What I can say is this: I’ve made a deliberate and conscious decision to respond to people on this site whose comments I do not post. This is in part because I want this site — and my role in it — to be as transparent as possible so that readers know that I will always post their comments unless there is an explicit reason that does not accord with our policy for comments, which is also intended to be transparent (it is on this site, so anyone who wants guidance on what will and won’t be posted can find it here). Apart from anything else, I hope it can help diminish any appearance of bias if people know why their comments are not being published, and that it is not based on their point of view on Mr. Taylor’s guilt or innocence.

I do understand that this conscious decision of mine may leave the impression that I am being too weak or too nice, and I agree with your concern about that. I grapple with that issue too. At the same time, I have considered it a price that is worth paying for the type of forum and discussion that I want to promote here: one which is truly democratic, respectful and operates according to transparent rules.

It will always be a work in progress and maybe I will never get quite the right balance. But I am trying, and I continue to welcome your thoughts and advice on how to do it better.

Best, and thank you,
Tracey

Here is what Article 21 of the SCSL’s statute says about this issue:
1. Where a new fact has been discovered which was not known at the time of the proceedings before the Trial Chamber or the Appeals Chamber and which could have been a decisive factor in reaching the decision, the convicted person or the Prosecutor may submit an application for review of the judgement.
2. An application for review shall be submitted to the Appeals Chamber. The Appeals Chamber may reject the application if it considers it to be unfounded. If it determines that the application is meritorious, it may, as appropriate:
a. Reconvene the Trial Chamber;
b. Retain jurisdiction over the matter.

And given there is no explicit time limitation, a key question for the court will be what happens when the Special Court shuts down if a new fact comes to light — how will it be addressed? The court and donor countries are now actually in the process of working out a mechanism that can be put in place to deal with these sorts of issues once the SCSL has shut its doors.

Thanks for raising this Sam!

best,
Tracey

My humble suggestion,
Tomas

Should we conclude from your statement that Taylor was not in charge of RUF but it was Sankoh and Bokarie who was in charge? I hope you realize your confusion to see Mr. Taylor guilty?
_____________________________________________________
Questions: you asked an important question regarding the Defense leading the witness. The defense did not lead the witness, it was the witness who first told the court about the “mandate from the guarantors of the peace process.” Mr. Griffins was only using the witness own statement to ask his question regarding the “mandate from the guarantors of the peace process.”

http://www.sc-sl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=p8Zn3nQ2J2k%3d&tabid=160

Here is how the discussion began like this:
Q. And just to be clear, Mr Sesay, because these are extremely important matters, who made the decision that Bockarie should stay in Liberia?
A. Well, according to Mr Sankoh, he said it was Obasanjo because they were the guarantors to the Lome Accord. Mr Taylor was a guarantor, Obasanjo himself was a guarantor. He said it
was the guarantors who decided that Sam Bockarie was to stay in Liberia so that Mr Sankoh would implement the Lome Peace Accord.
Q. Help us, who were the guarantors to the Lome Peace Accord?
A. The ECOWAS leaders, like President Obasanjo and President Taylor, President Blaise Compaore, representatives from the Ghanaian government. The ECOWAS people, they were the
guarantors. I cannot name all of them now.
Q. And at the time that Foday Sankoh told you that this decision had been made by, amongst others, himself, Obasanjo and President Taylor, did Foday Sankoh tell you to keep that fact secret?
A. No. It was not a secret. He said it. It was not a secret.

So Issa Sesay knew and was already aware about the guarantors of the Sierra Leone peace process. The discussion continue for sometime reagrding the point of Issa’s visit to Liberia when Taylor invited him to negotiate the release of the hostages. Please note that Issa was quoting Taylor in this exchange:

Q. And you told us this, page 148 line 21: “I said no, sir. He said these people have a mandate from the guarantors.” Which people had a mandate from the guarantors?
A. No, I said he told me that the ECOWAS – the guarantors who were the ECOWAS leaders had given him mandate for him to facilitate the release of the UNAMSIL peacekeepers and he said the ECOWAS leaders had also got mandate from the Security Council for them to negotiate with the RUF to release those people. So he said that was the reason why his colleagues had said that he should talk to the RUF to get the UNAMSIL released.
Q. So the colleagues were to talk to who to secure the release of the UNAMSIL?
A. I said the ECOWAS leaders, his colleagues, who were Heads of State, told Mr Taylor that Mr Taylor should talk to the RUF to secure the release of the UNAMSIL, that he should contact the RUF to facilitate the release of the UNAMSIL.

Then we come to the issue that Question raised. It was a continuation of this last discussion above:

Q. Now I want to be clear about this, Mr Sesay. Was Mr Taylor talking to you because he controlled the RUF, or was he talking to you because he had a mandate from the guarantors?
A. Well, he talked to me because he had got mandate from the guarantors, but he was not controlling the RUF. The RUF was under Mr Sankoh’s control.

So we can clearly see that Griffins did not introduce the concept of “mandate from the guarantors of the peace process,” It was the prosecution own document they presented in court that first discussed this issue as far back as when the prosecution presented its case in chief.