their peers who were soldiers carrying weapons and as a result went to enlist,” he said. He added: “I can not say it was Thomas [Lubanga] who went through town asking child to become child soldiers. It was the children themselves who wanted of their own volition to become child soldiers.”
Django’s testimony had to be suspended in the afternoon when he broke down in tears as he described how militiamen from the Lendu ethnic group killed his mother while he and his young siblings hid under a bed. He was escorted out of the courtroom.
Judge Adrian Fulford then asked officials from the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) and psychologists to assess whether Django would be able to continue giving evidence. After a while it was announced that the VWU staff had assessed the witness and found him suitable to continue testifying. The witness had also indicated to them that he was ready to continue giving evidence.
He returned to court and Samson continued the cross-examination.
Samson asked him whether he knew Lubanga, and he answered that he did. She then asked how he knew him, Django replied that during the war, Lubanga had become important because he was the leader of UPC.
“Because of the war Thomas [Lubanga] became someone very important. Previously he would sell beans at the warehouse, as a tradesman. So I came to know him as a salesman.”
Defense Witness Breaks Down Again
LubangaTrial.org
By Wairagala Wakabi
February 11, 2010
A defense witness who was set to begin testifying for the third consecutive day today broke down for the second time, forcing court to delay the resumption of hearings.
When Judge Adrian Fulford asked court officers to bring Claude Nyéki Django, the 20-year-old witness, into the courtroom, they reported back to the chambers without him.
“The witness is apparently extremely upset. He has broken down, and I have therefore asked someone from the Victims and Witnesses Unit (VWU) to see him and for us to be told what their assessment is of the appropriate way of proceeding,” Judge Fulford announced before adjourning.
About half an hour later, the judge said a psychologist had spoken to the witness and was of the view that although the witness had been upset and was likely to remain upset during the course of the morning, “it is appropriate for him to continue giving evidence not least because he has indicated his willingness to continue.”
Earlier on Wednesday afternoon, Django’s testimony had been suspended when he broke down in tears as he described how militiamen from the Lendu ethnic group killed his mother while he and his young siblings hid under a bed. He was escorted out of the courtroom.
Django is the third witness called by the defense of Thomas Lubanga, who is on trial at the International Criminal Court (ICC) for enlisting, conscripting and using child soldiers in 2002 and 2003. He has denied the charges.
Under cross-examination by the defense, Django today reiterated that the Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC) – the group Lubanga allegedly headed – did not conscript any child soldiers. He said children voluntarily joined the group. Most of those who joined were street children, but there were also some pupils who abandoned school to join the group when they saw soldiers of their age extorting money from civilians, Django said.
Earlier on Tuesday Django testified that although he was never in the armed forces, he and other boys who had equally never served in any military group were taken to a meeting where it was claimed that they were former child soldiers in UPC.
Today Django completed his testimony, most of it given in closed session. The fourth defense witness will appear on Monday February 15, 2010.
Kenya Warned over Witness Intimidation
Financial Times
By Barney Jopson
February 12, 2010
The US has warned Kenya that it must do more to prevent the intimidation of witnesses from undermining the prosecution of senior figures accused of masterminding the post-election violence two years ago.
The International Criminal Court is carrying out a preliminary investigation in Kenya, and Stephen Rapp, the US ambassador-at-large for war crimes issues, said he was concerned that witnesses in the country were already living in fear.
During a visit to Nairobi, Mr Rapp praised Kenya’s coalition government for deciding to create a witness protection agency – subject to parliamentary approval – but “that was not the whole story”.
He said: “The reform agenda, in particular in regard to police and the judiciary, [is] critical. Without that, you won’t have the confidence of witnesses to come forward.”
The government has been slow to implement reforms, pledged after the post-election crisis, to transform Kenya’s corrupt and dysfunctional institutions that have helped to perpetuate a culture of impunity.
The ICC judges were expected to rule early next month on whether Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the court’s prosecutor, can open a formal investigation into senior Kenyan politicians in connection with the violence that killed more than 1,000 people.
An adviser to Mr Moreno- Ocampo told the Financial Times: “We are very confident prosecutors. We do expect a positive decision.” She said it was likely that the prosecutor would then target no more than three or four key individuals.
The Kenya National Commission on Human Rights has been contacted by more than 30 witnesses who said they had received threatening phone calls, been followed or physically attacked.
Mr Moreno-Ocampo wrote to the Kenyan government last month to express concern over the protection of key witnesses.
The most horrific episode in the two months of violence that followed a disputed presidential election in December 2007 was the burning to death of more than 30 people in a church where they had sought refuge.
The US envoy said he was troubled that a judge had found there was insufficient evidence to try the alleged attackers because many witnesses had either refused to testify or recanted earlier statements.
“If there are pressures at this low level, you can only imagine the pressure there would be at the high level, where individuals were perhaps insiders who could truly threaten the security and . . . wealth and power of other individuals,” Mr Rapp said.
Six Chaos Suspects Identified for ICC Trial
Daily Nations
February 12, 2010
President Obama’s special envoy on war crimes Stephen Rapp and Foreign Affairs assistant minister Richard Onyonka at a press confernce on Thursday. Amb Rapp said ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo was in Washington last week, when they talked about the investigations — which, according to the prosecutor, have overwhelming evidence.
Six prominent Kenyans could be charged at the International Criminal Court at the Hague for their involvement in the 2007 post-election violence, President Obama’s ambassador-at-large on war crimes said on Thursday.
Amb Stephen Rapp said the ICC pre-trial chamber will rule on whether investigations can start in March this year before the prosecutor, Louis Moreno Ocampo, swings into action.
“Some four to six prominent people who played key roles in the violence will be charged at the ICC because it has no capacity to deal with the hundreds of suspects,” Mr Rapp announced.
He said Mr Ocampo was in Washington last week, when they talked about the investigations — which, according to the prosecutor, have overwhelming evidence.
He disowned the two American professors who filed a suit to bar Mr Ocampo from investigating the Kenyan cases. “I have never met them and I believe they are not Americans. President Obama’s government has nothing to do with their attempts,” he added.
The envoy, who addressed the Press at the US ambassador’s residence in Nairobi, said there was need to pass witness protection laws once Parliament is reconvened.
Mr Rapp, however, said he was satisfied with the constitutional reform process, which he said will ensure the police and the Judiciary toe the line, but voiced his concern over the government’s “reluctance” to establish a local tribunal to try the post-election violence suspects.
“Promises of forming the tribunal have taken too long, forcing Mr Ocampo to take the long route of seeking permission from the pre-trial chamber to start investigations, yet Kenya is a signatory to the Rome Statute,” he said.
He had earlier said Kenya could face international sanctions over the failure to arrest Rwandan fugitive Felicien Kabuga, who is believed to be hiding in the country.
In particular, the US official was concerned that Kenya is sitting on vital information that, if released to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, would fast-track the arrest of Mr Kabuga.
International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)
Rwandan Refugee Allegedly Linked to Family’s Killing in
Sixth Appeal
The National Post
By Adrian Humphreys
February 2, 2010
A man fighting to stay in Canada after being found complicit in the Rwandan genocide said yesterday on Tuesday he deserves another chance to convince the government he has been wrongly branded a fiend who murdered a neighbour and her children because she refused to have sex with him.
At least six times, Henri Jean-Claude Seyoboka has been told in judicial and tribunal proceedings that he is ineligible to remain in Canada because of his complicity in crimes against humanity during the 1994 Rwandan genocide.
On Tuesday, Mr. Seyoboka, 43, who had driven five hours from his home in Gatineau, Que., was in the Federal Court of Canada in Toronto. Well-dressed in a jacket and tie, and with a leather attaché case resting at his feet, he leaned forward and listened intently, occasionally nodding in support of his lawyers' arguments.
"The finding that he is implicated in crimes against humanity goes beyond the immigration process and affects all aspects of his life. He has been branded as a war criminal in Canada," his lawyer, Lorne Waldman, told Justice James O'Reilly.
"He will always be considered complicit in crimes against humanity as far as Canada is concerned, unless he gets a chance to put his case, again, before the [Immigration and Refugee Board]."
Mr. Waldman says the evidence used to implicate his client in the murders has since been discredited and to ignore this and still deport him would be a breach of natural justice.
Mr. Seyoboka came to Canada in 1996, where he lives with his wife and children, and was granted refugee protection without mentioning his service in the Rwandan army at the time of the genocide. An estimated 800,000 people were killed in 100 days, mainly members of the Tutsi ethnic minority by Hutu soldiers and militia.
Two years later, he came to the attention of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) in its investigation of another man. He then admitted his military service, but denied engaging in atrocities.
Ottawa moved to revoke his refugee status in 2005.
In 2006, the IRB found Mr. Seyoboka was complicit, if not directly involved, in the slaughter. Based on gruesome evidence before the ICTR from a witness in Rwanda, he was also found by the IRB to have been personally involved in the killing of a neighbour named Francine and her two children because she refused to have sex with him.
Jamie Todd, lawyer for the government, said that Mr. Seyoboka was now angling for one more "kick at the can" in his fight to remain in Canada and trying to "wriggle out" of his responsibility.
Even if the evidence on the murder of Francine was ignored, it would make no difference to the outcome because Mr. Seyoboka had also been ruled inadmissible to Canada by virtue of being a high-ranking member of the Rwandan regime at the time of the massacre, Mr. Todd said.
Judge O'Reilly reserved his decision on the case.
After court, Mr. Seyoboka denied being the man the government paints him as.
"It is not true," Mr. Seyoboka told the National Post.
He had nothing to do with Francine's death and was not involved in the atrocities of the genocide. He also denies that his father-in-law played any role in promoting extremism prior to the start of the genocide.
Mr. Seyoboka is the son-in-law of Colonel Elie Sagatwa, who was a relative of the former first lady of Rwanda. He was appointed head of presidential security and the president's personal secretary. Reports in Rwanda say Col. Sagatwa was an early advocate of Hutu extremism.
When the an airplane carrying Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana was shot down on April 6, 1994 -- seen as the catalyst for the genocide -- Mr. Seyoboka's father-in-law was also on board.
"On the sixth of April, they killed him too, so he could not have been involved [in the genocide]," Mr. Seyoboka said.
As important as the case is to Mr. Seyoboka, it could also have a wide impact on Canada's immigration and refugee law, potentially allowing people ordered out of Canada to have yet another layer of appeal should they proffer fresh evidence to the IRB to overcome an unfavourable decision.
Judge O'Reilly raised that spectre on Tuesday, asking the lawyers about the importance of "finality" in the deportation process, alluding to the multiple challenges Mr. Seyoboka has already mounted.
"I hesitate to create new law that would cause it to happen more often," Judge O'Reilly said on Tuesday.
Mr. Waldman said he did not think such a precedent-setting ruling would "open the floodgates" on new appeals: "I've been practising immigration law for 30 years and this is the first time I've come across this scenario," he said.
Regardless of the decision, Mr. Seyoboka's fight is far from over. Even if Judge O'Reilly turns down his request for a judicial review, Mr. Seyoboka can seek relief on humanitarian and compassionate grounds and also undergo a Pre-Removal Risk Assessment to determine if his deportation would put him in danger in his homeland.
Both of those decisions can be further appealed in court.
ICTR Prosecution Seeks Life for Munyakazi
The New Times via AllAfrica.com
February 3, 2010
The prosecution at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has requested the court to sentence former businessman Yussuf Munyakazi to life imprisonment.
Munyakazi, a former wealthy farmer in the Western Province, is charged with counts of Genocide, or complicity in the alternative and extermination as a crime against humanity.
He is one of the suspects the Tanzania-based UN tribunal had referred to Rwanda for trial by the Chief Prosecutor, a move that was later blocked by the Trial Chamber.
Prosecutor Segun Jegede on Thursday requested the court to imprison the 74-year old suspect for life on grounds that he is responsible for the deaths of many innocent people during the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
"Munyakazi wilfully participated in the demolitions of three churches at Nyamasheke, Mibilizi and Shangi parishes (former Cyangugu prefecture) where Tutsis who took refuge there were killed," media reports in Arusha quote Jegede as saying.
The prosecution added that the former businessman, with little education, could not have organized such mass killings had it not been for his wealth which gave him the audacity to implement the Genocide plan.
Born in 1935 in the Rwamatamu Commune in the Western Province, Munyakazi's trial had been requested for transfer to Rwanda alongside those of former soldier, IIdephonse Hategekimana, Jean Baptiste Gatete a former Bourgmestre (mayor) of Murambi now in the Eastern Province,
The other case that had been referred by Prosecutor Bubacar Jallow is that of Fulgence Kayishema a former prosecutor in Kibuye who is still at large unlike the others who are in the UN tribunal's detention facility.
Meanwhile, a witness on Monday said that former Rwandan Planning Minister, Augustin Ngirabatware, deployed weapons to Nyamyumba commune in Gisenyi, Northern Province, almost three months before the Genocide.
The witness code-named "ANAN" said the weapons were distributed after a communal meeting of about 300 people held in December in 1993 at Kanyabuhombo School in Nyamyumba, an hour's walk from the communal office.
Ngirabatware, whose trial started in September last year, is a son in-law to one of the most wanted Genocide fugitives and wealthy businessman, Felician Kabuga.
Top Genocide Suspect Finds Sanctuary in Zimbabwe
The New Times via AllAfrica.com
By Edmund Kagire
February 3, 2010
Protais Mpiranya, one of the most wanted genocide suspects is being hidden by the Zimbabwean Government, new reports from the Southern African country indicate.
Mpiranya, the former Commander of the Presidential Guard during the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi is being pursued by Belgian authorities and is also on the list of 13 most wanted persons by the Arusha-based International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda.
He also appears on the list of most wanted persons for genocide and war crimes, under the US Rewards for Justice Programme, with a $5m bounty.
Fresh reports by Belgian authorities indicate that Mpiranya is hiding in Zimbabwe, and is reportedly operating businesses in Harare, on top of acting as mercenary for the ruling party ZANU-PF to silence the opposition.
In an in an interview with The New Times, Rolland Amoussouga, the ICTR Spokesperson said that he could not reveal anything on the whereabouts of Mpiranya as investigations are still going on.
"I can't confirm that, usually when investigations are still going on, we can't reveal whether we know the whereabouts of the wanted person or not, in a bid not to interfere with the investigations."
However a close source in the Arusha-based tribunal said that the ICTR has been aware of Mpiranya's presence in Zimbabwe though there has been little or no effort to apprehend him.
According to reports in Zimbabwean papers, Mpiranya is being sheltered by close associates of President Robert Mugabe who were jointly running ventures, including a lucrative materials trade in the neighbouring, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).
A report has also named Zimbabwean Defence Minister Emmerson Dambudzo Mnangagwa as one of the close associates of Mpiranya.
Reports further indicate that there are an estimated 4,000 Rwandan refugees living in Zimbabwe, most of them suspected of taking part in the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi.
According to the Zimbabwe Mail, many more are filtering into Zimbabwe through Malawi and that when they arrive, they are looked after by the government where some are recruited into doing mercenary work.
According to a Belgian official, Belgium is "fully aware of the involvement of Mpiranya in the murder of ten Belgian peacekeepers on 7April 1994, and in the planning of the genocide".
According to the newspaper, sources in the Zimbabwean Intelligence Services say that the Rwandan fugitive led a group of foreign mercenaries joining so-called "war veterans" and militiamen attacking opposition supporters in rural parts of Zimbabwe, during the 2008 contested Presidential run-off elections.
Eyewitnesses said Mpiranya and his men were more vicious than their Zimbabwean counterparts, with the marauding gangs attacking suspected members of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), forcing them to renounce the party.
It is believed that Mpiranya and his group dressed in army fatigues abducted and murdered MDC activist Mabvuku Tonderai Ndira whose body was found with his tongue cut into shreds.
200 MDC supporters were killed in attacks by police, army, war veterans and ruling party militia. More than 200,000 displaced by the violence during the March 2008 elections.
Mpiranya and other Rwandan refugees allegedly feared that they could be sent home if an MDC-led government came to power.
Meanwhile, another Genocide fugitive who was recently arrested in Malawi, Charles Bandora and released under unclear circumstances a few days later is said to have relocated to Zimbabwe.
According to Zimbabwe Mail, Bandora, an ex- senior official of the former ruling party MRND, was let off the hook two weeks ago and it is believed that his release was effected after officials in Zimbabwe approached Malawian authorities.
Not surprised
According to Prosecutor General Martin Ngoga, Rwanda has been aware of Mpriranya's presence in Zimbabwe for quite sometime but said that the obligation to arrest him lies with the ICTR.
"I am not sure whether he is in Zimbabwe today but we have said from time to time that this man has been seen in Zimbabwe, it is up to ICTR to find out whether it is true indeed and apprehend him, it is their obligation," Ngoga said.
He said that Zimbabwe as a matter of principle should be able to apprehend Mpiranya and hand him over to the ICTR as the International law states that any country that is hosting any indicted persons is obliged to apprehend them and had them over to the competent jurisdiction that indicted them.
Who is Mpiranya?
Protais Mpiranya was born in the prefecture of Gitarama currently Muhanga District in the Southern Province.
He was second-in-command of military operations and intelligence (S2 and S3) in the Presidential guard Battalion.
In 1993, he was appointed Commander of the Presidential Guard Battalion in the Rwandan Army. In this capacity he exercised authority over the units of this battalion.
Beginning in 1992, Mpiranya is alleged to have supervised the training of militiamen in the prefectures of Ruhengeri, Cyangugu, Gisenyi, Butare and Mutara, particularly in the military camps in Gabiro, Gako, Mukamira and Bigogwe. In 1993, Mpiranya is also reported to have sent his subordinates to supervise the training of the Interahamwe (an extremist Hutu militia)
He is said also to have distributed weapons to the militia and to certain carefully selected members of the civilian population with the intent to exterminate the Tutsi population.
It is said that on the morning of 7 April 1994, Mpiranya, a Major then, commanded a group of Presidential Guards which tracked down, arrested, sexually assaulted and assassinated former Prime Minister Agathe Uwilingiyimana.
He again conspired in the murder of the President of the Constitutional Court, Joseph Kavaruganda; the Chairman of the PSD party and Minister of Agriculture Frederic Nzamurambago; the Vice-Chairman of the PL party and Minister of Labour and Community Affairs, Landoald Ndasingwa; as well as a member of the Political Bureau of the MDR, the Minister of Information, Faustin Rucogoza.
He also ordered the Presidential Guards to kill 10 Belgian para-commandos from UNAMIR who were guarding the Prime Minister at Kigali military camp, leading to the withdrawal of the Belgian contingent on 13 April 1994 and to a drastic reduction of UNIMAR's civilian and military personnel.
As of 7 April 1994, killings of the civilian Tutsi population, preceded, on many occasions, by rape, sexual violence and other crimes of a sexual nature and the murder of numerous political opponents, were carried out by civilians and soldiers under orders from Mpiranya. Mpiranya fled to DRC as RPF advanced to Kigali.
U.S. Top Diplomat Insists Kabuga Still in Kenya
The New Times via AllAfrica.com
By Edwin Musoni And Agencies
February 10, 2010
The United States Ambassador-at-large for War Crimes, Stephen Rapp, has said that his office has intelligence reports confirming that the alleged financier of the 1994 Genocide against the Tutsi, Felicien Kabuga is still in Kenya.
Rapp made the announcement on yesterday at the end of a visit to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) based in Arusha, Tanzania.
"We have intelligence indicating Kabuga is in Kenya," said Rapp, himself a former Deputy Chief Prosecutor at the ICTR. He had made similar claims late last year.
"I'm going to Nairobi to talk to the Kenyan authorities about the arrest of Kabuga, who is still in Kenya," he told the press.
Meanwhile, Rapp discussed the same issue yesterday with the tribunal's president Dennis Byron and prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow.
Kenya has however denied allegations that Kabuga is still in the country. When contacted yesterday, ICTR Spokesman, Roland Amoussouga, said that Kenya has failed to prove that.
"We requested Kenya to provide evidence that Kabuga left this country but they have not done so," Amoussouga said by phone yesterday.
Kabuga is the most wanted Genocide suspect sought by the ICTR still on the run. The United States has placed a five-million-dollar bounty on his head.
Former Rwandan Mayor on Genocide Charges Pleads 'Not Guilty'
Afrique en ligne
February 10, 2010
A former mayor of Kivumu town in Kibuye prefect ure of Rwanda, Grégoire Ndahimana, has pleaded not guilty to all charges related to the 1994 genocide that saw nearly a million people massacred in the east-central Africa country.
Ndahimana denied the charges Tuesday when he appeared before presiding Judge Dennis Byron, assisted by judges Vagn Joensen and Aydin Sefa Akay at the International Criminal Court for Rwanda (ICTR) in Arusha, Tanzania.
In the amended indictment, Ndahimana was charged with three counts of genocide, or complicity in genocide and crimes against humanity for extermination.
According to the indictment, between 6 April 1994 and 20 April 1994, Ndahimana was responsible for killing or causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the Tutsi ethnic population.
He is alleged to have planned the massacres at Nyange Parish, jointly with Father Athanase Seromba (already sentenced to life imprisonment) and Fulgence Kayishema, who is still at large.
According to details made available by the ICTR, more than 2000 Tutsi who had fled to the parish were killed.
In the first indictment on 28 September 2009, Ndahimana was charged with four counts of genocide; or in the alternative, complicity in genocide; conspiracy to commit genocide, and extermination as a crime against humanity. At that initial appearance he pleaded not guilty to all the charges.
Born in 1952, Ndahimana was arrested on 10 August 2009 at Kachuga Camp in North Kivu, DR Congo, during a combined operation by the ICTR, the United Nations Mission in the DRC (MONUC) and the DRC law enforcement agencies.
He was transferred to the UN detention facility in Arusha on 21 September 2009.
Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL)
Offical Website of the Special Court for Sierra Leone
The Sierra Leone Court Monitoring Programme
Taylor Concedes He Lied to Court
The Daily Observer
February 1, 2010
Charles Taylor told lies during his direct-examination out of desperation to discredit prosecution witnesses while testifying in his own defense, prosecutors told the former Liberian president Thursday, January 28, 2010.
Taylor dismissed this assertion as “incorrect” but did admit to a series of inconsistencies in his own previous testimony as the day progressed.
Prosecution counsel, Nicholas Koumjian, highlighted parts of Taylor’s testimony in direct-examination and told the former president that his accounts of the same events have been different under cross-examination.
In accusing the former warlord of sending Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebel commander, Sam Bockarie, to render assistance to the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA) rebel group in Angola, Koumjian told Taylor that he had given different accounts of his relationship with the UNITA rebel leader, the late Gen. Jonas Savimbi.
Asked whether he knew Savimbi, Taylor responded, “I know of him but I never met him personally.”
Koumjian pointed out that during his direct-examination on August 24, 2009, Taylor had told the court that he had met Savimbi in Ivory Coast through former Ivorian president, Houphouet Boigny. Conceding that his two accounts were different, Taylor responded, “to be honest, I’ve never met General Savimbi. I concede. What I said then was incorrect.”
Koumjian also referred to the 2008 testimony of a prosecution witness who, testifying in private session, told the judges that when Bockarie left Liberia for Angola in early 2001, Taylor’s Chief of Protocol, Musa Sesay, accompanied Bockarie to Zambia. Bockarie was then handed over to the UNITA ambassador to Zambia, the witness said.
However, in previous testimony, Taylor disputed the idea that Sesay could have accompanied Bockarie to Zambia on grounds that he (Taylor) would have known about it– which, he said at the time, he did not.
But on Thursday, Koumjian showed Taylor a copy of a Liberian diplomatic passport bearing Sesay’s photograph and the title “Chief of Protocol, Executive Mansion, Liberia.”
“I recognize this photograph as being that of Musa Sesay,” Taylor agreed.
Koumjian then turned to a page in the passport, where an Abidjan International Airport stamp, dated February 9, 2001, read “Sortie,” meaning “Exit” in French. Another stamp in Sesay’s passport, dated February 10, 2009, but which was not very legible, indicated the word “Entry” with an entry permit valid up to February 13, 2001. A third stamp dated February 13, 2001 indicated that Sesay departed Lusaka International Airport on that date.
“So Mr. Taylor, this will indicate that the person using this passport departed Lusaka on the 13 February 2001,” Koumjian said.
The prosecutor also referred to a fourth stamp, which indicated that on February 15, 2001, Sesay re-entered Abidjan International Airport.
“That is seven days. You would know if Musa Sesay is out for a week, and he wouldn’t go to Zambia without your order,” Koumjian posited.
“He would go to Zambia without my order,” Taylor responded, adding that “for the seven days, yes, I’ll say if he was away, I’ll know.”
Koumjian then pointed out that Taylor had previously said that Sesay did not travel with Bockarie.
“We may have to determine the authenticity of this passport. We have seen many fake passports and fake stamps, so we’ll have to determine the authenticity of it,” Taylor responded.
“The reason you lied to these judges that you are 100 percent certain that Musa Sesay was not in Zambia and you did not know Mr. Savimbi is because you were desperate to discredit the witness who spoke about these issues,” Koumjian confronted Taylor.
“That is incorrect,” the former president responded.
The prosecution also confronted Taylor about having lied about his knowledge of Sanjivan Ruprah, a Liberian ambassador-at-large who was also designated Deputy Commissioner of the Liberian Bureau of Maritime Affairs. Taylor had originally said that he only knew of Ruprah but never knew him personally. Koumjian read a portion of Taylor’s November 2009 testimony in direct-examination when he was asked by his defense counsel who Ruprah was. Taylor had responded at the time that he did not know Ruprah.
“Don’t you consider that a lie?” Koumjian asked Taylor.
“I don’t consider that a lie. If my counsel had asked me to say all I knew of Mr. Ruprah, I would have told him,” Taylor responded.
Koumjian further pointed out that during the previous day’s cross-examination, Taylor had said that his National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPFL) rebel group had received some arms and ammunition from Burkina Faso. During his September 30, 2009 testimony in direct-examination, however, Koumjian recalled that the former president had said that Burkina Faso was not involved in giving arms and ammunition to Liberia.
Also asked whether he gave RUF commander, Issa Sesay, a satellite phone, Taylor said “yes, I did give Issa Sesay a satellite phone.”
The prosecution again pointed out that in September 2009, during his direct-examination, Taylor had said that he did not give Sesay a satellite phone. Koumjian also read a May 2000 letter, purportedly written to Taylor by Sesay, in which the RUF commander highlighted some conditions required for the RUF’s cooperation in the Sierra Leone peace process. The letter, which was among Taylor’s presidential papers and among the documents he admits were in his possession, purports to come from Sesay but was not signed by him. Sesay’s name was also misspelled in the letter. Taylor said that he had received the original copy of the letter from Sesay.
Asked why Sesay had not signed the letter, Mr. Taylor said that “this might be the original copy and I don’t know why it was unsigned.”
Asked by Koumjian why he would have an original copy of a letter that was not signed by the author, Taylor insisted, “I cannot say why this letter has no signature.”
“Your staff wrote the letter for Issa Sesay” Koumjian told Taylor.
“Even if my staff wrote a letter for Issa, he’ll still have to sign it. I cannot account for why this letter is not signed by Issa Sesay,” Taylor responded.
When Koumjian pointed out that Sesay’s name was misspelled in the letter which was supposed to have come from him, Taylor responded, “You have a point but I tell you, this document was one delivered to my government by the RUF.”
Charles Taylor Denies CPJ Report of Repressive Press Freedom
Awoko
February 3, 2010
Former Liberian President, Charles Taylor has denied reports by the Committee for the Protection of Journalists (CPJ) that his government was repressive of press freedom.
A report by the CPJ read in court by the Prosecution accused Mr. Taylor of harassment and imprisonment of several journalists. The Prosecution also alleged that Mr. Taylor closed down several media institutions during his Presidency.
Based on the account of the CPJ, the Prosecution accused Mr. Taylor of operating a government that was repressive and intolerant of press freedom.
The Prosecution recalled that Taylor's government arrested and charged Journalists Joseph Bartuah, Bobby Tapson, Abdulai Dukuly and Jerome Dalieh, all of The News Newspaper with espionage in 2001.
The Prosecution quoted the CPJ, saying the Journalists were imprisoned for reporting that the Taylor government wasted money repairing a helicopter and producing Christmas cards.
Lead Prosecution Lawyer, Brenda Hollis reminded Mr. Taylor of his alleged unfriendly attitude towards the press when he was President of Liberia.
But Mr. Taylor told the court that some media institutions were closed because they failed to pay taxes. He said some religious stations that deviated from their religious broadcasts were also warned not to engage in politics.
Meanwhile, the International Criminal Court and the Special Court for Sierra Leone have begun alternating the use of court room number two between Congolese rebel leader, Thomas Lubanga and former Liberian leader Charles Taylor.
The ICC used court room two Monday from 9:30a.m to 1:30pm for the Lubanga trial, and the Special Court for Sierra Leone heard Mr. Taylor's testimonies from 3pm to 7:30pm Netherlands' time.
According to a release from the Special Court, this rotational use of court room two would continue vice versa until early April.
Charles Taylor Executed Liberians Perceived As Threats To
His Political Ambition
CharlesTaylorTrial.org via AllAfrica.com
By Alpha Sesay
February 4, 2010
Charles Taylor executed Liberian politicians whom he perceived as threats to his political ambitions, killed rebels who failed to carry out his orders, and persecuted human rights activists who opposed his policies, prosecutors alleged today at the Special Court for Sierra Leone. Mr. Taylor denied the allegations.
Lead prosecution counsel, Brenda Hollis, today questioned Mr. Taylor about the execution of several Liberian politicians including Jackson Doe, Gabriel Kpolleh, Moses Duopoe and Samuel Dokie. These men, Ms. Hollis alleged, were executed on the orders of Mr. Taylor. Mr. Taylor dismissed these allegations as stories made up by Tom Woweiyu, another rebel leader with broke ranks with the former Liberian president but later joined Mr. Taylor's National Patriotic Party (NPP) Government.
"After we broke up, after Tom Woweiyu formed a rebel group and attacked the NPFL [National Patriotic Front of Liberia] and broke away in 1994, " Mr. Taylor said. "Tom Woweiyu made a lot of wild allegations that later he apologized for, I forgave him, and brought him into my government."
"I am aware of the nonsense he wrote. He later apologized and I brought him into my government . He became senator from the NPP," Mr. Taylor said.
After denying allegations that he executed Gabriel Kpolleh, whom he allegedly saw as threat to his power, Mr. Taylor also referred to allegations that he killed Jackson Doe as another story by Mr. Woweiyu.
"Mr. Taylor, you were also responsible for the killing of Jackson F. Doe, weren't you?" Ms. Hollis asked Mr. Taylor.
"That is not correct. That's Tom Woweiyu again. That is not correct. Jackson Doe was a very well respected man," Mr. Taylor responded.
Mr. Jackson Doe, a former Liberian politician is reported to have won democratic elections against then Liberian president, Master Sergeant Samuel K. Doe. The elections, reports indicate, were rigged against Mr. Jackson Doe. Mr. Taylor's NPFL has previously stated that one of the reasons for its fighting in Liberia was to reverse the election victory that was stolen by Sergeant Samuel K. Doe at Mr. Jackson Doe's expense. According to other reports, Mr. Taylor later killed Mr. Jackson Doe in order to eliminate any threat to his power. Mr. Taylor has denied these allegations.
Mr. Taylor was also questioned about the death of Mr. Samuel Dokie, another politician who was reportedly executed with his family. Ms. Hollis asked Mr. Taylor whether any action was taken against those who committed those murders.
"Was Benjamin Yeaten ever arrested for the killing of the Dokies?" Ms. Hollis asked Mr. Taylor.
"No, Benjamin Yeaten was not arrested," Mr. Taylor said. "Those that were involved I think were arrested."
"Benjamin Yeaten – I said that he had asked for Dokie to be arrested and brought to Monrovia, according to reports, but those that went to carry out the orders went beyond the orders and I think that those were the people that were sought," Mr. Taylor said.
Mr. Taylor also denied allegations that he had ordered the execution of some of his rebel commanders, including Oliver Varnie and Sam Larto. These commanders, Ms. Hollis alleged, were executed because they had failed to carry out Mr. Taylor's orders. Mr. Taylor denied the accusation, saying that they were executed because they had been involved in subversive operations.
Mr. Taylor explained that Mr. Varney was executed "because he was part of a group that planned to overthrow the leadership of the NPFL."
On the execution of Mr. Larto, Mr. Taylor explained that he was executed because he had been involved in the killing of civilians. Ms. Hollis suggested that Mr. Larto was killed because Mr. Taylor was concerned that he had connived against him. Mr. Taylor responded that while it was true that Mr. Larto had connived against him, the main reason for his execution was because he was involved in the killing of those civilians. He added that Mr. Larto was tried and convicted before he was executed.
As in the past several days, Ms. Hollis again today accused Mr. Taylor of persecuting human rights advocates who were critical of his government.
One person who is said to have gone into hiding, allegedly to escape arrest by Mr. Taylor's government, was one Mr. Adebayo. Mr. Adebayo, Ms. Hollis said, "went into hiding after the Liberian Watch for Human Rights issued a statement describing the ATU [Anti Terrorist Unit] as unconstitutional." The group, Ms. Hollis said, had called for the disbandment of the ATU. Mr. Taylor responded that he had no idea of such an incident and that he did not even know Mr. Adebayo.
"I have no recollection of anybody calling on me called Adebayo—that's not even a Liberian name — to dissolve the ATU. I don't have any recollection of that," Mr. Taylor said.
Mr. Taylor insisted that he had no idea that the Liberian police had gone after Mr. Adebayo after the Director of the Liberian Police, Paul Mulba, had said that Mr. Adebayo will be "apprehended to answer."
Mr. Taylor also said he did not recall knowing a James Torh, a human rights activist who had been forced to go into hiding because his organization, The Focus, had become critical of Mr. Taylor's government. The former president further denied knowledge of the arrest of another human rights activist, Aloysious Toe, who had criticized the actions of Mr. Taylor's son, Chuckie Taylor. Mr. Taylor Jr., who was head of his father's ATU, has been convicted and sentenced to imprisonment in a United States court for crimes of torture committed in Liberia. Mr. Toe later went into hiding, Ms. Hollis told the court today.
Prosecutors have been questioning Mr. Taylor about his actions as head of the NPFL and as president of Liberia. While those actions are not the subject of the charges against Mr. Taylor, prosecutors seek to establish that the former president's actions in his own country were reflective of the actions of Sierra Leonean rebels, who Mr. Taylor is accused of supporting.
War-Crimes Trial’s Verdict for Taylor Further Delayed
Vancouver Sun
February 9, 2010
A verdict in the long war-crimes trial of former Liberian President Charles Taylor is not now expected until the end of this year, although the defence is cutting back on witnesses, a prosecutor said on Monday. Taylor, 62, denies all 11 charges of instigating murder, rape, mutilation, sexual slavery and conscription of child soldiers during intertwined wars in Liberia and Sierra Leone in which more than 250,000 people were killed.
His trial by the UN-backed court for Sierra Leone in The Hague officially opened in June 2007 but was almost immediately adjourned after Taylor boycotted proceedings and fired his legal team. It began in earnest in January 2008. Acting prosecutor Joseph Kamara of Sierra Leone said he was "optimistic that by the end of this year we should see a closure to this case." Any appeal could take three to four more months, he added.
The original prosecutor, American Stephen Rapp, said a year ago he expected a verdict early this year, a target that was later put back until mid-2010.
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia
Official Website of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia
Senate Kicks Out TRC Report
Liberian Daily Observer
By Stephen Binda
February 3, 2010
A heated debate over the implementation of the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) erupted in the Senate yesterday with the majority of the senators throwing the report out of the window, saying the Senate has no legal authority over the report.
The debate was sparked by a letter from Bong County Senator, Jewel Howard-Taylor, invoking a relevant portion of the legislation that created the TRC, which forbids members of the Legislature to act on the report and that requires the President to act upon it.
Article 6, Section 48 of the TRC Act states, “The Head of State shall report to the National Legislature within three months of receipt of the report of the TRC, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, as to the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. All recommendations shall be implemented. Where the recommendation has not been complied with, the Legislature shall require the Head of State to show cause for such non-compliance.”
Taylor, wife of former president Charles Taylor, one of the former warlords, pointed out that the Legislature has no legal grounds to scrutinize the report.
“We do not have the authority to x-ray this report. All we need to do is to allow the President to act in accordance with the law by reporting to us in three months as called for by the Act creating the TRC,” she declared.
In the case where the report has not been implemented by the President, she said, the Legislature has the right to require the Head of State to show cause for such non-compliance.
Taylor’s letter, copy of which is in the possession of the Daily Observer, called on the Senate to suspend all further deliberations and actions on the TRC recommendations.
After several months of nation-wide hearings to determine the root causes of Liberian conflict, the TRC recommended the prosecution of several key players in the civil war and the banning of certain individuals from holding public for their roles in the conflict.
But the recommendations triggered intense controversy. Many are opposed to the report while others are in favor of it.
During a speech at the Legislature recently, President Ellen-Johnson-Sirleaf, one of those sanctioned by the TRC report, called on lawmakers to confirm the human rights commissioners and amend the TRC Act so that the commissioners can review the specific portions of the TRC report than propose the banning and prosecution of individuals implicated in the report.
Taylor said the suspension of the report will enable the President to act appropriately and report to the Legislature so as to enable the Legislature take appropriate and necessary measures in said regard.
But her suggestion was met with stiff resistance from the floor. Bomi County Senator, Lahai Lansana, took the floor to register his opposition.
“No! We will not allow this to happen here. Don’t mislead this plenary. Who told you that the Legislature has no fish to fry in the TRC report? Senator, your argument is belated.”
Also registering her opposition, Maryland County Senator, Gloria Musu Scott, a former chief justice, accused Taylor of misleading the Senate by reading the TRC Act with a single political eye.
She said Article 6, Section 43 of the Act creating the TRC states: “The TRC shall submit a final report containing recommendations at the end of its tenure to the National Legislature and have key findings of the report published simultaneously with its presentation in at least three local dailies in pursuit of transparency and public interest objectives.”
According to her, the Act clearly suggests that the Legislature has a pivotal role to play in deciding on the TRC report. “Let us not deceive ourselves here to say that we have no authority to x-ray the report. There is no question about this. If one said we don’t have then why should the TRC submit its final report to the Legislature?’ Scott asked.
Also in their contributions, several senators including Gbarpolu County Senators Theodore Momo and Daniel Naatehn; Bomi County Senator, Richard Devine, Grand Gedeh County Senior Senator, Isaac Nyenabo; and Grand Bassa County Senator, Gbezohngar Findley contended that the Legislature has no authority to x-ray the report.
Before breaking for recess late last year, the senators said they had passed a joint resolution suspending all actions on the report until their return, and that by that resolution, they had a stake in the process.
“If you now say that we do not have a stake in the TRC, why did you sign a joint resolution with eight senators to suspend all action until January this year?” they asked.
They pointed out that the TRC report contains a series of constitutional breaches and as such the Legislature needs to correct them before the implementation of the report.
Outlining some of the constitutional breaches, the senators quoted Article 6, Sections 48 of the TRC Act which states: “The Head of State shall report to the National Legislature within three months of receipt of the report of the TRC, and on a quarterly basis thereafter, as to the implementation of the Commission’s recommendations. All recommendations shall be implemented. Where the recommendation has not been complied with, the Legislature shall require the Head of State to show cause for such non-compliance.”
Said section, they contended, is in violation of Article Six, Section 43 of the same Act, which states: “The TRC shall submit a final report containing recommendations at the end of its tenure to the National Legislature and have key findings of the report published simultaneous with its presentation in at least three local dailies in pursuit of transparency and public interest objectives”.
“How can the TRC’s Act say that the President should report to the Legislature while at the same time the same Act provides that the Commission shall report to the legislature? We feel this is a violation of the Constitution,” the senators argued.
The debate caused an uproar, with some senators accusing one another of selfishness.
“Some of you people know what you people want in this Senate. It is about time you removed personal interest in this issue and put the country first,” Scott asserted.
The action of the senators later prompted Sen. Cletus Wotorson, Pro-Tempore of the Senate, to halt the proceedings for five minutes, stating that he could not understand why the debate was so intense.
When the session resumed, it was time for senators to vote on whether the Senate should halt all deliberations as called for by Taylor or trash the letter and proceed with x-raying the report.
Eleven senators voted in favor of suspending all deliberations on the TRC report until President Sirleaf can submit a report to the Legislature this month in keeping with the TRC Act.
Eight senators voted against the decision and announced a motion for reconsideration on the matter, which is to be tested following three regular sittings.
TRC Offers Golden Chance for Pardon
Liberian Daily Observer
By Alfred Juteh Chea
February 5, 2010
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) has proposed what keen observers characterize as a ‘golden chance’ for pardon for those who committed wrongs in the Liberian conflict.
The opportunity for pardon also includes those whom the Commission has recommended for public sanctions.
In its final and edited report, the TRC had listed about 50 persons, including some political leaders and financiers of former warring factions, whom the commission had targeted for public sanctions. The sanctions constitute a series of justice mechanisms, punitive in nature, which are short of prosecution, but intended to redress impunity and maintain public integrity in public service.
Public sanctions, said the commission, may take the form of lustrations (purification by sacrifice, such as killing a cow); debarment from holding public office; restitution; public apologies, written or oral; community service; compensation of victims; and other social responsibilities that may be imposed for the sake of atonement.
The commission’s list of those recommended for public sanction include Allen Brown, Sr., Randolph Cooper, Ethelbert Cooper, Toga McIntosh Gayewea, Jackson E. Doe, D. Bob Taylor, Dew Mason, Nyan Menten, Clarence Simpson, Byron Tarr, Harry Yuan, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, Isaac Nyenabo, Kabineh Ja’neh, Archie Williams, Tonia King, J. Appollo Swen, Joe Gbala, Thomas Ziah, Maxwell Karba, Ignatius Clay, Vamba Kanneh, Valee Keita, Paul Mulbah, El Mohammed Sheriff, Kwame Fofana, Alieu Kosia, Albert S. Toe, Weade Kobbah Wureh, Octavious Walker, Lavela Supuwood, Tom Woewiyu, Tarnue Marwolo, James Chelley, Amos Lincoln, Noah Bordolo, Edward Slangar, Tigae Wontee, Mohammed Joumande, Prince Sio, Abbas Kenneh, Aisha Konneh, Morris Dolley, Alhaji Sekou Fofana, Charles Bennie, Moses Jarbo, K.B.K. Sando, Kai Farley, Joe Tuah and Grace Minor.
The TRC further indicated that “all those associated with former warring factions, their leaders, political decision makers, financiers, organizers, `commanders and foot soldiers shall be subject to public sanctions in one form or another.”
The list of those targeted for sanctions, comprising political leaders and financiers of different warring factions “is by no means exhaustive,” the TRC Report stated. “All other persons similarly situated shall be subject to public sanctions as in section 14.2 and specifically barred from holding public offices, elected or appointed for a period of thirty (30) years.”
Accountability: National Palaver Hut Commission
The report indicated that The Palaver Hut is another ‘justice and accountability’ mechanism, with the traditional orientation to foster national healing and reconciliation at the community and grass root levels, creating the opportunity for dialogue and peace building.
“It requires that all perpetrators, their associates, warlords, financiers, organizers, activists; whether named or not in the TRC report but who have committed some wrongs, including assaults, destruction of property, forced displacement, looting, robbery, extortion, etc. The purpose of the Palava Hut is to afford anyone who has committed [a crime], whether knowingly or unknowingly, against an individual or the state, to admit the wrongful act and seek pardon from the people of Liberia through the Palaver Hut.
“The Jurisdiction of the Palaver Hut to render pardon,” said the TRC Report, “shall be limited to lesser crimes only; provided that a recommendation from the Palaver Hut in favor of anyone accused of the commission of a high crime or gross human rights violations is made to the Head of State or a court of competent jurisdiction. The Palaver Hut shall be established in all Statutory Districts and may extend to towns or villages as the need may arise,” the Report added.
The Palaver Hut
The commission recommended that “Anyone who has committed, any wrongful act associated with the Liberian civil war, whether knowingly or unknowingly, against anyone may seek pardon from the people of Liberia through the Palaver Hut. Anyone who has committed, any wrongful act associated with the Liberian civil war, whether knowingly or unknowingly, against another individual or group, and who has refused to take advantage of the Palaver Hut process, will be subject to public sanctions, lustrations, debarment from holding public office for life, and criminal and civil prosecution in a court of competent jurisdiction, etc.”
This means that all those whom the TRC Report has listed for sanctions may go to the Palaver Hut and seek the forgiveness of the Chiefs, Elders and credible opinion leaders of the nation.
On other forms of Accountability – traditional and informal mechanisms – the Commission asserted that the Palaver Hut may adopt other traditional and informal mechanisms for justice and accountability including penalties and sanctions as local culture and traditions and customs may warrant.
Mandate of The Commission
The Commission was established in the Ghanaian Capital, Accra, by former Liberian warring factions, political leaders, representatives of the civil society to promote national peace, security, unity and reconciliation by investigating gross human rights violations and violations of international humanitarian law as well as abuses that occurred, including massacres, sexual violations, murder, extra-judicial killings and economic crimes, such as the exploitation of natural or public resources to perpetuate armed conflicts, during the period January 1979 to October 14, 2003.
The TRC was also established to determine whether these were isolated incidents or part of a systematic pattern; establishing the antecedents, circumstances, factors and context of such violations and abuses; and determining those responsible for the commission of the violations and abuses and their motives as well as their impact on victims.
“Notwithstanding the period specified herein, the Commission may, on an application by any person or group of persons, pursue the objective set out in this Article IV (Mandate of the Commission) in respect of any other period preceding 1979.
The Commission was created to also provide a forum that will address issues of impunity, as well as an opportunity for both victims and perpetrators of human rights violations to share their experiences in order to create a clear picture of the past to facilitate genuine healing and reconciliation; to investigate the antecedents of the crises which gave rise to and impacted on the violent conflict in Liberia; to conduct a critical review of Liberia’s historical past, with the view to establishing and giving recognition to historical truths in order to address falsehoods and misconceptions of the past relating to the nation’s socio-economic and political development.
The Commission was further empowered, through the act that created it, to adopt specific mechanisms and procedures to address the experiences of women, children and vulnerable groups, paying particular attention to gender based violations, as well as to the issue of child soldiers; providing opportunities for them to relate their experiences; addressing concerns and recommending measures to be taken for the rehabilitation of victims of human rights violations in the spirit of national reconciliation and healing. It was also mandated to compile a report that includes a comprehensive account of its activities and findings.
Former Warlords, Associates Seek Sanctuary; Want Civil Law
Court Clip TRC’s Wings
The Analyst
February 10, 2010
When the marathon quest for lasting peace took Liberian peace stakeholders around the ECOWAS sub-region, catapulted them to Geneva, and back to Accra to sign the final peace deal, many had thought that they had convinced themselves of the uniqueness of the decision they had to take to save the nation and end the pogrom.
The Comprehensive Accra Peace Accord had therefore come to be the assumed embodiment of that peace conviction. But many observers say there are indications that a few vindictive stakeholders signed that agreement with tongues in cheeks and are keen on settling scores.
Some former warlords and their associates think so too, and they are not taking the imminent danger lying down – they are seeking sanctuary in the law. The Analyst has been looking at the group’s Civil Law Court Petition for Declaratory Judgment.
“Petitioners - Most respectfully pray unto this Honorable Court for the issuance of a declaratory judgment rendering the ACT establishing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Liberia (TRC) and the FINAL REPORT prepared by it (TRC) unconstitutional for all intent…”
Why Now
This was the core demand of the Petition for Declaratory Judgment that Cllr. J. Laveli Supuwood, himself a former warlord, submitted to the Civil Law Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Montserrado County, last week, on behalf of “petitioners and members of the class”.
The petition did not say why the “Petitioners and Members of The Class”, chose this time to question the constitutionality of the TRC and call for its proscription five years after the enactment of the TRC legislation, four years of TR process and report compilation, and seven months following the submission of the Commission’s determination and report.
But it says the petitioners were seeking relief on behalf of themselves and on behalf of other members of the class of persons adjudged/or recommended by the TRC in its Report for punishment and or prosecution without due process. The petitioners who prayed the Civil Law Court presided over by Resident Circuit Judge Yusuf D. Kabah to issue a declaratory judgment in its next month sitting include Jucontee Thomas Woewiyu – currently residing in the US - , Sekou Damate Conneh, and Weade Kobbah Wureh.
Others are and Sando D. Johnson, Joe Tuah, Dopoe Menkazohn, John T. Richardson, and Prince Seo, amongst others. When the case makes it to the court according to the petition, “Petitioners and Members of The Class”, will face the commissioners of the TRC represented by its Chairman Jerome Verdier, who is also a counselor-at-law.
It is not clear whether it is up to Chairman Verdier to prove or defend the constitutionality of the TRC Act or it should be National Transitional Legislative Assembly (NTLA) or its successor, the National Legislature. Incidentally, it is the June 2005 Act of the NTLA that establishes and mandates the TRC.
TRC’s Missteps versus the Intent of Liberia’s Peace Marathon
While this question simmers, they petitioners say they have several reasons why they deem the TRC constitutional, why the TRC recommendations would be inimical to the peace process, and why it was illegal for any agency of government or independent institution to try to implement its recommendations.
The primarily, according to them, the Commission’s report has given rise to confusion, fear, uncertainty and apprehension in the Liberian community around the world about the future of the nation peace and reconciliation process.
“[It] is likely to disrupt our constitutional system of government, unless a judicial interpretation is made to clarify the legal and policy meaning thereof,” the petitioners said, arguing further that under Liberian law a judicial interpretation is the most reasonable means of putting the mounting tensions to rest.
Besides being on a disruptive course, they claimed, the TRC report accuses and adjudges far too many perpetrators than can legally join as formal parties in the criminal action for violation of human rights and the commission of heinous crimes.
They observed that Liberians generally agreed that the 1989-2003 armed conflict was an extension and climax of the settlers-tribal conflict, which began at the founding of Liberia. The petitioners therefore concluded that it would be wrong to punish any group of Liberians in the hope of ending that conflict.
“At practically all the conferences, the need to reconcile the Liberian people and restore stability in order to move the nation forward claimed the attention of the parties to the conflict,” the petitioners said, noting that that theme ran through all peace deals that ended the war.
For instance, they said, the general amnesty granted “all persons involved in the Liberia civil conflict in the course of actual military engagements” under Article 19 of the March 1994 Cotonou Agreement was upheld by the September 1994 Akosombo Agreement.
Following the July 19, 1997 presidential elections, according to the petitioners, the new Liberian parliament reinforced the general amnesty by enacting a legislation titled, “An Act To Grant Immunity From Both Civil And Criminal Proceedings Against All Persons Within The Jurisdiction Of The Republic Of Liberia From Acts And Or Crimes Committed During The Civil War From December 1989 To August 2003.”
The petitioners said all these agreements were intended to put the war behind Liberians and create the enabling environment for the NTGL and succeeding governments to promote reconciliation in order to ensure the restoration of peace and stability to the country and its people.
“In the search for peace for Liberia, no reasonable evidence could be found or inferences made… to support the belief that prosecution or punishment of certain people in this country, as suggested in the findings and recommendations of the TRC Report, is a guarantee for ensuring the peace and stability…”, the petitioners noted.
Rather, according to them, all hopes, dreams, efforts, and struggles have been aimed at the pursuit of policies that unifies the people of this nation. “This is the only way forward to peace and stability,” they said. They said that the nation’s policies have been, and still is, in pursuit of unity could be seen under Article 5 of the Constitution of Liberia.
They then maintained that it was all these efforts at obtaining unity that the TRC seeks to destroy by the stroke of the pen in its report that sets aside scapegoats for retributive justice to satisfy the whim and caprices of invisible dictators of the peace policy of postwar Liberia.
“Having spent millions of the Liberian people’s money, [the TRC] has failed to put in motion programs and policies likely to promote genuine reconciliation, peace, and stability in the country. Instead, it seeks to establish an extra constitutional court to prosecute individuals without due process whom it admits, not responsible for the various violent conflicts experienced by the Liberian people throughout the history of this nation,” the petitioners claimed.
They said they were surprised that in the same breath that the Commission conceded that the conflict of Liberia dates back to its founding and was therefore beyond the reach of all the so-called warlords and their financiers, it decided to adopt the disruptive posture.
The petitioners, who claimed to be victimized by the process of saving Liberia from its past, said the Commission has demonstrated partiality and violated Article 59 of the Constitution of Liberia when it decided to pardon certain individuals accused of committing heinous crimes while insisting on penalizing a select few.
TRC Act Unconstitutional, Product of Legislature Excesses
They said not only was the Commission biased and evasive of the law in its recommendations for prosecution and debarment, but that the 2005 NTLA Act that established and mandated it was also unconstitutional. They said Article V, Section 12 of the TRC Act, which provides salaries for TRC commissioners just below those of justices of the Supreme Court and which guarantees their continued holding of office except under impeachment, has violated articles 62 and 71 of the Liberian Constitution (1986).
“These sections of the TRC Act in essence create a fourth branch of the Government of Liberia by equating the functions of the TRC and the status of its members with the status and positions of high honors held by the President, Vice President, Chief Justice and Associate Justices of this Country, who are the highest officials of the second and third branches of the government of Liberia,” the petitioners observed.
Further, they said, Article V, Sections 12 and 14 of the TRC Act violated Article 34 of the Liberian Constitution (1986), which grants certain powers to the Legislature, in that by enacting the sections of the TRC Act, the Legislature exceeded the powers granted by said Article 34 of the Constitution.
“Accordingly, Article V, Sections 12 and 14 of the TRC Act are inconsistent with the Constitution of Liberia (1986), and therefore unconstitutional, pursuant to the Supremacy Clause, Article 2, of the Constitution.
The Supremacy Clause reads, “This Constitution is the supreme and fundamental law of Liberia and its provisions shall have binding force and effect on all authorities and persons throughout the Republic. Any laws, treaties, statutes, decrees, customs and regulations found to be inconsistent with it shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void and of no legal effect…”
Moreover, according to the petitioners, Article VI, Section 22 of the TRC Act, violated articles 42, 61 and 73 of the Constitution by provided immunity for TRC commissioners from civil or criminal sanctions, immunity they said, the constitution reserve only for legislators and the President of Liberia.
By these provisions, they said, the TRC Act has in essence creates a fourth branch of the government of Liberia by equating the functions of the TRC and the status of its members with the status and positions of high honors held members the three branches of government.
They said it was because the NTLA erroneously elevated the TRC to the status of the Supreme Court that the Commission has claimed to be a “quasi judicial forum” and has therefore adjudged them criminally liable and set for debarment for 30 years without recourse to law and for prosecution.
They said while under Article 34(e) of the Constitution of Liberia the National Legislature has the power to create inferior courts, it lacks the constitutional powers to create a court, or entity that is on par with the Supreme Court of Liberia, which in their view the TRC was essentially.
“Accordingly, insofar as the TRC Act creates and grants such powers to the TRC, it is repugnant to Article 65 of the Constitution,” the petitioners argued.
Besides, they said, the TRC Act’s provision making all TRC recommendations authoritative, binding, and having the weight of laws and compelling the government of Liberia and the National Legislature to implement them violated Article 29 of the Constitution of Liberia that allocates such function to the National Legislature.
Worst, the petitioners said, Article VII, Section 26 of the TRC Act violated Article 21(h) of the Constitution of Liberia by compelling the accused to incriminate themselves publicly through a series of thematic hearings, which were understandably intended for palava-hut reconciliation.
“The TRC Act compels alleged perpetrators to incriminate themselves in violation of the constitutional protection against self-incrimination, and is therefore “void and of no legal effect” pursuant to Article 2 of the Constitution,” the petitioners said. Considering the overwhelming evidence of the violation of the Constitutional of Liberia and other binding agreements and legal statutes, which they said form part of the governance instruments, they pray the Civil Law Court to grant their wishes.
Amongst the actions the petitioners wants to the court to take is to rule that the TRC lacks the authority to adjudge the petitioners and members of the class guilty of committing crimes and violations of human rights and other laws referenced in the “Final Report” of the TRC.
“Assuming that the TRC Act confers certain authority and/or power on the TRC, the TRC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in making the recommendations contained in its “Final Report” and therefore abused and exceed the authority, if any, granted by the TRC Act,” the petitioners said.
The therefore want the court to declare the “TRC Act unconstitutional and without any legal effect whatsoever and to grant unto petitioners and members of the class such other relief as this honorable court may deem just and equitable”.
“As the petitioners and members of the class have squarely and specifically raised constitutional questions, the matter be expeditiously transmitted to the Honorable Supreme Court of Liberia for determination of the constitutional issues thus raised,” they prayed the Civil Law Court of the 6th Judicial Circuit of Montserrado County.
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, War Crimes Chamber
Zulfikar Ališpago Ordered into Custody
State Court of BIH
February 3, 2010
On February 3, 2010, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) issued a decision in the Nedžad Hodžić et al. case ordering the suspect Zulfikar Ališpago into one-month pre-trial custody. Zulfikar Ališpago is suspected based on his command responsibility of committing the criminal offenses of War Crimes against Civilians and War Crimes against Prisoners of War. Pursuant to the Decision the pre-trial custody may last until March 1, 2010.
Having reviewed the submitted evidence, the Court concluded that there is grounded suspicion that the suspect committed the criminal offenses he has been charged with.The Court ordered custody because there are circumstances that suggest the risk of flight of the suspect. Likewise the Court ordered custody having found that there are particular circumstances indicating that if released, the suspect will hinder the inquiry influencing witnesses and accomplices. The Court is also satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances since this crime warrants the imprisonment sentence for a term of ten years or more and is especially grave because of the manner of its perpetration or its consequences. The release of the suspect would result in an actual threat to the public order.
First Instance Verdict in Božić et.
al. Confirmed
State Court of BiH
February 8, 2010
The Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, following the session of the Appellate Division Panel and the review of the appeals of the Prosecutor's Office of BiH and defense counsel for the accused Mladen Blagojević, rendered the Second Instance Verdict refusing the appeals of both the Prosecution and the Defense as unfounded and confirming the First Instance Verdict dated 6 November 2008. Under the First Instance Verdict the accused Mladen Blagojević was found guilty of Crimes against Humanity under Article 172 (1) (h) in conjunction with subparagraph (k), all as read with Article 180 (1) of the Criminal Code of BiH (CC BiH). The accused Mladen Blagojević was sentenced to prison sentence of seven years. Under the same Verdict, the accused Mladen Blagojević was acquitted of a part of the charges, while the accused Zdravko Božić, Zoran Živanović and Željko Zarić were acquitted of all charges under Article 172 (1) (h) in conjunction with subparagraphs (a), (d) and (e) CC BiH (Crimes against Humanity).
The Prosecutor of the Prosecutor's Office of BiH appealed the First Instance Verdict due to essential violations of the criminal procedure, violations of the criminal code, erroneously and incompletely established state of facts and the decision on sentence. The Prosecutor's Office of BiH moved for a partial revocation of the sections of the First Instance Verdict specified in the appeal and the scheduling of a retrial before the Appellate Division, in order to remedy the violations of the criminal procedure, repeat the presentation of evidence from which the state of facts was erroneously and incompletely established and find the Accused guilty of all criminal offences charged under the Amended Indictment.
Defense counsel for the accused Mladen Blagojević also filed an appeal due to essential violations of the criminal procedure, violations of the criminal code and erroneously and incompletely established state of facts.
Following the session and the review of the First Instance Verdict in light of the appellate claims, the Appellate Panel was satisfied that the Trial Panel had correctly evaluated evidence and found the accused Blagojević to be criminally liable for the commission of other inhumane acts under Article 172 (1) (Crimes against Humanity) in conjunction with persecution under the same article and sentenced the accused to a prison sentence of seven years. On the other hand, the Trial Panel acquitted the accused Božić, Živanović and Zarić of all charges under the Amended Indictment. The Trial Panel correctly concluded that the Prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that all three accused were criminally liable for acts they were charged with.
The Appellate Panel accepts as indisputable that the crimes at issue truly occurred. However, to find the accused liable for the commission of the crimes, the Prosecution has to prove their liability beyond reasonable doubt. The Prosecution failed to do so in concreto. Accordingly, the Trial Panel applied the in dubio pro reo principle. It requires the inculpatory facts to be established with complete certainty, or ãbeyond reasonable doubt". If there is doubt about those facts, as the Panel found to be the case here, they cannot be considered established.
Exculpatory facts however are considered to be established, even if they are only probable.
Based on all of the above, the Appellate Panel refused the appeals as unfounded and confirmed the First Instance Verdict.
Predrag Bastah and Goran Višković Found Guilty of
Crimes Against Humanity
State Court of BiH
February 8, 2010
On Friday, 5 February 2010, following a public main trial, the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina announced the first instance verdict finding the accused Predrag Bastah and Goran Višković guilty of the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1) h) of the Criminal Code of BiH (the CC of BiH), in conjunction with subparagraphs a), d), e), f), g), i) and k) of the same article and Article 29, as read with Article 180(1) of the CC of BiH. The Court sentenced the accused Bastah to long-term imprisonment for the term of 22 years and the accused Višković to prison sentence for the term of 18 years.
The accused Predrag Bastah and Goran Višković were found guilty because between April and late September 1992, as part of a widespread and systematic attack of parts of the JNA units, military, paramilitary and police forces of the Serb Republic of BiH directed against the civilian Bosniak and other non-Serb population of Vlasenica Municipality, with knowledge of such an attack and of the fact that their acts constituted part of the attack, as members of these forces, specifically Predrag Bastah as a member of the reserve forces of the MUP of RS, SJB Vlasenica and Goran Višković as a member of the Army of the Serb Republic of BiH, persecuted the civilian population of Bosniak and other non-Serb ethnicities on political, ethnic and religious grounds by participating in a joint plan and its contribution to the fulfillment of a common goal of depriving the lives of other persons (killings), unlawful imprisonment, psychological and sexual mistreatment, enforced disappearance, torture and other inhumane acts committed to inflict bodily and mental harm.
Under Article 284(1) a) and c) of the Criminal Procedure Code of BiH (the CPC of BiH), the Court acquitted the accused Predrag Bastah and Goran Višković of the charges under which they were charged with having committed Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1) h), in conjunction with subparagraphs d), e), g), k) and i) of the same article and Article 29 of the CC of BiH, as read with Article 180(1) of the CC of BiH.
Under Article 283(1) b) of the CPC of BiH, the Court dismissed the charges under which the accused were charged with having committed the criminal offense of Crimes against Humanity in violation of Article 172(1) h), in conjunction with subparagraphs a), i) and k) of the same article and Article 29 of the CC of BiH, as read with Article 180(1) of the CC of BiH.
Acting in accordance with Article 138(1) of the CPC of BiH, the Court rendered a Decision to extend custody of the accused Predrag Bastah for the period of nine months, while the accused Goran Višković was ordered into custody, which may last no longer than nine months, that is, until 5 November 2010 or pending a new decision by the Court.
Ćerim Novalić Pleaded Not Guilty
State Court of BiH
February 9, 2010
At the plea hearing before the Section I for War Crimes of the Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH), in the Ćerim Novalić case, the accused Novalić pleaded not guilty. Ćerim Novalić is charged with the criminal offence of War Crimes against Civilians.
As alleged in the Indictment, the accused Novalić during the armed conflict between the Army of RBiH and the Army of the Republic of Srpska, at the territory of the Konjic Municipality, as a member of the Army of RBiH, during the month of September 1992, in the village of Đepi, Konjic Municipality, together with one unidentified soldier entered a house and allegedly forced a female person to sexual intercourse.
Ending Impunity
BIRN Justice Report
February 10, 2010
Under an agreement signed by the Ministers of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia in Sarajevo, individuals with citizenship of both countries, who have been sentenced by second instance verdicts will not be able to avoid serving their sentences by fleeing to the other country.
On February 10, 2010 BiH Justice Minister Barisa Colak and Croatian Judiciary Minister Ivan Simonovic signed amendments to the Agreement on Mutual Execution of Court Decisions pertaining to Criminal Issues.
The Agreement enables the application of prison sentences in the case of people with dual citizenship who have fled to one of the two countries after having second instance verdicts pronounced against them.
"By signing the amendments to the Agreement we are ending impunity and the misuse of dual citizenship to evade justice. Dual citizenship is useful to many of our citizens, but they must not be compromised by the misuse cases," Simonovic said.
According to the original Agreement signed by the two countries in 1996, a convict had to consent to being arrested and detained. Under the new regulations, the state to which the convict has fled must arrest and detain the convict. The convict will have an opportunity to choose where he will serve his sentence.
"Up to the present date, a person had to give consent in order for the sentence against him to be applied in another state. According to the new Agreement, the convict is obliged to serve his sentence irrespective of whether he resides in the country which pronounced the verdict or the other country, where he may be residing on the basis of citizenship of that country," Colak said.
The amendments to the Agreement do not target individuals who have fled to one of the two countries but against whom second instance verdicts have still to be pronounced. The Ministries of Justice of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatia claim that both states are currently facing internal legal obstacles to extraditing individuals, but that they intend to cooperate by exchanging evidence and relinquish prosecutions.
The current constitutional regulations forbid the countries to extradite their citizens to other countries for criminal processing.
The BiH Justice Minister said that about 100 people have fled from Bosnia and Herzegovina to Croatia after verdicts against them had been pronounced. He said that about 50 convicts from Croatia currently reside in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The Agreement entered into force immediately after its signing. However, the first arrests are expected once the Ministries and Courts have exchanged the necessary information.
"I know for sure that some people will not be able to relax after the signing of this Agreement, but they do not deserve to be in any case," Simonovic said.
Bosnia and Herzegovina will sign amendments to the Agreement on Mutual Execution of Court Decisions pertaining to Criminal Issues with Serbia in Belgrade on February 26, 2010.
International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY)
Trial Chamber: EU Should Deliver a More Detailed Report
SENSE Tribunal: ICTY
February 5, 2010
Not satisfied with the last EU report on the steps taken to locate the EC monitors' logbooks from Knin, the Trial Chamber issued an 'urgent' invitation to the Secretary-General of the EU Council to provide a more detailed report about the search of the European archives within 14 days. Gotovina's defense has sought the logbooks of the European monitors from Knin for some time
The Trial Chamber hearing the case of Croatian generals Gotovina, Cermak and Markac invited the EU to deliver within 14 days all the information on the steps taken to locate the logbooks kept by the EC Monitoring Mission Regional Center in Knin. The defense has sought those documents, because, as it has contended, they contain reports the European monitors drafted during and after Operation Storm. The three generals are charged with numerous crimes committed against Krajina Serbs and their property at that time.
The Trial Chamber sent a similar request to the EU in mid-December 2009. A month later, it replied that 'once again, all the steps were taken' but the logbook 'simply couldn't be located'. In the Urgent Invitation to the EU made public today, the Trial Chamber notes it expected to receive more detailed information about what was done, such as the names of archivists and other officials consulted about the controversial logbooks. The Trial Chamber also expected to be given details about the chain of custody for archiving of that document. This is why the Trial Chamber invited the EU to deliver detailed information this time about the efforts, noting that the deadline for the submission of the documents could be extended beyond the original 14 days, if necessary.
As on previous occasions, the Trial Chamber with Judge Orie presiding sent the request to the Secretary-General of the EU Council, Pierre de Boissieu, who has recently succeeded Javier Solana.
The correspondence between Gotovina's defense, the Trial Chamber and the EU began in March 2009. The defense maintained that it didn't receive almost 100 reports of the European monitors. In one of its last motions, Gotovina's defense stated that only the controversial logbook of the European monitors from the Knin Regional Center was still missing.
The trial of the Croatian generals has entered its final stage. The Trial Chamber now has to hear the last seven witnesses it has called. The first Chamber witness has been provisionally named CW-1 and will begin his evidence on Wednesday, 24 February 2010.
Seselj Charged in Second Contempt Case
Institute of War and Peace Reporting
By Rachel Irwin
February 6, 2010
Vojislav Seselj has been charged this week with contempt of court for disclosing information about 11 protected witnesses in a book he authored.
This is the second time that Serbian nationalist leader, currently on trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity, has been charged with contempt.
Last July, Seselj was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for revealing details about protected witnesses in one of his books.
Seselj, who represents himself and remains the political leader of the Serbian Radical Party, SRS, based in Belgrade, has denied intimidating witnesses. His appeal against the contempt conviction is still pending.
Seselj is charged with nine counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity for atrocities carried out between August 1991 and September 1993 in an effort to expel the non-Serb population from parts of Croatia and Bosnia. The charges include murder, torture, cruel treatment and forcible transfer.
According to the indictment, Seselj's bid to create a so-called Greater Serbia was part of a joint criminal enterprise which involved senior figures in the Serbian regime, including late president Slobodan Milosevic and former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic.
Prior to the new contempt charges - for disclosing information about 11 protected witnesses in one of his books – the Seselj trial, which resumed in January after being suspended for nearly a year, heard the testimony of a protected court's witness.
The witness told judges that he received threatening phone calls from two men he believed to be associates of the accused.
The witness said that he received the calls in November 2007, the same month the trial officially got underway at the Hague tribunal.
This week, the witness said he had previously given statements to investigators from the Office of the Prosecutor, OTP, in 1998 and 2004.
The first caller, the witness told judges, said "he would kill my children this way and that way. He talked nonsense".
The second caller, he said, warned him that he could not "say anything" in court.
Presiding Judge Jean-Claude Antonetti asked the witness how he knew the callers were "close" to Seselj.
"The first one, I didn't know who he was related to," the witness responded. "The second was a member of the Serbian Radical Party."
The witness said he was familiar with the second caller because the caller had been recruiting people to join the party since 1996.
It was not made in clear in open session whether the witness was Serb, Croat or Bosniak, or with whom he was affiliated during the war.
When it was Seselj's turn to question him, he asked the witness about the allegations regarding the phone calls.
"I was most surprised when you said my associates contacted and threatened you," Seselj said to the witness.
He then suggested that one of the callers had misrepresented himself as a member of Seselj's political party.
"Did you know that since 2002 in the RS [Republika Srpska], there is a party called Serbian Radical Alliance?" asked Seselj.
"I didn't know that," responded the witness.
Using election documents from Bosnia, Seselj attempted to demonstrate that the person who had called the witness was a member of this other party, which happens to have a very similar name.
Earlier in his testimony, the witness was asked about several crimes he witnessed in Mostar, a historic city in south-west Bosnia.
According to the prosecutor's pretrial brief, by April 1992 the city had become a stronghold for Serb forces - the Yugoslav army, JNA, as well as the Serbian Territorial Defense, TO, and other groups, including SRS volunteers, known as Seselj's Men.
Prosecutors allege that these SRS volunteers were housed, equipped and armed by the JNA and that they "were directly involved in killing many of Mostar's non-Serb civilians".
The witness said that on June 13, 1992 a woman told him that her son had been taken to "somewhere in the changing rooms" at the Vrapcici football stadium, which prosecutors allege was being used to imprison and torture non-Serb civilians.
However, the witness said he went to look for the woman's child at the stadium.
"Someone said they had already taken people to the garbage dump," he said.
The witness explained that he went to the garbage dump, known as Uborak, where 20 men "introduced themselves as Seselj's Men".
"Someone said, 'You have no business here, go,'" the witness recounted.
The witness said that before he reached his car, "they took [the prisoners] down into the valley.
"We heard shooting, and got in the car and fled. Later we heard 100 people had been killed there."
Prosecutors allege in their pre-trial brief that the bodies were covered over with a bulldozer and later found in a mass grave.
During the cross-examination, Seselj brought up the witness's alleged criminal record and also accused the prosecution of not disclosing certain documents.
"What matters to me is the public and that I cut into pieces this false indictment," he exclaimed. "You've forged evidence and have false evidence."
"You can't say the prosecution has forged an indictment approved by judges," responded Judge Flavia Lattanzi.
Presiding Judge Antonetti noted that several of the remaining witnesses have health problems, and thus the trial will not resume until February 16.
Karadzic Postponement Opposed
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
Rachel Irwin
February 6, 2010
Hague prosecutors this week asked judges to deny the request by former Bosnian Serb president Radovan Karadzic to postpone the resumption of his trial once again.
Prosecutors delivered a written motion on February 3 arguing that trial and appeals judges have already determined that Karadzic was ready for trial, and that the judges' previous decision to postpone it until March 1 was "unrelated to any need for Karadzic to further prepare".
Karadzic, who continues to represent himself, refused to attend the start of his trial on October 26 – and the prosecutor's subsequent opening statements – claiming he needed an extra ten months to prepare his case. That request had previously been rejected by both trial and appeals judges.
The judges' November 5 solution was to appoint a standby counsel who will take over the case if Karadzic fails to appear in court on March 1 or if he "obstructs the proper and expeditious conduct" of the proceedings.
Prosecutors argued this week that this previous postponement was granted so that the stand-by counsel would have time to prepare for trial "should Karadzic choose again to absent himself from the proceedings".
Karadzic informed judges in writing on February 1 that he would not be ready in March because of a November decision by the tribunal registry, which decreased funding for his team of legal advisers.
He stated that six members of his team were no longer being compensated by the court and had not been able to return to work full-time. Furthermore, he wrote that since November 10, he has had no investigators or case managers "to assist him with trial preparation".
Karadzic appealed against the registry decision, but stated that even if the funding was put back in place, the trial should be postponed anyway so that he "can be restored to the position he would be in but for the Registrar's error".
If funding is not restored, Karadzic said that he was "simply unlikely to participate in a trial in which he must face the prosecution and all of its resources with one team member and no case managers and investigators. Such a trial would be a farce".
Karadzic also appealed against the decision to appoint British barrister Richard Harvey as standby counsel, arguing that the registrar "violated his right to choose his standby counsel and imposed a counsel who Dr Karadzic cannot trust".
That appeal is pending, but Karadzic said that if Harvey was removed from the case, the trial would need to be postponed by at least three and a half months to give the new standby counsel time to prepare.
However, the prosecution contended that the outcome of the Harvey appeal "has no bearing on whether Karadzic himself is ready for trial" and it was thus "misleading" to state that the trial would have to be postponed if Harvey was removed from the case.
The prosecution also took issue with Karadzic's claim that he had been burdened with an additional 300,000 pages of disclosure and has no case managers to "review, process and organise" these documents.
"Karadzic fails to point out that the vast majority of this disclosure is in response to his own specific search requests," prosecutors wrote.
They also point out that the material was only "remotely relevant" to the prosecution case or may relate to Karadzic's own defence case.
"A full review of this material by Karadzic is not necessary before the resumption of trial," prosecutors continued.
While Karadzic encouraged judges to wait until all of the appeals were decided before taking a decision on the trial date, prosecutors disagreed with that course of action.
"To avoid needlessly inconveniencing witnesses, and to avoid the costly exercise of bringing witnesses to The Hague unnecessarily, any decision on postponement should be made as soon as possible," they stated.
Karadzic, the president of Bosnia's Republika Srpska from 1992 to 1996, is accused of planning and overseeing the siege of Sarajevo that left nearly 12,000 people dead, as well as the massacre of almost 8,000 men and boys at Srebrenica in July 1995.
The indictment – which lists 11 counts in total – alleges that he is responsible for crimes of genocide, persecution, extermination, murder and forcible transfer which "contributed to achieving the objective of the permanent removal of Bosnian Muslims and Bosnian Croats from Bosnian Serb-claimed territory".
Witness Describes Execution Ordeal
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
By Velma Saric
February 8, 2010
A witness told the Hague tribunal of two former Bosnian Serb police chiefs this week how he survived a mass execution in August 1992 in the village of Kotlina.
Asim Basic, from Basici in the municipality of Gacko, was giving evidence at the trial of Mico Stanisic and Stojan Zupljanin.
Zupljanin, who became an adviser to the Bosnian Serb president and Hague indictee Radovan Karadzic in 1994, is accused of the extermination, murder, persecution, and deportation of non-Serbs in north-western Bosnia between April and December 1992.
Stanisic is charged with the murder, torture and cruel treatment of non-Serb civilians, as well as for his failure to prevent or punish crimes committed by his subordinates.
Stanisic and Zupljanin are alleged to have participated in a joint criminal enterprise aimed at the permanent removal of non-Serbs from the territory of an intended Serbian state. They are accused of crimes committed between April 1 and December 31, 1992 in 20 municipalities throughout Bosnia and Hercegovina.
According to the indictment, the former Bosnian Serb police commanders are held responsible for "imposing and maintaining restrictive measures against Bosnian Muslims and Croats", having thereby perpetrated persecution on political, racial or religious basis, qualified as a crime against humanity.
The witness this week described how, in the spring of 1992, the town authorities in Basici were overthrown and all Muslims in leading positions in the town, including the police, were relieved of power by the Serb Democratic Party, SDS.
"Mitar Razetic from the SDS became mayor, Jovan Vojin Popovic, who had been brought from Foca, became the police chief, and the police commander was Vitomir Popic from Gacko," Basic said.
The witness said that, in April and May of 1992, Bosniaks were forced to leave their jobs in public companies and their property was burnt.
"Among the first Bosniaks to be dismissed from work were Asim Fazlagic, the hospital director, and professor Izet Skobalj," he said.
Basic, who worked on a building site operating an excavator, also left his job.
"I stopped going [to work] the day my colleague told me that two policemen had come wanting to have an informative conversation [interrogation]. I knew what had happened to those who were taken to these informative conversations. They would not come back, but end up in the basement of the Terma hotel. People were imprisoned there, in fact I knew all the people that were imprisoned at the site," said the witness.
Asked by the prosecutor as to the nationality of the imprisoned people, the witness replied, "They were Bosniaks picked up from their homes, workplaces, or from the street, and just taken there."
Hotel Terma is included in the indictment on the list of detention sites where, during 1992, Muslims were imprisoned, tortured and sexually harassed. According to the indictment, some prisoners died from the consequences of the beating. Stanisic - but not his co-accused Zupljanin - is charged with the crimes in Gacko.
The witness said that, after his house had been shelled in June 1992, he joined his family and between 500 to 600 other people from 12 surrounding Bosniak villages in a mountain hideout.
"Late one day we came back to get some food, we saw that the Uzice corps of the JNA [Yugoslav army] and the police reserve forces were out in the hill villages, burning them down, pillaging, killing whoever they found alive," he said.After hiding for two months, the witness said he was arrested in the mountain village of Berkovici by Serb army troops and police officers as he headed towards the town of Stolac, together with a group of ten other men and one woman.
Stating the names of the men in the group, the witness said the group "included three boys aged only fifteen".
They were taken to the Gacko police station, where the witness said, "We were imprisoned for 4-5 days, without food or water, and forced to relieve ourselves in the cells."
During that time, the witness said he was beaten severely several times and attempts were made to force him to sign a statement that he had killed Serbs and raped women, which he refused.
"I had been beaten by Slobo Todorovic, Vlatko Beberovic, Kosta Sarovic," Basic said. "They kept questioning me and bringing papers I was supposed to sign, but didn't want to. They then tied me down to the chair and beat me again because I had again refused to sign a statement on having killed Serbs or having raped women. I was bleeding and covered in bruises. Police commander Popic was present as they beat me - he just sat in his office and watched."
Some four or five days later, Basic said, Serb police took him and the rest of the group of prisoners who had been captured on the mountain and tied their hands with rope.
"We were forced into a military truck and taken some two miles away to a site called Kotlina," he said. "When the vehicle stopped on a bridge, we were forced to leave the truck and form a line for execution so that when shot we would hit the water."
"Who commanded you to leave the truck?" asked the prosecutor.
"History professor Dragan Lazetic, he was the one who commanded over the shooting and he had no shotgun, just a gun," the witness said. Apart from him, Basic named the others taking part in the shooting as "Slobo Todorovic, a policeman from Konjic whose name I don't know, two brothers - Nedjo and Goran Samardija - and Vlatko Beberovic".
"Dragan Lazetic told us to line up on the bridge," he continued. "We stood there, he ordered shoot, and they shot. I fell, too, and when I raised my head I saw everyone lying on the ground, realising that I was only injured in my arm and leg. Lazetic used the gun to shoot the other wounded. After two young men, Sutko and Elvir, stood up and started running, the policemen went after them, and having seen that only Lazetic remained on the site, I decided to stand up and run."
He described how he fled to a nearby Muslim village where his wounds were treated. The same evening, he said, he watched with the locals through binoculars, as Gacko police chief Popovic came in a car to the site and helped others to throw the murdered people from the bridge down to a pond. A bomb was then exploded over the bodies.
Stanisic's defence pointed out some alleged irregularities in the witness' statement, stating that he had previously said he had been wounded only once, but the witness denied these claims categorically and stressed that doctors had reviewed and treated both his wounds.
He said that the discrepancy may have arisen due to the translation, as the translator who had taken his statement may have misunderstood what he told him about being wounded.
The trial continues next week.
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)
Tribunal Undecided on Use of New Film
VOA Khmer
By Sok Khemara
February 1, 2010
Khmer Rouge tribunal officials have not decided whether they will use testimony given by a senior regime leader to a journalist and producer of an award-winning documentary film.
In "Enemies of the People," which last week won the Sundance Film Festival's Special Jury Prize, Khmer Rouge ideologue Nuon Chea explains his involvement in the regime, elaborating on the alleged atrocities that have since put him under detention at the tribunal facing charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Nuon Chea, now 83, gave a series of interviews over a period of years to journalist Thet Sambath before he was arrested in September 2007 and held by the tribunal.
In the film, Nuon Chea admits he and Pol Pot decided they would kill anyone deemed an "enemy of the people," that is the Khmer Rouge regime.
"If we kept them [alive], the nation would be dead," he says in the film.
Nuon Chea is now awaiting trial for alleged crimes he committed as Pol Pot's deputy, in conjunction with four other jailed regime cadre.
Lars Olsen, a spokesman for the tribunal, said the court would not disclose steps it may take in an investigation, including whether the film could be used as evidence.
However, Thet Sambath and co-producer Rob Lemkin said they had received a request from the UN-backed court for a copy of the film.
Son Arun, a defense lawyer for Nuon Chea, said he was aware of the film but had not seen it.
"It's not a concern that [the film] would create additional charges against my client," he said.
Tribunal Judges Consider Duch Verdict
VOA Khmer
By Kong Sothanarith
February 2, 2010
Trial judges for the Khmer Rouge tribunal are now considering their verdict for prison chief Kaing Kek Iev, whose trial wrapped up late last year, court officials said Tuesday.
Tribunal judges and other officials began a week of plenary sessions Tuesday, with renewed focus on the tribunal's efficiency, including in the verdict of Kaing Kek Iev, or Duch, officials said.
"The trial chamber currently is preparing the verdict," said Kong Srim, president of the tribunal's Supreme Court Chamber and head of the plenary session. No date for the verdict has been set.
Kong Srim said the court was facing "many challenges" in meeting its timeframe, but officials had "a new determination" to provide justice "on time and with efficiency."
"These trials will continue to be fair and transparent, not only for the accused, but also for the thousands of victims," said judge Silvia Cartwright, vice president of the plenary session, in opening remarks.
Tribunal officials meet for plenary sessions twice a year, and this session they are also expected to address the level of participation allowed for civil party lawyers, who represent victims of the regime in a bid for greater reconciliation from the trials.
Officials will consider whether the rules should restrict access to hearings for all civil party lawyers, who could then choose limited representatives, a move the civil parties oppose.
In their opening statement Kong Srim and Cartwright said a representative model would "strengthen the participation of the victims."
Lars Olsen, a spokesman for the tribunal, said judges would make their decision at the end of a weeklong discussion.
On Tuesday, US prosecutor Andrew Cayley and French reserve prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian were sworn in as tribunal jurists. Cayley replaces Canadian prosecutor Robert Petit, who left the court in September after advocating for more arrests and indictments.
Tribunal Budget Sees End in 2015
VOA Khmer
By Sok Khemara
February 2, 2010
Khmer Rouge tribunal officials expect to finish trials at the UN-backed court by 2015, trying only 10 defendants at a cost to donors of around $100 million, according to budget documents obtained by VOA Khmer.
According to a budget proposal for 2010 and 2011, the tribunal is seeking $93.3 million to try five Khmer Rouge cadre already in detention. In an additional proposal, from 2012 to 2015, the tribunal is seeking $320,000 to potentially try an additional five Khmer Rouge cadre, who have yet to be arrested or charged.
"All offices, including the Office of Administration, are anticipated to be closed by the end of 2015," according to the "Preliminary Budget Estimates 2012-2015."
The 2011 budget proposal, meanwhile, anticipates a conclusion of Case No. 002, of five leaders currently in custody, by the middle of 2012. A third case could be finished by 2014.
However, Lars Olsen, a spokesman for the tribunal, said the court is committed to the judicial process, not deadlines.
"Everyone is committed to making sure that we have expedient and fair trials in all these cases, and a deadline is currently not on the agenda," he told VOA Khmer.
Olsen confirmed both budget proposals had been submitted to donors.
Donors have not yet pledged additional funding for the new budgets, but representatives in New York told VOA Khmer last week they are considering them. At least one diplomat said some donors would like to see the court wrap up by 2012.
KRT Plans Rule Changes
Phnom Penh Post
By James O'Toole
February 3, 2010
The Khmer Rouge tribunal is set to enact broad reforms to victim participation in the courtroom at its seventh plenary session, which convened on Tuesday.
"The current plenary session has a specific objective, which is to ... consolidate civil party participation in [court] proceedings," plenary president Kong Srim said in his opening remarks.
Among the reforms likely to be approved is the establishment of one team of lead co-lawyers to represent all civil parties in the courtroom.
Ninety civil parties participated for the duration of the court's first case. The court had received 4,004 civil party applications for Case 002 as of Friday. The number, plenary vice president Silvia Cartwright said, "greatly exceeds the capacity of the trial chamber to involve [civil parties] individually".
Case 002 is set to try Democratic Kampuchea leaders Nuon Chea, Ieng Sary, Ieng Thirith, Khieu Samphan and Kaing Guek Eav, alias Duch, the sole accused in the court's first case.
Kong Srim also announced on Tuesday that the court's pre-trial chamber will now be working in Cambodia on a full-time basis. The pretrial chamber rules on appeals and other procedural requests.
The pretrial chamber judges had previously met just a few times per year, and UN court spokesman Lars Olsen said their full-time schedule would expedite the tribunal's proceedings, particularly given the complexity of the second case.
In Case 001, there was just one defendant, and he did not contest the charges against him. In Case 002, by contrast, "You have five defence teams ... all maintaining their different lines of interests, and that itself obviously means more filings of appeals," Olsen said.
Also on Tuesday, the court swore in new international co-prosecutor Andrew Cayley and reserve co-prosecutor Nicholas Koumjian.
Tribunal Limits Civil Party Participation
VOA Khmer
By Kong Sothanarith
February 9, 2010
The Khmer Rouge tribunal will officially limit the participation of civil parties in upcoming trials, in an effort to streamline court procedures.
"In future trials, civil parties will form a consolidated group and pursue a single claim for reparations," the UN-backed court said in a statement Tuesday, at the end of a plenary session for court judges, prosecutors and other officials.
The decision was made to address "shortcomings" of the court's first trial, of prison chief Kaing Kek Iev, where the participation of multiple civil parties made procedures unwieldy.
The tribunal was designed to add victim participation in the form of civil parties, which participate alongside the defense and prosecution.
The new rules create two lead lawyers to coordinate with all civil party lawyers and victims themselves ahead of trials.
"Civil Party Lawyers may agree to support the Lead Co-Lawyers in the representation of the interests of the consolidated group," the tribunal statement said. "Such support, which will be coordinated by the Lead Co-Lawyers, may include oral and written submissions by Civil Party Lawyers, as well as examination in court of witnesses and their clients."
In Focus: Special Tribunal for Lebanon (UN)
Cassese
Prepares for Public Trial, Considers Appointment of Liaison Judge
Naharnet Newsdesk
February 2, 2010
Special Tribunal for Lebanon President Antonio Cassese's visit to Beirut is reportedly aimed at assuring both Lebanese officials and the public that the trial will take place to prosecute the killers of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Al-Mustaqbal newspaper, which carried the report, said Tuesday Cassese's visit also intended to stress that the STL was ready for an open trial soon as Prosecutor General Daniel Bellemare issues his charge sheet against those involved in Hariri's assassination and related crimes.
It cited a well-informed Lebanese official source as saying that Cassese's trip also came to emphasize that the international tribunal "is not subject to political pressure and will not succumb to any blackmail."
The daily As-Safir, meanwhile, said Cassese has discussed with Lebanese officials the issue of assigning a liaison judge to serve as a link between the STL in The Hague and Lebanese authorities.
It said Cassese is likely to appoint a Lebanese judge for that post.
Top STL Officials, Berri Discuss Tribunal Challenges
The Daily Star
February 3, 2010
President of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) Antonio Cassese and Vice President Ralph Riachy discussed with Speaker Nabih Berri the challenges that international criminal tribunals face. Cassese assured Berri the Tribunal is committed to accomplishing its mission while being completely independent and impartial, an STL statement said.
Cassese and Riachy also met Judge Ghaleb Ghanem, president of the Higher Judicial Council and Public Prosecutor Saeed Mirza. During their talks, they discussed ways for cooperation between the Tribunal and Lebanese authorities. Cassese also expressed his thanks for the support from the Judiciary.
In the afternoon Cassese and Riachy took part in an "experts roundtable" held at the Phoenicia Hotel. The roundtable, which included envoys from the legal, academic and civil society, was an open discussion about the legal framework and activities of the STL and lessons learned from other international tribunals. Cassese stressed that he also saw this meeting as an chance for the STL to benefit from the participants' extensive experience in Lebanese and international law. Cassese highlighted the importance of a well-informed debate about the STL, its mandate, and its rules.
The STL press office said Cassese and Riachy's official visit would continue with a courtesy call to the Lebanese University and a presentation to the Beirut Bar Association.
On Tuesday, Al-Mustaqbal newspaper said Cassese's visit to Beirut was intended to stress that the STL was ready for an open trial as soon as Prosecutor General Daniel Bellemare issues his charge sheet against those involved in the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri and related crimes.
Meanwhile, As-Safir newspaper said Cassese discussed with Lebanese officials the issue of appointing a liaison judge to serve as a link between the STL in The Hague and Lebanese authorities. Cassese is likely to appoint a Lebanese judge for the post, it added.
Hariri Case Highly Complex, Says UN Tribunal Chief
Agence France-Presse
February 5, 2010
The head of a UN probe into the murder five years ago of Lebanon's former premier Rafiq Hariri said on Friday there were "no deadlines" in issuing indictments in the case, calling it highly complex.
"All acts of terrorism are much more complicated than war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide," Antonio Cassese of the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon told AFP during his first visit to Beirut.
"We cannot set deadlines," he added.
Cassese, who arrived in Lebanon on Monday on a week-long visit, said that unlike other crimes, political assassinations were harder to crack given the layers of secrecy involved.
"Terrorist acts involve secret cells. There's no clear chain of command or hierarchy," he said. "Most of the time those involved will not confess because they risk being killed by their accomplices."
Cassese and his deputy, Ralph Riachy, briefed senior officials including President Michel Sleiman on the tribunal's progress during their visit.
They did not meet Prime Minister Saad Hariri, son of the murdered premier, or Defence Minister Elias Murr "because of the personal link they have with cases that may fall under the tribunal's jurisdiction," Cassese's office said in a statement before his visit.
Murr was also a minister in Rafiq Hariri's cabinet.
The Hague-based tribunal was set up by a UN Security Council resolution in 2007 to try suspects in the murder of Hariri, killed in a massive bomb blast on Beirut seafront in February 2005.
The bombing was widely blamed on Syria although Damascus has denied any involvement. A UN commission of inquiry said it had found evidence to implicate Syrian and Lebanese intelligence services but there are no suspects in custody.
Statement by the President and Vice-President of the Special
Tribunal for Lebanon Following Their Visit to Lebanon From 31 January to 6
February 2010
Special Tribunal for Lebanon
By Fatima El-Issawi – Press Officer
February 5, 2010
At the conclusion of their week-long visit to Lebanon, the President of the Tribunal, Judge Antonio Cassese, and the Vice-President, Judge Ralph Riachy, wish to express their profound gratitude to the Lebanese political, judicial and academic authorities for the warm welcome extended to them and for the unfailing support offered to the Tribunal. The President and Vice-President should also like to thank the lawyers, experts in international criminal justice and Lebanese university students for the keen interest that they showed in the work of the Tribunal.
Through this visit, it has been possible both to maintain the dialogue with the Lebanese authorities and to strengthen the cooperation between the Tribunal and Lebanon. Indeed, a cooperation agreement, in the form of an exchange of letters, was concluded with the Minister of Justice regarding the appointment of a magistrate responsible for liaising between the Lebanese authorities and the Tribunal and, in particular, for implementing the Tribunal's decisions and orders in Lebanon. Moreover, in order to strengthen the links between the Tribunal and Lebanese society, President Cassese and the Lebanese judicial and academic authorities agreed to encourage Lebanese members of the judiciary, lecturers and students to undertake study visits to the seat of the Tribunal in the Netherlands. They also agreed to work at strengthening the Tribunal's outreach programme by holding regular seminars at Lebanese universities and continuing the dialogue with civil society, notably through meetings with representatives of the legal community and non-governmental organisations.
This visit also enabled the President and the Vice-President to listen to the concerns expressed by their interlocutors regarding the challenges facing the Tribunal and to provide an update on how its work is progressing. In this connection, the President underlined the fact that the Tribunal already has in place all the legal and administrative instruments necessary for its work, and is fully operational so that justice may be dispensed with complete independence and impartiality in accordance with the highest international standards. He also intends to adopt the maxim of the philosopher Plato, according to which justice is "a thing more precious than many pieces of gold."
In conclusion, the President should like once again to pay tribute to the spirit of openness and cordiality on the part of all the people he had the opportunity to meet.
Lebanese Fear Stall in Tribunal on Hariri Slaying
Associated Press
By Bassem Mroue
February 6, 2010
The head of the international tribunal on the assassination of Lebanon's former prime minister sought to reassure Lebanese this week that the investigation is on track, but there are growing concerns here that work is languishing in the case.
For supporters of the slain former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, the court is their key to hopes for uncovering who was behind the February 2005 suicide truck bombing that killed him. Many Lebanese accuse neighboring Syria.
Syria denies any involvement, but the killing led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops and the end of Damascus' 29-year domination of the country. That opened the door to a still unresolved struggle for power between Syrian-backed Lebanese led by Hezbollah and pro-Western factions.
Hariri's supporters and their allies are preparing for a mass rally in downtown Beirut on Feb. 14 to mark the fifth anniversary of Hariri's assassination. In the past years hundreds of thousands of people took part in the rally.
The Netherlands-based Special Tribunal for Lebanon was formed one year ago after years of investigations. But progress in starting trials has been slow — and it is still unknown who might be charged in the case.
Two high-level departures from the court in recent weeks have increased the worries of Hariri's backers.
In January, the court announced that its chief administrator, David Tolbert, was stepping down to lead a New York human rights group and that its chief of investigation was leaving at the end of his contract in February to resume his duties as a police chief in Australia.
Tolbert's predecessor resigned four months after the tribunal was inaugurated.
The court's president, Antonio Cassese, began his first visit to Lebanon on Monday and for the past week has been briefing top officials on the case.
"The tribunal is alive and very healthy," Cassese said in an interview with the As-Safir newspaper published Friday. "We are dealing with an extremely complicated case that has to do with a terrorist crime, one that is a precedent of its kind in the field of international justice."
He said the two departures were "very normal" and "cannot affect the work of the tribunal because it (the tribunal) is not based on individuals but on teams that are very much capable and professional."
But some in Lebanon are not convinced.
"The Lebanon tribunal is not yet dead, but it seems very nearly there, amid embarrassing indifference in Beirut," Michael Young, an opinion writer for Lebanon's English-language newspaper the Daily Star, wrote on Jan. 14.
"Those committed to the rights of the victims must denounce more forcefully the charade now taking place in a suburb of The Hague. The supreme insult is to be told that justice will come when everything points to the contrary," he said.
Sari Hanafi, a professor who teaches transitional justice at the American University of Beirut, said some within Hariri's circle have expressed concern that the improving ties between Syria and its Western and Arab rivals could lead to an easing off of the court's work to prevent indictments that could inflame old tensions.
"There are concerns that the court could be an object for trade off," Hanafi said.
In December, Saad Hariri, the slain Hariri's son who accused Syria in the assassination and has since become prime minister, visited Damascus for the first time since the 2005 killing. Relations between the Hariri-led Western-backed coalition and Syrian-supported groups in Lebanon have been improving after years of tension that almost drove the country into a civil war.
The court denies any politicization of the tribunal.
The court prosecutor's spokeswoman, Radhia Achouri, said the tribunal acts "in total independence from politics and any other considerations."
Brennan Says No Recidivism Among Guantanamo Detainees Released by Obama
The Washington Post
By Karen DeYoung
February 3, 2010
None of about 48 Guantanamo Bay detainees released or transferred elsewhere by the Obama administration has participated or been suspected of participating in subsequent "recidivist" activity, compared with 20 percent of about 540 detainees released by the George W. Bush administration, according to White House counterterrorism chief John O. Brennan.
"We believe that significant improvements to the detainee review process have contributed to significant improvements in the results," Brennan said in a letter Monday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).
The 20 percent, or about 117 former detainees, is considerably higher than an estimate of 14 percent the Pentagon made last year.
In his letter, written in response to questions lawmakers raised last month in the wake of the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day, Brennan said 9.6 percent of all released prisoners were "confirmed recidivists" while 10.4 percent were "detainees who the Intelligence Community suspects, but is not certain, may have engaged in recidivist activities."
"I want to underscore the fact that all of these cases relate to detainees released during the previous administration and under the prior detainee review process," he said. He described the current review process as "robust" and far more intensive than that under the Bush administration, during which he said classified information held by one intelligence agency often was not available to other agencies.
Responsibility for the failed Dec. 25 attack aboard a flight from Amsterdam was asserted by Yemen-based al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a group that includes several Yemenis released from Guantanamo Bay in recent years. It led President Obama to suspend plans to transfer about 60 Yemeni detainees who had been cleared by a Justice Department-led task force for repatriation or resettlement in third countries. About 192 detainees remain at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.
Republicans and some Democrats who oppose the administration's plans to close Guantanamo Bay have cited the bombing attempt as additional evidence that those plans should be reversed and that Yemen is too unstable to adequately monitor or incarcerate repatriated prisoners.
Brennan sent a similar letter Monday to Rep. Frank R. Wolf (R-Va.), an outspoken critic of the release plans. At a briefing Jan. 13, Wolf charged that a Yemeni sent home in December, Ayman Batarfi, had once been involved in weapons of mass destruction and should have been kept at Guantanamo Bay. Brennan's letter included a classified addendum that he said demonstrates that there is "no basis for [Wolf's] assertions."
Wolf, who has called on the administration to declassify all information about prisoners it repatriates or sends to third countries, said in an interview that he remains dissatisfied about Batarfi. Several of the detainees Obama has transferred "clearly shouldn't have gone back," Wolf said. "This is one."
Switzerland to Resettle Uighur Brothers from Guantanamo
The Washington Post
By Del Quentin Wilber and Peter Finn
February 4, 2010
Two brothers detained at the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, are slated to be released in Switzerland, ending an unusual situation in which one of the men refused a chance at freedom to remain imprisoned with his troubled sibling.
The Swiss government announced Wednesday that it has approved the resettlement of the two Uighurs, Muslims from Western China, who have been held at the facility since 2002.
In accepting the brothers, the Swiss government resisted diplomatic pressure from China and opposition within the Swiss parliament.
Once the transfer is complete, five Uighurs will remain in U.S. custody. At one point, the Guantanamo Bay prison held 22 Uighurs, who are not enemies of the United States but are considered terrorists by Beijing.
Some in Switzerland argued against accepting the brothers, saying they posed a security threat. But Swiss Justice Minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf told reporters Wednesday that the government, which had access to their classified files, reached a different conclusion.
"In the end, the final factor was not economic and diplomatic relations," she said. "We decided to base our decision on Switzerland's humanitarian tradition."
Switzerland has now taken three detainees, and Widmer-Schlumpf said no more would be resettled in her country.
The plight of the Uighurs has highlighted the diplomatic difficulties in trying to find places to send prisoners not destined for terrorism trials or indefinite confinement under the laws of war.
U.S. authorities have been trying for years to send the Uighur detainees to foreign countries but have run into fierce opposition from China. Beijing has used its economic and political heft to block such transfers and has demanded that the Uighurs be returned to China. U.S. officials have said they cannot send the Uighurs to China, because they might be tortured.
In 2006, five Uighurs were sent to Albania. Last year, four were transferred to Bermuda and six were sent to the Pacific island nation of Palau.
Palau, which depends heavily on U.S. financial support, had invited 12 of 13 remaining Uighurs to settle there. Six declined the invitation for various reasons.
One of those who rejected Palau's offer was Bahtiyar Mahnut. His brother, Arkin Mahmud, was not extended an invitation because he suffers from mental health problems too serious to treat in the sparsely populated country, their attorney has said.
In a gut-wrenching decision, Mahnut decided to stay at Guantanamo Bay with his brother and pass up the chance at release, according to their attorney, Elizabeth Gilson.
On Wednesday, Gilson said she was "grateful that the Swiss people and politicians didn't give in to China's bullying."
Gilson said she has not been able to reach the brothers to tell them about the Swiss decision.
Although the administration has struggled with domestic opposition to closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay, a steady stream of detainees has been repatriated or resettled, mostly in Europe.
Since President Obama took office, his administration has transferred 48 detainees out of Guantanamo and is negotiating the release of dozens more.
Dismissal of a Guantanamo Case is Sought
Bloomberg News
February 5, 2010
The Obama administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to consider dismissing a case on the rights of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, after the Swiss government said it would accept transfer of two inmates involved in the dispute. The solicitor general said that the transfer agreement, which involves two Chinese Uighurs, eliminates “the factual premise presented in this case.” The court is scheduled to hear arguments March 23 about whether judges can order release of nondangerous Guantánamo prisoners into the United States. The federal government has said the Uighurs do not pose a threat to the United States.
British Ruling Releases Memo on “Inhuman” Treatment of Guantanamo Bay Prisoner
The Los Angeles Times
By Henry Chu
February 10, 2010
After a lengthy legal battle, the British government was forced Wednesday to release in full a document describing what a judge called the "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" meted out to a former Guantanamo Bay inmate while he was in U.S. custody.
An appeals court rejected the government's argument that disclosing the information would harm intelligence ties between London and Washington and jeopardize national security. International news organizations, including the Los Angeles Times, had sued to have the material released on public-interest grounds.
The seven paragraphs published Wednesday offer a judge's synopsis of information passed to British intelligence from the U.S. concerning Binyam Mohamed, a British resident who was arrested in Pakistan and eventually sent to the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba on suspicion of being a terrorist plotter.
Blacked out in previous court filings, the summary describes the techniques used in Mohamed's interrogation while in U.S. custody, including "continuous sleep deprivation" and shackling during questioning. Interrogators also threatened Mohamed and played on his fears of being "disappeared."
The regimen caused Mohamed "significant mental stress and suffering" -- enough that he had to be kept under suicide watch.
"Although it is not necessary for us to categorize the treatment reported, it could readily be contended to be at the very least cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by the United States authorities," said the summary, which was part of an earlier court ruling.
The seven paragraphs did not address more serious torture allegations by Mohamed, who says that he was severely beaten, left in stress positions and his genitals were sliced with a scalpel during repeated interrogations after his arrest in Pakistan. His lawyers say those sessions took place under U.S. auspices, but the nationalities of the interrogators remain unclear.
David Miliband, the British foreign secretary, said the government would not seek to further challenge Wednesday's ruling.
He told lawmakers in Parliament that some of the information had already been released in a U.S. court late last year, making its continued suppression in Britain unnecessary. Miliband also said the new judgment affirmed the government's view that intelligence provided by another country could not be released without that country's permission, suggesting that it in effect had been given by the U.S. court action.
But attorneys for the news organizations described the ruling as a rebuke to the government and a "resounding victory for freedom of speech."
The ruling upheld a court decision in October, which concluded that "the public interest in making the paragraphs public is overwhelming" because the material could shed light on whether the U.S. and British governments engaged in or were complicit in torture.
The summary stayed unpublished while Miliband's office lodged its appeal.
Mohamed, 31, who is of Ethiopian descent, was arrested in Karachi, Pakistan, on a passport violation in 2002. He alleges that the CIA spirited him to Morocco and Afghanistan, where he said he was tortured.
Although the nationality of his interrogators has not been established, Mohamed's lawyers say some of the questions they asked could only have come from British sources, indicating that a British intelligence agency had been complicit in his mistreatment.
At Guantanamo Bay, Mohamed was to be tried on charges that he was plotting with Al Qaeda to detonate a "dirty bomb" in the U.S. But all charges against him were dropped in October 2008, and in February 2009 he became the first Guantanamo Bay inmate to be set free by the Obama administration.
Former Boy Solider, Youngest Guantanamo Detainee, Heads Toward Military Tribunal
The Washington Post
By Peter Finn
February 10, 2010
Omar Khadr, the youngest detainee at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was 15 when he allegedly threw a grenade that killed a U.S. Special Forces medic in Afghanistan. Now, more than seven years later, Khadr is drawing the Obama administration into a fierce debate over the propriety of putting a child soldier on trial.
The struggle against al-Qaeda has thrown up few detainees with as baleful and unlikely a background as Khadr's -- a father who moved his family to Afghanistan and inside Osama bin Laden's circle of intimates when Omar was 10; a mother and sister who said the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were deserved; and a brother, the black sheep of the clan, who said he became a CIA asset after his capture in Afghanistan.
This background has convinced U.N. officials, human rights advocates and defense lawyers that Khadr, a Canadian citizen, was an indoctrinated child soldier and, in line with international practice in other conflicts, should be rehabilitated, not prosecuted.
"The U.N. position is that children should not be prosecuted for war crimes," said Radhika Coomaraswamy, the U.N. special representative for children and armed conflict, after meeting administration officials in October.
But U.S. government officials said they expect to go to trial at Guantanamo Bay in July and will put Khadr before a jury of military officers on multiple war crimes charges, including murder. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. has said that the Khadr prosecution is one of six detainee cases assigned to a military commission rather than federal court.
Holder's decision initially drew little notice amid the clamor that followed the simultaneous announcement that Khalid Sheik Mohammed and four other alleged conspirators in the Sept. 11 attacks would be tried in New York.
But the Khadr case could prove to be another lightning rod in the debate over the administration's detention and prosecution decisions, sparking the kind of international scrutiny that few other military tribunals will generate.
Khadr's fate seems increasingly certain. Last month, Canada's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that it would not compel the Canadian government to seek his repatriation, as it had been previously ordered to do. Now, Khadr's case will probably be the first full military commission trial under President Obama.
Grenades from the rubble
On July 27, 2002, U.S. Special Forces working with Afghan troops surrounded a compound in a village in eastern Afghanistan. When those inside refused to surrender -- and opened fire, killing two Afghan soldiers -- Apache attack helicopters, A-10 Warthog fighter jets and, finally, two F-18 jets unleashed their arsenals, reducing the hideout to rubble.
When the dust settled, American forces approached the ruined compound, only to be blasted by a grenade thrown by someone inside. Delta Force 1st Sgt. Christopher Speer, a father of two, would die more than a week later at a military hospital in Germany. Another Special Forces soldier, Sgt. Layne Morris, was blinded in one eye by another grenade.
Inside the compound was one survivor, Khadr, who had been shot twice in the chest.
Military prosecutors, who charge that Khadr threw the deadly grenade, said the Canadian's age does not excuse his actions. They note that a military judge in 2008 rejected a defense motion that the commissions did not have jurisdiction over the crimes of a child soldier.
"His age, family background, the culture he grew up in are all going to be part of a trial, and they are all going to be factors that the members can consider," said Navy Capt. John F. Murphy, the chief military prosecutor at Guantanamo Bay, referring to the military term for jurors. "We're not hiding from the fact that he was 15 years old. . . . Even in our traditional court system, we try 15-years-olds, and we try them as adults."
There is no strict international prohibition against prosecuting child soldiers, but there is a general consensus on the issue. The U.N.-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, for example -- which was set up to try people accused of grave human rights violations -- allowed the prosecution of people 15 and older, but no minors were put on trial.
"I could have prosecuted anyone under the age of 18 for war crimes and crimes against humanity, but I chose not to," said David M. Crane, the former chief prosecutor for the Sierra Leone court and a law professor at Syracuse University. "I didn't think any person under that age had the requisite mens rea, the evil-thinking mind, to commit a war crime. It's a rare thing, almost unheard of, that we prosecute children."
But Michael A. Newton, a former State Department official who helped set up the Sierra Leone court, said Crane's exercise of prosecutorial discretion carries no weight in other legal settings.
"The key issue is: Does international law prohibit the prosecution of people below the age of 18? And the answer is no," said Newton, a professor of law at Vanderbilt University. "It's disfavored but not prohibited. Remedial training and rehabilitation is the norm. Prosecution is the exception, but prosecution is not prohibited."
Murphy also pointed out "a historic basis to charging minors and prosecuting them in commissions." He noted that the United States and Britain prosecuted Nazi minors in military tribunals after World War II, and that some were imprisoned.
American attorneys for Khadr, now 23, said they will continue to press the argument that their client, as an alleged juvenile offender, should not be tried in a military tribunal.
"Omar Khadr is not in Afghanistan but for his father," said Kobie Flowers, one of Khadr's attorneys. "He conscripted the boy -- and what choice did Omar have?"
Living with al-Qaeda
Khadr's father, Ahmed Said Khadr, immigrated to Canada from Egypt as a young man, and his mother, Maha Elsamnah, a Palestinian raised in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, moved to Canada with her family when she was 17. Drawn first to the anti-Soviet jihad, Ahmed Said and his kin shuttled back and forth between Canada and Pakistan, where the family patriarch worked for an Islamic charity. In 1995, the father was detained in connection with a bomb attack on the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, but the charges were eventually dropped.
The following year, Omar Khadr moved to Afghanistan, and he and his family briefly lived inside bin Laden's compound outside Jalalabad and were frequent visitors to another, outside Kandahar. Khadr's older brothers attended al-Qaeda training camps, according to Canadian reports.
The family was in Kabul when the World Trade Center and the Pentagon were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001, and fled into Pakistan. But the father sent Khadr back into Afghanistan with an al-Qaeda operative, Abu Laith al-Libi. The Pentagon alleges that Khadr received military training and, just before his capture, joined an al-Qaeda unit making improvised explosive devices to attack U.S. forces.
Khadr's father remained in Pakistan, where he was killed in a shootout with Pakistani forces in October 2003. One of his sons, Kareem, was shot and paralyzed in the firefight. Another son, Abdurahman, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that he cooperated with the CIA after his capture in Afghanistan and was inserted into the prison at Guantanamo Bay to gather intelligence. He said he eventually broke off the relationship with the agency after it sent him to Bosnia, where he was supposed to infiltrate extremist groups. The CIA declined to comment.
Omar's mother, while still in Pakistan, outraged the Canadian public and dismayed Khadr's attorneys when she said of the Sept. 11 attacks in a CBC documentary: "Let them have it." Added his sister, Zaynab, only her eyes visible behind a black head cover, "You don't want to feel happy, but you just sort of think, well, they deserve it."
The Canadian government has shown little interest in getting Khadr back, and antipathy in Ottawa is driven in significant part because of public disdain for his family. They are known by some as "Canada's first family of terrorism."
Questions of evidence
Defense lawyers said Holder's assignment of the Khadr case to the military illustrates the Obama administration's acceptance of a two-tier system of justice in which flawed evidence that would be disallowed in federal court can be admitted in a tribunal.
The government defends its decision.
"The forum decision in the Khadr case was made after a careful assessment of all the factors identified" in a protocol developed by the Justice and Defense departments, said Dean Boyd, a Justice Department spokesman. "Although we cannot discuss how all the protocol factors were applied to the Khadr case or other specific cases, we note that this case involves a grenade attack on U.S. soldiers in a war zone, that the defendant was apprehended in a war zone in the context of active hostilities, and that the case was initially investigated and evidence gathered by military personnel."
Flowers, Khadr's attorney, said government lawyers indicated at a meeting in early November that they would introduce statements in a military commission that they would not use if the case went to federal court. A Pentagon spokeswoman declined to discuss any meeting with the defense.
Khadr's attorneys said the government's case is riddled with problems.
They said that their client was tortured in military custody and that all statements, even if given later and seemingly voluntarily to FBI agents, are contaminated by the alleged earlier abuse, which, they said, included threats of rape, stress positions and the use of snarling dogs.
Flowers also challenged the government's contention that Khadr threw the grenade that killed Speer. "The evidence," he said, "is extremely problematic."
But soldiers involved in the firefight that led to Speer's death and Khadr's capture have no such doubts. Morris, the blinded Special Forces soldier, who lives in Utah, said Khadr should remain in U.S. custody.
"Mr. Khadr is where he needs to be, and he needs to stay there for a long time," Morris said.
U.S. Told to Review Files on Terror Case Detention
The New York Times
By Benjamin Weiser
February 10, 2010
A federal judge in Manhattan has ordered prosecutors to review Justice Department files concerning the government’s decisions to detain a terrorism suspect for nearly five years in the C.I.A.’s secret jails and later at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, before moving him into the civilian court system last year.
The judge, Lewis A. Kaplan of United States District Court in Manhattan, said prosecutors must turn over to lawyers for the suspect, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, any materials that show the decisions “were for a purpose other than national security,” a court order shows.
The order, issued on Tuesday, comes amid a legal debate over whether the delays violated Mr. Ghailani’s constitutional right to a speedy trial, as the defense maintains. The judge is considering a motion to dismiss the charges on those grounds. The debate has been widely watched because it could foreshadow a similar argument in a civilian trial of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the professed mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, if he is ever given one. In November, Mr. Mohammed’s case was assigned to federal court in Manhattan, a decision called into question after it drew heated opposition from local and other officials.
Mr. Ghailani has been charged with conspiring in the 1998 bombings of two American embassies in East Africa. He has pleaded not guilty and faces life in prison if convicted. The bombings killed 224 people.
The government has said that after the embassy attacks, Mr. Ghailani worked as a bodyguard and a cook for Osama bin Laden. He was captured in 2004. Last year, he became the first Guantánamo detainee ordered by President Obama to be tried in the civilian court system.
Prosecutors have said that the delays in bringing him into the criminal justice system were justified on national security grounds and did not violate his speedy-trial rights. They said Mr. Ghailani was a “longstanding Al Qaeda terrorist” and was initially treated as an intelligence asset after his capture. “The United States was, and still is, at war with Al Qaeda,” prosecutors said.
Mr. Ghailani’s lawyers have argued that national security cannot justify a speedy-trial violation. They have asked for the Justice Department records to determine whether there were other reasons for detaining him, like trying to gain a tactical advantage in a future prosecution, which could undermine the prosecution’s national security argument. The Supreme Court has said the length and reason for delay are among the factors a judge must weigh in assessing a speedy-trial motion.
In his order, Judge Kaplan said he reserved the right to conduct his own review of the Justice Department documents that prosecutors determine do not have to be turned over to the defense.
Yusill Scribner, a spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, declined to comment on Wednesday, as did Michael K. Bachrach, one of Mr. Ghailani’s lawyers.
Ban Refers Gaza War Crimes Report to General Assembly
Jordan News Agency
February 6, 2010
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon submitted to the General Assembly a report on the subsequent developments regarding the report made by the UN independent committee investigating war crimes in Gaza known as Goldstone Committee.
The report, demanded by the General Assembly, shows the UN concerns about the implementation of the recommendations contained in the fact-finding mission, led by Richard Goldstone, a former UN war crimes prosecutor.
It includes submissions from the Israeli Government, the Palestinian Authority and the Swiss Government, and has been circulated to the UN member states.
Permanent Observer of Palestine to the United Nations Riyad Mansour said he agreed with the UN Secretary General on the need to conduct an independent, credible investigation based on conformity with international standards over all Israeli violations during the war on Gaza.
"Israel couldn't convince the world of the seriousness of the investigation its army conducted regarding alleged war crimes committed by its officers during the Gaza war", he added.
Mansour said that the Palestinians asked the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate all crimes committed by Israel in the Palestinian occupied territories, but no answer has been received yet.
In a statement released Friday night, Amnesty International said that the UN Secretary-General has "missed an opportunity" by failing to make an assessment of the credibility of Israeli and Palestinian investigations into violations during the conflict in Gaza.
The organization stated it believes that the information the UN chief had received was sufficient to show that steps being taken by both sides were clearly inadequate "This is deeply disappointing and a missed opportunity to help secure accountability for the conflict’s hundreds of victims", the statement added.
UN Chief Makes No Judgment on Gaza War Investigations
Pakistan Times
February 9, 2010
UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said on Friday that it was too early to determine whether Israel and Hamas had launched credible investigations into UN allegations of war crimes during the three-week of deadly Israeli bombing of Gaza last winter.
Despite the three-month deadline, which ended on Friday, investigations are still ongoing, particularly on the Palestinian side, which just initiated its process on Jan. 25.
As such, no determination can be made whether both sides have carried out credible, domestic investigations into alleged human rights abuses, said Ban.
Ban’s report, which was presented to the president of the 64th session of the UN General Assembly Ali Abdussalam Treki comes after the UN commissioned fact-finding report by South African judge Richard Goldstone.
In September last year, the Goldstone report accused Israel, and to a lesser extent, Hamas militants of possible war crimes. Israel rejected the report as biased and distorted.
Last November the 192-nation General Assembly passed a resolution, which backed the proposals contained in the Goldstone report. It gave both Israelis and Palestinians until Feb. 5 to investigate and respond to the alleged war crimes in Gaza in order to bring accountability to the table. Both Israel and Palestine submitted their responses to the secretary-general last Friday.
Ban’s report includes a detailed account of Israel’s ongoing investigations but does not judge whether they are - independent, credible and in conformity with international standards.
To date, the Israeli military has launched investigations into 150 separate incidents arising from the Gaza Operation. Of the 150 incidents, so far 36 have been referred for criminal investigation, according to Israeli authorities.
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.
