<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

Accessibility and Legacy

It is vital for the people of Sierra Leone to understand the purpose and operations of the Special Court and the principles by which it operates.  We also believe that the people of Sierra Leone should be left with a legacy of the court’s work that goes beyond the decisions it issues or the new courthouse it has constructed.  It is hoped that the Special Court will contribute to revitalizing Sierra Leoneans’ belief in the rule of law – that, in the face of future crimes, they will turn to the judicial system for recourse instead of either seeking revenge or fatalistically accepting what happened as “the way it is.”  This is necessary to meaningfully combat the culture of impunity that has prevailed in Sierra Leone, to build respect for the rule of law, and to bring a sense of justice for the horrific crimes committed. 

The Special Court’s location in Freetown and the mixed nature of the court – including both international and Sierra Leonean staff – provide increased opportunities for making the court accessible to the people of Sierra Leone and leaving a lasting legacy of the court’s work.  The Special Court is conducting an array of important efforts in this regard.  Below we describe these efforts, along with providing several recommendations to further enhance them. 

A. Outreach

Outreach at the Special Court consists of an impressive and diverse set of initiatives that represent a marked improvement over outreach efforts by the ad hoc tribunals, which have been criticized as inadequately tailored to the target population and too limited, in part due to inadequate funding.¹⁴³  Continued outreach will be essential to the court’s overall impact on the people of Sierra Leone and should receive adequate support. 

Shortly after establishing themselves in Sierra Leone in July 2002, the prosecutor, David Crane, along with other OTP staff and the registrar, Robin Vincent, began to conduct “town hall” meetings countrywide to explain their mandate and answer questions about the court.¹⁴⁴  In addition to the “town hall” meetings, the Special Court has conducted activities including: producing explanatory booklets with posters describing the court and principles that guide its operations; participating in radio programs on the court; holding “train-the-trainer” outreach seminars of 1,500 Sierra Leoneans in collaboration with No Peace Without Justice; videotaping and condensing pre-trial hearings on jurisdiction motions before the Appeals Chamber into a short film with narration that simplifies complex issues; and inviting civil society groups to observe pre-trial proceedings.¹⁴⁵ 

The registrar has also regularly interacted with civil society since July 2002.¹⁴⁶  As noted above, the Defense Office has more recently begun conducting outreach about defense of the accused through radio programs and meetings with the local population in Sierra Leone and Liberia.¹⁴⁷  Interaction between the local population and the Chambers has been more limited, in part for security reasons, but has included several meetings with Sierra Leone judges and visits by Special Court judges to observe domestic trials.¹⁴⁸  Additionally, the local bar association has also interacted with the court through trainings and workshops, such as a workshop held on the SCSL Rules, and giving input on certain legal issues, such as by commenting on a draft code of conduct for counsel at the Special Court.¹⁴⁹ 

While Human Rights Watch researchers did not travel outside the capital nor survey Sierra Leoneans extensively about the court, we note that the Special Court has very much entered the public debate in Freetown.  From being covered in the newspapers to being discussed on the radio, the Special Court’s work is integrated into daily public life.  Civil society groups report that there is some awareness of the Special Court around the country, although confusion about the court’s mandate and its difference from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also exists.¹⁵⁰  It will be important that the Outreach Section assess the effectiveness of its efforts and refine its activities over time accordingly.

Outreach has suffered from a lack of support by the Management Committee and, indeed, cuts to its budget proposals of outreach activities.  We understand that in 2003, the Management Committee cut essentially the entire budget for outreach – totaling some $600,000 for the second year of the court’s operations¹⁵¹ – due to a perception that outreach was not an essential component of the Special Court and on the basis that funding for these activities would be sought from outside sources.¹⁵²  During this period, the section received incremental ad hoc funding from the registrar, but Human Rights Watch was told that these amounts were not sufficient to fully sustain the program’s activities.¹⁵³  The European Union Trust Fund stepped in to fill the shortfall with a donation of 500,000 Euros to support outreach programming.  We understand that this contribution was received toward the end of the second year of the court’s operations, but is to be applied to cover outreach activities for the second year.¹⁵⁴

For year three of the court’s operations, the Outreach Section intends to implement a set of initiatives that build upon its earlier activities, particularly targeting the majority of Sierra Leoneans who are illiterate, to make the trials now underway accessible.  These initiatives include: 1) dissemination around the country of the explanatory booklets; 2) frequent radio programs providing updates on the court; 3) canvassing the country with 50,000 posters (some billboard size) that describe the court pictorially; 4) making the film of the appeals hearing available by placing a television, video cassette recorder, and small generator in each of the country’s 14 districts; 5) making additional videos of court proceedings similar to that of the hearings on jurisdiction motions; 6) continuing “train-the-trainers” seminars of community organizations; and 7) rotating various segments of Sierra Leone society to observe proceedings, such as paramount chiefs and civil society groups who can report back to their local communities.¹⁵⁵  

Human Rights Watch urges that these efforts receive adequate funding, if necessary through the registrar recommending additional funding for outreach, the Management Committee supporting this allocation, and the United Nations and donors supporting it.  

In addition to outreach programming to date, increased initiatives, including efforts to enable Sierra Leoneans to attend proceedings and additional radio broadcasts about key developments in the proceedings, would help to ensure that the court is accessible to the local population. 

As part of the implementation of these programs and in conjunction with the commencement of trials, the Press and Public Affairs Office is producing weekly audio summaries of the proceedings that air on radio stations, including a station run by the UNAMSIL and the government broadcasting service.¹⁵⁶  The Press and Public Affairs Office is also preparing weekly video summaries that the Special Court is showing in locations throughout the country through the use of the mobile video units, with plans to show future videos in the same locations to establish a routine with villagers to view the proceedings.¹⁵⁷

Human Rights Watch believes that the audio summaries – which are key to reaching a largely illiterate population that lacks access to television or video – should be produced on a more regular basis.  Ideally, this would include producing radio segments whenever there are decisive or key moments in the trials or other moments that best illustrate the judicial process at the court, in addition to weekly summaries.  Particularly in light of the fact that the proceedings are not aired in full, Human Rights Watch urges the court to produce radio segments to cover all important moments in the trial on a timely basis, by hiring additional staff to undertake this task if necessary.

Human Rights Watch was told that the public gallery is far from full on many days in which trial is in session.¹⁵⁸  In addition to the outreach activities described above, Human Rights Watch recommends that the Outreach Section increase its efforts to facilitate attendance by Sierra Leoneans at the proceedings.  This includes by intensifying initiatives to coordinate observation of proceedings by individuals from throughout the country when testimony relevant to the area they are from takes place.  It also includes publicizing information around Freetown about how to attend proceedings and providing orientation sessions to all individuals interested in observing trials that contextualize what is happening on a given day in the larger judicial process.  Human Rights Watch further recommends that the Outreach Section make copies of SCSL rulings and the schedule of proceedings available at the law library and other public venues in Freetown to help increase the accessibility of the court’s work.

B. Legacy

By enhancing the skills of Sierra Leoneans in the justice and police sectors, contributing to shifting local attitudes about justice, and donating a courthouse, the Special Court has made important steps toward leaving a meaningful legacy in Sierra Leone.¹⁵⁹  Recognizing the budgetary constraints, Human Rights Watch urges the Special Court, through an initiative led by the Registry, to take this effort even further by working with Sierra Leonean civil society and the local government to enhance accountability through domestic prosecutions for serious crimes committed in Sierra Leone.

The Special Court is helping to build the professional capacity of Sierra Leoneans.  Sierra Leoneans work in every organ of the Special Court, in both professional and administrative positions.  Sierra Leoneans comprise forty percent of staff holding professional, non-administrative positions, such as trial attorneys, and fifty percent of all staff.¹⁶⁰  Sierra Leonean lawyers serve as judges in both the Trial and Appeals Chamber, work as trial attorneys in the OTP, and serve as duty counsel in the Defense Office.¹⁶¹  Sierra Leonean lawyers have also worked on all defense teams, in part due to the innovative requirement, as discussed above in the Defense section, that at least one person on each defense team paid for by the Special Court have experience with Sierra Leonean law, international law, and criminal law.¹⁶²   

Sierra Leoneans also work as investigators, outreach associates, and security and witness protection officers, in addition to working in administrative positions.¹⁶³  As discussed in the witness protection section, there are also plans to train local police not employed at the court in witness protection and to create a domestic witness protection unit to provide protection to witnesses who testified at the SCSL once the court completes operations.¹⁶⁴  This domestic unit will require funding to operate, particularly for vehicles and technical equipment, and we urge the international community to ensure that this initiative receives such funding.¹⁶⁵ 

Some Sierra Leone officials have expressed the desire to see Sierra Leoneans play a more senior role at the Special Court.¹⁶⁶  Members of civil society have also expressed frustration at the extent of participation by Sierra Leonean lawyers, stating that, as compared to the degree of participation anticipated, “one would have expected more.”¹⁶⁷  The extent of participation by Sierra Leoneans in all aspects of the court operations, including in management positions, will undoubtedly affect the court’s legacy in Sierra Leone. 

The OTP provides in-house training to investigators and trial attorneys.  Over the last year, OTP staff have received on-the-job training in major case management, including using computers and electronic databases, and conducting investigations including witness sensitization.¹⁶⁸  As noted in the section above on defense, there has been more limited training available to defense counsel and their investigators, although this should be increased.  The OTP and Defense Office are also setting up internship programs for Sierra Leonean students or young lawyers to work in their units.¹⁶⁹

While Human Rights Watch did not survey Sierra Leoneans extensively about the Special Court and it would be premature to attempt to evaluate the impact of its work at this juncture, there are important indications that the Special Court is contributing to raising people’s perceptions about justice. 

In addition to discussion about the impact of the indictment of former government minister Sam Hinga Norman described in the OTP section above, members of Sierra Leone civil society noted that there was initially a great sense that the court was a waste of money and that money should instead be invested in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.  However, people’s perceptions shifted over time toward a sense that the court is a “good thing.”¹⁷⁰  In a meeting of civil society groups in March 2004, representatives stated “we believe that the SCSL is helping change the views and perceptions of justice in Sierra Leone society in a good, healthy way.”¹⁷¹  One Western diplomat explained that civil society groups were originally suspicious of the court, but now are very supportive.¹⁷²

An important legacy of the Special Court would be for the local courts to provide some additional measure of accountability beyond SCSL prosecutions.  Due to its limited mandate, the Special Court for Sierra Leone will prosecute only a small number of perpetrators and, indeed, the Special Court may prosecute a mere nine individuals.  At the same time, Sierra Leoneans have expressed frustration that the people who physically carried out the crimes are not being held accountable by the Special Court.  Prosecutions of every level of perpetrator for serious crimes committed during the conflict in Sierra Leone may not be feasible, and there are serious and ongoing problems with the local justice system.¹⁷³  However, at the very least, the local courts would be able to pick up where the SCSL leaves off to prosecute some of those falling just below the threshold of “those who bear the greatest responsibility.”  Such prosecutions, if conducted in accordance with international standards, would provide greater accountability for the depth and breadth of crimes committed.

Al White, head of the Investigations Unit in the OTP, told Human Rights Watch that he intends to provide local justice officials with investigative reports about individuals who the Special Court decided not to pursue, as they were found to be just under the threshold for prosecution within the mandate of the court.¹⁷⁴  Additionally, Sierra Leonean staff that have worked as investigators, judges, prosecutors, and defense counsel, in addition to those who have worked in the Protection Unit and as security personnel at the Special Court, will have gained significant skills that would be applicable to local prosecutions of serious crimes.

To date, there are only a few cases in the local justice system involving crimes related to the conflict.  For the cases that have been initiated, the charges are almost without exception for treason, as opposed to serious human rights crimes.  At least three major obstacles exist to prosecutions for serious crimes committed during the conflict in the local justice system: a provision of the Lomé Peace Accord Act of 1999 that granted amnesty to all warring parties; deficiencies in the local justice system; and domestic laws that are inconsistent with international standards.

The Special Court does not have the mandate or the resources to become extensively involved in possible prosecutions in the local courts.  However, before the court completes operations and the international experts leave Sierra Leone, Human Rights Watch urges the Registry to draw on relevant expertise within the OTP, the Defense Office, the Chambers, the Protection Unit, the Witness Management Unit, and the Security Office to coordinate a series of meetings with Sierra Leone civil society and justice officials on two substantive areas: 1) identifying minimum legal reforms that would be necessary to prosecute the crimes in local courts, i.e. prohibiting the death penalty and enacting laws on the relevant substantive crimes to the extent not currently contained in the penal code; and 2) identifying the minimum infrastructure that would be required, i.e. domestic witness protection unit, detention facilities in accordance with international standards, to prosecute such cases.  Through such initiatives,  the Special Court could make significant strides to leaving a greater legacy in Sierra Leone by advancing the possibility of prosecutions through the domestic justice system.