1. Joseph Kamara–CDF: Sierra Leonean
2. Peter Harrison–RUF: Canadian
3. Vincent Wagona–RUF: Kenyan
4. Leslie Taylor–AFRC: Australian
5. Karim Agha–AFRC: Pakistani/British

Hope this helps.
Alpha

Alpha

I realized that my previous answer to you about the rules didn’t explain where they fit into the court’s operations. The Special Court is guided overall by its Statute – that is the founding document which sets out the laws by which the court has to operate — it defines the crimes that can be charged by the court (crimes against humanity, war crimes, other serious violations of international law, and crimes under Sierra Leonean law); it defines the timeframe that the court can look at any crimes committed — in the Special Court’s case, it can only look at crimes committed after November 30, 1996; the Special Court’s relationship to national courts, how the Special Court should be organized; the rights of the accused; working languages of the court; and other things. This really governs the “big picture” operations of the court.

Now this Statute was negotiated and agreed to by the Sierra Leone government and the United Nations when they agreed to set up the Special Court. In fact, the Statute was annexed to this agreement to create the court. (If you want to check out the Statute, you can find it here: http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=uClnd1MJeEw%3d&tabid=176. To see the Agreement between the Sierra Leonean government and the UN, try here: http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=CLk1rMQtCHg%3d&tabid=176.)

This Statute has remained the same throughout the court’s lifespan — so the “big picture” laws haven’t changed. This means the goal post has not been shifted on these fundamental aspects of the court’s operations.

What has changed over time has been the Special Court’s Rules of Procedure and Evidence. To explain what these are: these are rules which actually provide the framework for how the court should implement the “bigger picture” Statute in practice. They cover things like how the trial proceedings should be conducted in the courtroom (eg what qualifies for a closed session; measures for the protection of victims and witnesses) and what is required during the investigations (for example, it sets out the rights of suspects during an investigation, or recording of the questioning of the suspects). It also sets out how the judges, registry, prosecution and defense should be organized and function.

Actually these rules have quite an interesting history. According to the statute (Article 14), the Special Court should adopt the Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), the tribunal set up to address the genocide in Rwanda in the 1990s. The ICTR’s rules themselves, under Article 14 the ICTR’s statute, were actually adopted from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY – the court set up to deal with the conflict in the Balkans also in the 1990s) and changed according to the ICTR’s needs. Article 15 of the ICTY’s Statute notes that the “judges of the International Tribunal shall adopt rules of procedure and evidence for the conduct of the pre-trial phase of the proceedings, trials and appeals, the admission of evidence, the protection of victims and witnesses and other appropriate matters.” So the three tribunals have actually operated on the basis of quite similar Rules of Procedure and Evidence, and the judges of each court have got together and changed them separately over time according to each court’s separate needs. Usually the rules are changed in efforts to try to make the proceedings of the court more efficient, or to improve the way the court operates. If you are interested, I will try to find some recent examples of how the judges have revised the rules so you can see what sorts of changes they make.

So when I said to you that these rules are created by judges, I didn’t explain the whole story or how they came to exist – my main point was to explain that these operational rules that govern how the court practices – like in matters of witness protection — are not created by governments. That said, the Special Court relies on States to help enforce these laws and rules, like with arrests.

Does this help, Jose?

Best,
Tracey

To answer your question: no governments participate in the creation of the Special Court’s rules. The rules are developed by the Special Court judges, and revised by them every now and then. These witness protection measures exist in all the international justice courts as a normal part of the courts’ practice. It is not unique to the Special Court or to Mr. Taylor’s trial.

I can check with the Special Court and see if they can let us know whether there have been any problems with witness protection in the Taylor trial. Part of the reason that witness protection measures exist is to try to minimize the possibility of any threats to people who testify before the court.

Best,
Tracey

You ask a good question. I think when people are talking about hidden witnesses they are really talking about witnesses who have protective measures put in place to protect their “privacy and security.” The application of these protective measures are decided by the judges. This can include measures to protect the person’s identity from the public and media by having “closed sessions” – this means that there is no public allowed to watch from the gallery at the courthouse, or view the proceedings on the live stream while that witness is testifying. Alternatively, the sessions can remain open, but the witness is shielded from the view of the public gallery. The witness’s image, and possibly their voice, is distorted on the live feed so their identity is not revealed. Sometimes, the witness will be brought in the room first and seated before the defendant is brought in the room. But they will be in the courtroom and not in a separate room. Sometimes, though, protective measures can include the witness being able to give their testimony by video-link, so they may be anywhere in the world – they don’t necessarily have to be in The Hague or in Sierra Leone where the court sits.

However, any “hiding” of the witness must be done with Mr. Taylor’s rights in mind. He must be able to know who it is that is accusing him or testifying against him. Whatever the protective measure is, all persons taking part in the trial and are present in the court room for the day — the judges, prosecutors, defense lawyers and the accused — will see and know who the witness is. This means that even if the prosecutor or the defense were trying to be tricky, everyone in the courtroom would definitely know if there was a tape recorder on the witness stand instead of a real live person!

This information is only hidden from members of the public. So when a witness has protective measures and is not testifying in closed session, members of the public can hear him, whether his voice is distorted or not, but will not see his face, nor know his name or his address.

The main rules which set out these measures and govern their application in the Special Court are rules 69 and 75 and they can be found here: http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=zXPrwoukovM%3d&tabid=176)

Does this help?

Best,
Tracey

You are right on this. Mr. Taylor and his like as you have cleverly named above, must all be processed to court if there must be lasting peace in Liberia. No one Liberian is more Liberian than the other.

Regards

Harris K Johnson