<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

VI. Impact

It is crucial that the Special Court maximize the impact of its operations beyond fair and efficient trials. When serious crimes have been committed, the people most affected by these crimes have a right to know that justice is being done. Maximizing impact is also essential to help strengthen respect for the rule of law and promote stability in Sierra Leone, and in West Africa more broadly, including by: 1) expanding the reach of the possible deterrent effect of the trials, and 2) allowing the national justice system to draw from the Special Court’s experience, by working to enhance its capacity overall and specifically in relation to prosecuting serious crimes.

A. Outreach and Communications

Initiatives to effectively inform the public about the Special Court’s work are critically important to making the court accessible and meaningful to Sierra Leone society both in the short and long term. During the trial phase, the Special Court is implementing a program of activity to make the court accessible to the Sierra Leonean population. It has one of the most successful outreach programs of any international or hybrid court to date, and may be considered a model for other such courts.

The priority the court has given to outreach and communications is particularly commendable as these represent one of the most difficult areas for any international justice institution to address. It is also impressive given that the Special Court Management Committee has made cuts to funding for outreach from the core budget on the basis that such programming was seen as a non-essential activity fundable from other sources.¹¹²

Despite the strengths of the court’s outreach and communications activities, Human Rights Watch believes that activities in two areas can be improved: efforts to increase production of radio programming and observation of proceedings. Human Rights Watch expressed its views over weaknesses in these areas in its September 2004 report.¹¹³ With trials in full swing, these issues are even more important.

1. Robust programming

The Registry is the primary organ responsible for outreach and communications. In the Registry, two units implement outreach and communications programming: the Outreach Unit and the Public Affairs Unit. The Public Affairs Unit is responsible for media relations and production of radio and video summaries of court proceedings. The Outreach Unit communicates directly with local communities and coordinates participation by staff within the OTP and Defence Office in conducting outreach. The Registry has helped promote effective implementation of outreach and communications programming by developing an internal policy procedure on coordination of these activities. This procedure clearly delineates responsibilities between the organs of the court, and between the relevant units within those organs.

The Public Affairs Unit prepares video summaries twice a month and audio summaries once a week.¹¹⁴ These summaries provide a crucial way for people who do not have the opportunity to attend trials to hear testimony, follow developments, and in the case of the video summaries, observe the courtroom. In making the video summaries, the Public Affairs Unit has appropriately used the knowledge of local staff to help identify developments that will likely be of the greatest importance or interest to Sierra Leoneans, and then focuses the summaries accordingly.¹¹⁵ The audio summaries are broadcast on radio stations throughout the country and the video summaries are shown on the state television station, as well as at screenings by the Outreach Unit in various parts of the country.¹¹⁶

The Public Affairs Unit also interacts with the local media, and has built relationships with local reporters that include responding flexibly to their needs, such as by telephoning reporters who have signaled interest in speaking with court officials, but who lack the resources to pay for the time on their cell phones to conduct interviews.¹¹⁷ Additionally, the unit conducts training of local media on international law, which helps to ensure accurate reporting.¹¹⁸

The Outreach Unit employs innovative and wide-ranging techniques to reach the local population around the country.¹¹⁹ One of its most important operational methods is basing some outreach staff, known as district officers, throughout Sierra Leone’s provinces. These staff regularly conduct activities such as trainings, video screenings, and holding public discussions with local communities, thereby allowing the court to have more regular and far-reaching engagement with people around the country. These staff further increase their ability to reach different segments of society by tapping into existing community networks, such as social clubs and sports groups.¹²⁰ Additionally, the Outreach Unit helps to ensure that the local population has accurate and relevant information about the court by preparing and disseminating written material about the court, including information distributed around Freetown on how to attend proceedings.¹²¹

There are strong indications that the outreach efforts are going a long way to making the court accessible. Members of civil society and court staff told Human Rights Watch that people throughout the country are increasingly aware of the existence and work of the court, and that they regularly access information about the court through radio.¹²² There is substantial coverage of the court in local newspapers, and also on radio programs other than those produced by the court.¹²³ While Human Rights Watch researchers were in Freetown, articles on the Special Court were featured prominently in a variety of the daily newspapers. Court staff also report that there is wide interest in outreach materials and programs conducted around the country. Hundreds of people often attend programs and actively participate in the events.¹²⁴

These reports about outreach were corroborated by a number of discussions Human Rights Watch held with ordinary citizens around Freetown about the court, including market women, taxi drivers, and fishermen. These individuals generally knew that the court exists and what its purpose is, although their level of understanding varied. They indicated that they obtain information about the court primarily from the radio.¹²⁵ Several people indicated that they enjoy listening to broadcasts about the court, particularly when testimony by witnesses is aired.¹²⁶ 

The Outreach Unit seeks to magnify its effect by targeting students who can be expected to share information they obtain about the court with family members. The Outreach Unit has established and continues to facilitate groups on accountability at thirteen schools around the country, known as “Accountability Now Clubs.”¹²⁷ While in Freetown, Human Rights Watch researchers observed an outreach event conducted at an elementary school and was impressed by the level of sophistication and specificity of questions that students posed to court officials concerning its work.¹²⁸

The Outreach Unit further seeks to augment its effect by providing training on the court’s work and conducting outreach about the court for relevant sectors of the population such as customary law personnel, artists, and civil society groups, including children’s rights organizations and groups focused on promoting justice and the rule of law, to provide a base of accurate information about the court.¹²⁹ Outreach conducted by civil society is an important complement (although not a substitute) for court outreach programs. Working with groups that have and will continue to conduct discussion and other activities concerning the court with the general population also helps ensure that such programs will continue after the court closes operations.

The court also engages local civil society and has demonstrated responsiveness to their input. Court officials regularly meet with civil society in Freetown through the Special Court Interactive Forum that is held approximately once a month. In an example of responsiveness, following suggestions by a member of civil society that its outreach to religious leaders was not adequately targeted to those leaders who would regularly interact with ordinary citizens, Human Rights Watch was told that the Outreach Unit expanded its efforts to include such religious leaders. The Outreach Unit also works with several civil society members who monitor and report on court proceedings, to enable the Outreach Unit to effectively respond as necessary to developments in the trials. For example, based on this feedback, the Outreach Unit has sought to provide further explanation of the basis for closed proceedings at the court. Sierra Leone civil society generally praised the court’s outreach efforts and responsiveness to civil society.¹³⁰

Over the course of the past year, the Outreach Unit also helped to ensure broad-based discussion about the Special Court by facilitating four regional conferences and a national conference which looked at a range of issues, including perceptions of justice and accountability in Sierra Leone, the work of the Special Court and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and how communities can complement the efforts of these institutions. More than 500 individuals representing various sectors of society, including teachers, police, victims, women, and children participated in these conferences. A noteworthy exercise conducted at the conference involved participants identifying their expectations of the court. Court staff then responded by identifying which of these expectations the court is able to address, those it can influence, and those it does not have the capacity to address.¹³¹ Such exercises are excellent initiatives to clarify the role of the court and to contribute to accurate understanding of its work.  

2. Increasing radio programming and attendance

Radio is the main forum through which Sierra Leoneans obtain information about the court, due to high rates of illiteracy in the country and that very few newspapers are distributed widely outside of a few regional capitals. Given these facts, audio summaries produced weekly by the Public Affairs Unit remain too limited. Court staff have recognized the frequency of production of audio summaries as a problem. While the court considered hiring more staff to increase production of audio summaries, they decided instead to pursue establishment of an independent radio station. Some court staff also expressed a sense that producing audio summaries any more frequently than weekly would undermine the ability to craft an interesting story out of the day-to-day developments as they occur at the court.¹³²   

The proposed radio station would broadcast Special Court proceedings in English and Krio approximately eight hours each day, but then would also broadcast four to five hours of other programming on various related topics such as the national justice system, truth and reconciliation, and human rights, along with more generic radio programs. The station would be staffed by Sierra Leoneans who would be provided with relevant training as appropriate. It is envisioned that the station would continue operating after the court wraps up operations in Sierra Leone. The court is currently looking for funding for the proposal and anticipates that the radio station could be operational within three months of the allotment of funds.¹³³

The creation of the proposed radio station is an innovative proposal that should be funded. It holds potential for the court to leave a meaningful legacy by making a real contribution to enhancing debate on justice and the rule of law in Sierra Leone. At the same time, Human Rights Watch is concerned that more frequent radio programming has been and continues to be sacrificed while this proposal has been developed and awaits funding. Given the court’s short timeframe, it is important for Sierra Leoneans to have substantial information about proceedings while they are still taking place. Accordingly, Human Rights Watch recommends in the period prior to the possible establishment of the radio station, radio programming should immediately be produced on a more regular basis. This should include segments whenever there are noteworthy developments in the trials or other moments that best illustrate the judicial process at the court, in addition to weekly summaries. Recognizing the creative challenges to preparing more frequent summaries, Human Rights Watch recommends that the court consider devoting some of its radio programming to segments which could represent more traditional journalistic trial reporting as opposed to creating summaries.

The court’s unique location creates an important opportunity for those most affected by the crimes to observe up close the process of accountability. However, attendance in the trial chamber galleries remains very limited. Human Rights Watch was told that on average, between ten and twenty people are present in the gallery to observe proceedings, many of whom are either relatives of the accused or court monitors.¹³⁴ This is consistent with attendance in the chambers when Human Rights Watch observed proceedings.¹³⁵

Court staff and civil society members suggested a variety of reasons for limited attendance in the gallery. Of these, lack of knowledge about the option to attend proceedings, the need to focus on work responsibilities and survival, and the intimidating character of the court complex – which is protected by concrete walls, barbed wire, and has extensive security – appear to pose the more significant obstacles.¹³⁶ 

Court staff recognize that limited attendance is an issue and have worked to increase attendance. The court has posted information about the schedule of proceedings and opportunity to attend at universities, schools, and around Freetown city center to promote attendance.¹³⁷ The court has also tried to address concerns ordinary citizens may have about entering the court complex by preparing video of persons going to attend proceedings for video summaries. Court staff have further indicated that the Outreach Unit will focus in the next year on initiatives to increase attendance, including by utilizing targeted invitations. This was previously avoided over concerns that members of the general public who decided on their own to attend might be turned away if the gallery was full with invited persons.¹³⁸

Human Rights Watch welcomes the court’s commitment to increasing attendance and believes that the unique opportunity for Sierra Leoneans to observe proceedings due to the court’s location must not be squandered. The organization also welcomes the Outreach Unit’s plans to make targeted invitations to attend proceedings, and urges the unit to actively develop and implement initiatives that will focus on targeting a range of specific groups within civil society to facilitate their attendance.  

B. Legacy

The Special Court’s existence creates enormous opportunities to leave a meaningful legacy in Sierra Leone and West Africa. The opportunities for long-term impact are magnified by the court’s hybrid nature and location in the country where the crimes were committed. At the same time, harnessing the opportunities to identify and implement feasible initiatives to create an appropriate legacy is unquestionably a difficult task. The challenges are all the more demanding in the face of the Special Court’s resource constraints and short life span.

The Special Court is taking important steps to create a meaningful legacy during the trial phase. From its judicial operations and outreach to its efforts to develop a domestic witness protection unit and build capacity of Sierra Leonean staff, the court is making real inroads on this difficult terrain and impacting Sierra Leoneans’ perception and support of justice. However, Human Rights Watch believes that the court should more actively seize on what will otherwise become a sorely missed opportunity to enhance the rule of law in Sierra Leone by increasing efforts to impact the national justice system. This is an area about which Human Rights Watch expressed concern in its September 2004 report, and which is becoming more pressing as the court moves into its final phase of operations.¹³⁹

The Sierra Leone justice system, which was dysfunctional prior to the war and all but collapsed during it, has suffered from numerous problems. Political manipulation and corruption have undermined the impartiality and independence of the courts. Extended and unlawful detentions have taken place without due process.¹⁴⁰ Although Human Rights Watch did not conduct an extensive inquiry concerning the national justice system during its Freetown mission in April 2005, pervasive problems appear to continue to exist, including lack of qualified staff and resources, corruption, and constant delays in proceedings.¹⁴¹ The current state of the national justice system underscores the seriousness of rule of law issues in Sierra Leone and the importance of seizing the opportunity to make a positive impact.

The Special Court is not, nor should it be expected to serve as, a national justice reform project. At the same time, Human Rights Watch believes that the Special Court has both the responsibility and opportunity to make the most of its limited operations by more intensively seeking to interact positively with the national justice system. The Special Court’s scope goes far beyond a standard domestic court prosecuting ordinary offenses. Meaningful interaction between the national courts and the Special Court will be intimately connected to its ability to promote respect for the rule of law in Sierra Leone and West Africa. This includes promoting the capacity of the courts in Sierra Leone to prosecute both ordinary offenses and serious crimes.

While interaction with the national courts is not explicitly delineated within the court’s mandate, it is integral to the overall purpose of the Special Court: to limit impunity for serious crimes. Moreover, Human Rights Watch believes that with a relatively minimal investment of time and financial resources, the court can achieve a substantially increased return on the international community’s investment in creating the Special Court, long after it has ceased to operate.

1. Existing contributions to a meaningful legacy

The court’s investigation, indictment, and trial of persons allegedly bearing the greatest responsibility for serious crimes committed in Sierra Leone is sending the message that serious crimes are not permissible and will not be tolerated. Moreover, the pursuit of members of all three warring factions in its prosecutions has helped to enhance understanding that serious crimes are not permissible regardless of the overarching goals of a particular faction. The outreach and communications efforts discussed in detail in the previous section are ensuring that this message reaches the Sierra Leonean public.

Interviews with court staff and members of civil society, along with discussions with ordinary citizens around Freetown, suggest that the court’s efforts to date are having an important impact that will contribute to a meaningful legacy by building respect for the rule of law. As discussed in the previous section, there are strong indications that people are aware of the Special Court’s work. Moreover, local civil society members report that people’s perceptions about the importance of justice for serious crimes and international standards, including fair trial concepts, are continuing to increase. Court staff and members of civil society also report that as people learn more about the court’s work, their perception of the accountability process and the essential role this plays in underpinning the rule of law has improved. In particular, they noted that acceptance of prosecution of the accused associated with pro-government forces (namely the Civil Defense Forces, whom many perceived as war heroes) has increased with greater awareness of international standards.¹⁴² 

Information Human Rights Watch researchers obtained during discussions with ordinary citizens around Freetown about the court support these assessments. The individuals Human Rights Watch researchers spoke with described the court in positive terms. They indicated that the court is “good” and “necessary,” and the court is helping to bring justice.¹⁴³ They stated that the court is important because it is helping to defend women who have suffered citing that “they stand up for women there.”¹⁴⁴ They expressed their belief that the court can help to stop violence and that it is helping to bring out the truth of what occurred.¹⁴⁵ Additionally, people spoke positively about the international involvement with the court, and cited major problems with their own legal system including delay and corruption.¹⁴⁶

The Special Court has made some efforts to reach out to the national justice system. The Court has invited judges from the national courts to attend Special Court proceedings and trainings offered to Special Court judges, for example on gender issues. The Court has invited input from the local bar on relevant legal issues, such as on the Special Court Rules of Procedure and Evidence. The registrar also meets regularly with the chief justice of the Sierra Leone Supreme Court.¹⁴⁷

Recently the OTP began undertaking an initiative with a view to positively impact the national justice sector by offering a monthly lecture series for the Sierra Leone bar and universities. The court is also exploring the possibility of enhancing the library at the Fourbay University in Freetown by equipping it with legal texts.¹⁴⁸ Additionally, court staff have expressed a commitment to working with a U.S.$25 million initiative to reform the national justice sector, which is funded by the U.K. Department for International Development (DFID).¹⁴⁹ While this initiative is in the early stages, it could help to put expertise available at the Special Court to benefit the national courts.

There are indications that the court is having some impact on the national justice system. Special Court decisions have been reportedly cited in domestic proceedings. Some members of the legal community also view the jurisprudence of the Special Court as holding value for future prosecutions of crimes in Sierra Leone and the development of implementing legislation for the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.¹⁵⁰

The court also makes a major contribution to legacy by employing and building the professional capacity of Sierra Leoneans. As discussed in depth in Human Rights Watch’s September 2004 report, the Special Court employs significant numbers of Sierra Leoneans in nearly every aspect of court operations.¹⁵¹ This includes many Sierra Leone police who work as investigators or in witness protection for the OTP or the Witness and Victim Support Unit. It also includes a small number of Sierra Leonean lawyers working in the OTP and the Defence Office. A larger number of Sierra Leonean lawyers are also involved in the Special Court through representing the accused. Additionally, the OTP and Defence Office have Sierra Leonean interns, some of whom are already lawyers. The court has also attracted members of the Sierra Leone diaspora to work in professional posts at the Special Court, such as lawyers in the OTP, some of whom reportedly have indicated an intention to remain in Sierra Leone following the close of the court’s operations.¹⁵²

While the number of Sierra Leoneans employed in more senior positions at the court is fairly limited, court staff indicated a commitment to promoting Sierra Leoneans where possible, particularly in the final stages of the court’s life, and such promotion has already taken place in at least one instance.¹⁵³ Human Rights Watch welcomes this approach and encourages the court to as much as possible train and promote Sierra Leonean staff.

The employment of local staff and location in Sierra Leone is also enabling the court to increase its cultural sensitivity to the local population, such as by focusing its video summaries on issues of particular importance to Sierra Leoneans. This in turn helps to ensure long-term impact by ensuring that the court’s operations are made relevant to the general public.

Other initiatives, discussed earlier in this report, are also being developed. The domestic witness protection unit discussed in the witness protection section could make a major contribution to not only protecting and supporting witnesses who testify at the Special Court, but ultimately witnesses who testify before the national courts in Sierra Leone. The establishment of an independent radio station on justice issues discussed in the previous section also could, if funded, significantly enhance understanding of justice and rule of law issues in Sierra Leone.

The court will further contribute to legacy through donating the courthouse to Sierra Leone and establishing appropriate procedures for storing evidence and establishing archives related to Special Court trials. Court staff indicated that the court is currently exploring possible future uses for the courthouse, which might include as a court or as a human rights center, along with means to ensure that it is adequately maintained.¹⁵⁴ Court staff have further indicated that they are continuing to develop additional ideas and plans to enhance legacy contributions.¹⁵⁵

2. Constraints and intensifying engagement with national courts

Despite these efforts, the court’s ability to positively contribute to promoting the rule of law, including accountability for serious crimes, is constrained. This is due to several factors beyond the court’s control, including the limited temporal jurisdiction of the court (which covers less than half the conflict), the court’s limited mandate to prosecute those who bear the greatest responsibility, and the absence of indictees Charles Taylor and Johnny Paul Koroma before the court.¹⁵⁶ 

However, the court’s legacy will also be limited if its engagement with the national courts does not expand beyond what has occurred to date. Aside from judges at the Special Court attending the opening of the Sierra Leone Supreme Court, there have been no formal interactions between judges serving in the national system and the Special Court. Despite invitations, national court judges have not attended Special Court proceedings or the trainings offered to Special Court staff.¹⁵⁷

While a substantial proportion of Special Court personnel are Sierra Leonean, almost none have worked as legal or registry staff for the domestic justice system.¹⁵⁸ Lawyers working in both the OTP and defense teams at the Special Court have generally come from private practice as opposed to government service in Sierra Leone. Additionally, although 40 percent of staff in the OTP are reportedly Sierra Leoneans, most staff are not local lawyers, but rather Sierra Leone police, or lawyers from the diaspora.¹⁵⁹ Impact on Sierra Leonean lawyers working on defense teams is also limited as they are not court staff, and a number of the teams are not (as discussed above) as integrated as was initially envisioned. Additionally, while the Sierra Leone government appoints a total of four judges to the chambers of the Special Court, it has appointed only two Sierra Leonean judges.¹⁶⁰

According to members of the legal profession and civil society, and staff of the national justice system and the Special Court, engagement between the Special Court and the national justice system is constrained by a number of factors, the most pressing of which include:

• Resistance by judges to taking advantage of the court’s presence, reportedly due to their not seeing the value of sharing experience and expertise, and cultural differences;¹⁶¹

• Concern that interaction could compromise independence between the Special Court and national courts;¹⁶² and

• Lack of local judges and staff to engage with or employ. Many domestic judges are either retired or overseas, and qualified judicial staff are also limited.¹⁶³ Special Court staff indicate that they were encouraged to avoid draining the local courts of its staff.¹⁶⁴ The government also reportedly resisted seconding staff to the Special Court due in part to a desire to maintain control over staff.¹⁶⁵

Other factors constrain any effort to engage the national justice system to promote additional domestic prosecutions for serious crimes committed during Sierra Leone’s armed conflict, including: the Lomé Amnesty,¹⁶⁶ lack of capacity of the national courts, a sense that the Special Court is the accountability venue, and concern that even if the amnesty were overturned, any additional prosecutions would likely be politically targeted.¹⁶⁷ While there is some interest by a small number of Sierra Leonean lawyers who are pursuing a legal challenge to the Lomé Amnesty, there has been little movement to date on this.¹⁶⁸

Lack of support for legacy initiatives by some members of the Special Court Management Committee also creates a major additional challenge.¹⁶⁹ Given these constraints, Human Rights Watch commends the Special Court’s efforts to date to reach out to the national justice system and its commitment to work with the U.K.-sponsored national justice reform project.

At the same time, Human Rights Watch strongly urges the Special Court to creatively respond to these difficult realities, as it has in so many of its other programs. While the U.K.-sponsored national justice sector reform project will serve a critical function, it cannot replace the role that can and should be played by the Special Court given the unique and relevant expertise of its staff. Human Rights Watch believes that the Special Court should develop a few targeted and inexpensive programs to engage the national justice system without compromising the independence of the Special Court and national courts. This programming should focus on issues related to the work and experience of the Special Court that are relevant to enhancing the national justice system, including on prosecuting serious crimes.

The main emphasis should be on monthly discussions with national justice system judges and staff. These discussions could function quite similarly to the monthly forum the court currently holds with civil society by bringing together Special Court and national justice system staff and judges to discuss a variety of relevant subjects including: trial and case management, fair trial standards, witness treatment, minimum procedural and substantive requirements for prosecuting serious crimes, and pre-trial proceedings (which are not utilized in Sierra Leone). Despite the Lomé Amnesty, emphasis on prosecuting serious crimes domestically could be extremely valuable in the event that such expertise is needed to address serious crimes committed in the future, or the amnesty is repealed or is found to be unconstitutional, as has been the case in other countries.

Participants should include as appropriate judges, registry staff, clerks and legal advisors, and prosecutors from the Special Court and the national courts; efforts must be made to ensure participation by all relevant persons. This will require working to overcome resistance by Sierra Leonean national justice system judges and staff to take advantage of these opportunities. To achieve this, it would be useful if court personnel personally engaged participants and involved them in the development of the initiative from the initial stages including by soliciting their views concerning discussion topics.

Initiatives should also be developed to increase observation of Special Court proceedings by judges and staff of the national justice system, other local legal professionals, and law students. Efforts must again be made to personally engage relevant participants and deploy local staff to facilitate attendance. This could include coordinating the logistics for attendance by relevant participants. Where appropriate and feasible, consideration to adapting observation practice (such as allocating a space for Sierra Leonean judges to observe proceedings by sitting on the interior of the court space as opposed to in the public gallery) should be made.

Human Rights Watch also urges that the Registry and the OTP coordinate their existing and future legacy initiatives targeted at impacting the national justice system. This will help to ensure maximum effectiveness of programming.