The Trial of Charles Taylor

At the Special Court for Sierra Leone’s second ever briefing before the UN Security Council last Friday, June 8, the UN’s second top official called for greater funding and cooperation by States to allow the Special Court to finish its work. The U.N.’s Deputy Secretary General, Dr. Asha-Rose Migiro, said that the Special Court’s achievements represented “an important milestone against impunity.” Dr Migiro used this briefing as an opportunity to highlight witness protection and relocation needs; residual and legacy issues; and the need for adequate human and financial resources at the court.

The day’s main event, however, was the presentations by the Special Court’s President, Judge George Gelaga King, and its Chief Prosecutor, Stephen Rapp, to the Security Council Ambassadors and diplomats.  King and Rapp gave an overview of the court’s progress generally and focussed on the Taylor trial specifically.  

Here’s what they said: 

The Taylor Trial

Stephen Rapp’s comments were the most interesting of the day.  Here’s what he said about the Taylor trial:

• He noted the need to ensure that the Taylor trial, like the others at the Special Court, “embodies the principles of fairness and due process at all times.”
• Taylor’s declaration of partial indigency (which meant he was not in a financial position to fully pay for his defense), means that the Special Court has to largely foot Taylor’s defense bill.  Given that the court operates on voluntary contributions, the need to ensure the court had access to sufficient resources to provide an effective defense was critical. He urged the States to provide enough funding to make sure adequate defense resources continued to be possible (and also cooperation assistance to help the Registry track assets and investigate indigency claims).
• Though not providing specific details, Rapp said the Registry had, in the past month, organized for a “substantial augmentation of resources” for Taylor’s defense, which “oustripp[ed] those of other defendants in other tribunals.”  If this is correct, then Taylor’s argument about inadequate facilities, which he put forward (through Khan) on the first day of trial may have less force. 
• Rapp noted the resources Taylor’s defense team already has, which includes offices in The Hague, Freetown and Monrovia. (Remember: Khan said he was working from bars and cafes to prepare his defense for lack of other options).
• To end his presentation, after urging States to contribute to defense costs, Rapp noted of Taylor’s trial that “at the end of the day, the most important this is that the trial be fair, and be seen to be fair.”

The Special Court’s Progress

President King, facing the president of the Security Council (the Belgian Ambassador, Johan Verbeke) and with his back to the gallery, outlined the progress of the court, highlighting that the tribunal was on track to meet its completion strategy aim of shutting down all judicial activity in both The Hague and Freetown by December 2009.

• Two of the Special Court’s three ongoing cases have finished the trial phase. On June 20, 2007, the trial judgment of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council case (or AFRC – a group comprised largely of former Sierra Leonean Army soldiers) is expected.  The trial judgment for the Civil Defense Force case (or CDF, a militia group which operated in support of the Sierra Leonean government) will be handed down in July 2007. The trial of Revolutionary United Front leaders (RUF, a rebel group) is scheduled to end by December 2007, and a judgment delivered by the trial chamber in June next year.
• Judge King, in his capacity as the “Special Court’s president and as a Sierra Leonean” said the court’s establishment had made a “major contribution to long term peace and security in the region.” It also helped to “resurrect the rule of law” and to “end impunity.”
• The President noted the importance of both outreach (particularly the accessibility of the Taylor trial to the region) and also the court’s legacy after it shuts its door (which he considered one of his “top most priorities”).
• He appealed to the Security Council for help in three areas: 

1. Funding to ensure the court could operate until its expected shut-down date of December 2009.  The current funds will be exhausted by the end of 2007. More money (at least $60 million) is needed.

2. Cooperation in the enforcement of sentences and the protection of witnesses. 

3. Support for the court’s legacy projects and its residual issues.

Throughout the briefing, aides and diplomats wandered in an out of the four wooden doors on either side of the august room, whose mural on the back wall — depicting a phoenix rising from the ashes — dominates the scene. The U.N.’s top legal counsel and head of its Office of Legal Affairs, Nicholas Michel, remained for most of the briefing, looking relaxed as he sat directly behind the seat from which Dr Migiro delivered her intervention.  To the right, Special Court staff and advisors from the Registry, Prosecution and Chambers, watched and whispered among themselves as the Security Council members went through their paces.  In the gallery, the front section reserved for diplomats was about halfway filled with ambassadors and their diplomatic legal advisors.  A handful of NGOs and students took notes from the upper gallery. 

State reactions to President King and the Prosecutor’s remarks were remarkably uniform. What was surprising, however, was the content of the responses – almost all interventions highlighted the importance of legacy efforts designed to impact and enhance the Sierra Leonean legal system and the rule of law more generally after the court closes its doors; and the court’s outreach efforts which aimed to engage Sierra Leoneans at a grass roots level about the court’s work.  This marks a welcome shift in the way in which States have talked about international and hybrid courts more generally, moving away from discussions which have traditionally focussed on a purely legal and budgetary analysis of the trials themselves, towards a greater appreciation and awareness of the daily impact such courts can have on people most affected by the crimes.