Searchable Text File for Charles Taylor Judgment (Trial Chamber) – Full Text

Important

Please read this disclaimer. This is not an official version of the trial judgment.


SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE

TRIAL CHAMBER II
Before: Justice Richard Lussick, Presiding Judge
Justice Teresa Doherty
Justice Julia Sebutinde

Registrar: Binta Mansaray

Date 18 May 2012

Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T
PROSECUTOR v. Charles Ghankay TAYLOR

JUDGEMENT


Office of the Prosecutor:
Brenda J. Hollis
Nicholas Koumjian
Mohamed Bangura
Kathryn Howarth
Leigh Lawrie
Ruth Mary Hackler
Ula Nathai-Lutchman
Nathan Quick
Maja Dimitrova
James Pace

Defence Counsel for Charles G. Taylor:
Courtenay Griffiths, QC.
Terry Munyard
Morris Anyah
Silas Chekera
James Supuwood
Logan Hambrick


CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION (page 1)
A. THE ACCUSED (page 2)
B. SUMMARY OF THE CHARGES (page 5)
C. SUMMARY OF THE DEFENCE CASE (page 7)
II. CONTEXT (page 10)
A. ORIGINS OF THE SIERRA LEONE CIVIL WAR ................................................................... 11
1. SIERRA LEONE AND THE RISE OF PAN-AFRICANISM ...................................................... 1 1
2. TRAINING OF DISSIDENT REVOLUTIONARIES IN LIBYA .................................................. 12
3. FORMATION OF THE REVOLUTIONARY UNITED FRONT AND TRAINING IN LIBERIA
(1989-1990) ............................................................................................................... 13
4. INSURGENCY INTO SIERRA LEONE (1991-1992) ............................................................ 14
B. CIVIL WAR IN SIERRA LEONE (1991-1996) .................................................................... 15
1.1991-1992 ..................................................................................................................... 15
2.1993-1995 ..................................................................................................................... 18
3. ELECTIONS IN SIERRA LEONE AND "OPERATION STOP ELECTION" (1996-1997) ........... 20
C. AFRC/RUF JUNTA PERIOD (1997-1998) ....................................................................... 22
1. AFRC COUP .................................................................................................................. 22
2. ECOMOG INTERVENTION (1998-1999) ....................................................................... 25
D. CIVIL WAR IN SIERRA LEONE (1998-1999) .................................................................... 27
E. CIVIL WAR IN SIERRA LEONE (1999-2002) .................................................................... 30
1. FREETOWN ATTACK ...................................................................................................... 30
2. LOME PEACE ACCORD AND DISARMAMENT (1999) ....................................................... 31
3. RUF CAPTURE OF UNAMSIL PEACEKEEPERS AND APPOINTMENT OF ISSA SESAY AS
INTERIM LEADER (2000) ............................................................................................. 33
4. ABUIA PEACE AGREEMENTS AND THE END OF THE SIERRA LEONE CIVIL WAR (2000-
2002) ............................................. I ............................................................................. 35
III. PRELIMINARY ISSUES (page 36)
A. SELECTIVE PROSECUTION ............................................................................................... 36
B. EVIDENCE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE INDICTMENT AND/OR JURISDICTION OF THE
COURT ............................................................................................................................ 40
C. ISSUES RELATING TO THE PLEADING IN THE INDICTMENT .............................................. 49
D. PREIUDICIAL DELAY IN THE TRIAL CHAMBER'S RULING ON THE DEFENCE’S
CHALLENGE TO THE PLEADING OF THE JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE AS A MODE OF
LIABILITY ....................................................................................................................... 57
FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................... 59
E. DISCRETIONARY PAYMENTS AND OTHER INDUCEMENTS TO WITNESSES BY THE
PROSECUTION ................................................................................................................. 60
P. SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE ............................................................................................ 60
IV.
B. EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE (page 63)
A. LAW APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE ................................................... 63
1. BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF .............................................................................. 63
2. ADMISSION OF EVIDENCE .............................................................................................. 64
B. FORMS OF EVIDENCE UNDER REVIEW ............................................................................ 64
1. WITNESS TESTIMONY .................................................................................................... 64
2. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ............................................................................................ 75
3. EXPERT TESTIMONY AND REPORTS ............................................................................... 79
4. FACTS OF WHICH JUDICIAL NOTICE WAS TAKEN ........................................................... 80
5. AGREED FACTS ............................................................................................................. 80
C. CREDIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC WITNESSES ....................................................... 80
D. AUTHENTICITY ASSESSMENT OF SPECIFIC DDCUMENTS ............................................... 137
V.
V. APPLICABLE LAW (page 144) ....................................................................................................... 144
A. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 144
B. SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF THE CRIMES ............................................................................. 145
1. COUNT 1: ACTS OF TERRORISM (ARTICLE 3(D) OF THE STATUTE) ............................... 145
2. COUNTS 2 AND 3: UNLAWFUL KILLINGS (ARTICLES 2(A) AND 3(A) OF THE STATUTE) 148
3. COUNTS 4, 5 AND 6; SEXUAL VIOLENCE (ARTICLES 2(G) AND 3(E) OF THE STATUTE). 149
4. COUNTS 7 AND 8: CRIMES RELATING TO PHYSICAL VIOLENCE (ARTICLES 3(A) AND
2(I) OF THE STATUTE) ............................................................................................... 157
5. COUNT 9: CRIMES RELATING TO CHILD SOLDIERS (ARTICLE 4(C) OF THE STATUTE) .. 159
6. COUNT 10: ABDUCTIDNS AND FORCED LABOUR (ARTICLE 2 (C) OF THE STATUTE) .... 162
7. COUNT 11: PILLAGE (ARTICLE 3(E) OF THE STATUTE) ................................................ 163
C. LAW ON INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ......................................................... 164
1. RESPONSIBILITY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6(1) OF THE STATUTE .................................. 164
2. RESPONSIBILITY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 6(3) OF THE STATUTE .................................. 175

VI. LAW AND FINDINGS ON THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS(page 181)
A. ARTICLE 2: CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY .................................................................... 181
B. ARTICLE 3: WAR CRIMES ............................................................................................. 198
C. ARTICLE 4: OTHER SERIOUS VIOLATIONS OF [NTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW .. 203

VII. FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDINGS ON ALLEGED CRIMES (page 204)
A. COUNTS 2 AND 3 (MURDER OR "UNLAWFUL KILLINGS") ............................................. 205
1. ALLEGED UNLAWFUL KILLINGS IN KENEMA DISTRICT (25 MAY 1997 TO ABOUT 31
MARCH 1998) ........................................................................................................... 207
2. ALLEGED UNLAWFUL KILLINGS IN KONO DISTRICT (BETWEEN ABOUT 1 FEBRUARY
1998 AND 31 DECEMBER 1998) ................................................................................ 236
3. ALLEGED UNLAWFUL KILLINGS IN KAILAHUN DISTRICT (BETWEEN ABOUT 1
FEBRUARY 1998 AND ABOUT 30 JUNE 1998) ............................................................ 282
4. ALLEGED UNLAWFUL KILLINGS IN FREETOWN AND THE WESTERN AREA (BETWEEN
ABOUT 21 DECEMBER 1998 AND ABOUT 28 FEBRUARY 1999) .................................. 291
B. COUNTS 4, 5 AND 6 (SEXUAL VIOLENCE) ..................................................................... 338
1. COUNT 4 (RAPE) .......................................................................................................... 339
2. COUNT 5 (SEXUAL SLAvERY) ...................................................................................... 384
3. COUNT 6 (OUTRAGES UPON PERSONAL DIGNITY) ....................................................... 438
C. COUNTS 7 AND 8 (PHYSICAL VIOLENCE) ...................................................................... 444
1. KONO DISTRICT (1 FEBRUARY 1998 TO 31 DECEMBER 1998) ..................................... 445
2. KAILAHUN DISTRICT (30 NOVEMBER 1996 TO 18 JANUARY 2002) ............................. 451
3. FREETOWN AND THE WESTERN AREA (21 DECEMBER 1998 TO 28 FEBRUARY 1999).. 457
D. COUNT 9 (CHILD SOLDIERS) ......................................................................................... 486
1. FINDING ON THE AFRC AND RUF AS ARMED GROUPS ............................................... 488
2. CONSCRIPTION AND ENLISTMENT OF CHILD SOLDIERS ............................................... 488
3. USING CHILDREN TO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE IN HOSTILITIES .................................... 517
E. COUNT 10 (ENSLAVEMENT) .......................................................................................... 572
1. KENEMA DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 573
2. KONO DISTRICT ........................................................................................................... 587
3. KAILAHUN DISTRICT ................................................................................................... 618
4. OTHER LOCATIONS ...................................................................................................... 640
5. FREETOWN AND THE WESTERN AREA ......................................................................... 643
F. COUNT 11 (PILLAGE) .................................................................................................... 652
1. KONO DISTRICT ........................................................................................................... 653
2. BOMBALI DISTRICT ..................................................................................................... 659
3. PORT LOKO DISTRICT .................................................................................................. 661
4. FREETOWN AND THE WESTERN AREA ......................................................................... 663
G. COUNT 1 (ACTS OF TERRORISM) ................................................................................... 677
1. PRIMARY PURPOSE OF CERTAIN ACTS OF VIOLENCE ..................................................... 677
2. KENEMA DISTRICT ...................................................................................................... 681
3. KONO DISTRICT ........................................................................................................... 681
4. KAILAHUN DISTRICT ................................................................................................... 700
5. FREETOWN AND THE WESTERN AREA ......................................................................... 702

VIII. FACTUAL FINDINGS ON THE ROLE OF THE ACCUSED (page 741)
A. PRE-INDTCTMENT PERIOD (1988 TO 1996) .................................................................... 741
1. ALLEGED MEETING IN LIBYA AROUND 1989 ................................................................ 741
2. ALLEGED MEETING BETWEEN THE ACCUSED, SANKOH AND DR MANNEH IN BURKINA
FASO ......................................................................................................................... 752
3. CAMP NAAMA ............................................................................................................. 759
4. THE INVASION OF SIERRA LEONE ................................................................................ 786
5. ATTACK ON KONO (NOVEMBER 1992 TO JANUARY 1993) .......................................... 809
6. ALLEGED RUF ASSISTANCE TO FIGHT ULIMO IN LIBERIA ........................................ 831
7. ALLEGED SUPPLY OF MATERIEL TO THE RUF FROM GUINEA DURING ULIMO
OCCUPATION ............................................................................................................ 837
8. SIERRA RUTILE ............................................................................................................ 840
9. OPERATION STOP ELECTION (1996) ............................................................................ 851
B. THE ROLE OF INTERMEDIARIES ..................................................................................... 872
1. BENJAMIN YEATEN ..................................................................................................... 872
2. DANIEL TAMBA (A.K.A. JUNGLE) ................................................................................. 892
3. IBRAHIM BAH .............................................................................................................. 925
C. MILITARY OPERATIONS ...................... ) .......................................................................... 941
1. ALLEGED MESSAGE FROM BASE 1 TO TROOPS RETREATING FROM KONO ................... 941
2. OPERATIONS IN KONO (EARLY 1998) .......................................................................... 946
3. OPERATION FITTI-FATTA ............................................................................................ 983
4. THE FREETOWN INVASION ......................................................................................... 1016
D. OPERATIONAL SUPPORT ............................................................................................. 1263
1. COMMUNICATIONS .................................................................................................... 1263
2. SUPPORT AND TRAINING ........................................................................................... 1350
3. ALLEGED PROVISION OF SAFE HAVEN ...................................................................... 1426
4. PROVISION OF RUF GUESTHOUSE IN MONROVIA ...................................................... 1440
E. PROVISION OF MILITARY PERSONNEL ......................................................................... 1467
1. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO THE RED LION BATTALION ............................................ 1467
2. SCORPION UNIT ......................................................................................................... 1512
3. REPATRIATION OF SIERRA LEONEANS ....................................................................... 1542
4. ALLEGED COOPERATION IN THE RETURN OF DESERTERS TO SIERRA LEONE ............. 1569
F. ARMS AND AMMUNITION ............................................................................................ 1583
1. PRELIMINARY ISSUES ................................................................................................ 1585
2. ALLEGATIONS OF DIRECT SUPPLY BY THE ACCUSED ................................................ 1648
3. ALLEGATIONS THAT THE ACCUSED FACILITATED SUPPLIES ...................................... 1794
4. USE OF MATERIEL SUPPLIED OR FACILITATED BY THE ACCUSED .............................. 1902
5. OTHER SOURCES OF MATERIEL ................................................................................. 1978
G. DIAMONDS .................................................................................................................. 2015
1. ALLEGED DELIVERY OF DIAMONDS TO THE ACCUSED .............................................. 2015
2. ALLEGED FACILITATION OF DIAMOND TRADING BY THE ACCUSED .......................... 2106
3. PROVISION OF MINING EQUIPMENT AND MINING EXPERTS ....................................... 2124
H. PEACE PROCESS .......................................................................................................... 2142
1. EXTERNAL DELEGATION IN COTE D’IVOIRE .............................................................. 2142
2. ABIDJAN .................................................................................................................... 2158
3. LOME ......................................................................................................................... 2171
4. RELEASE OF UN PEACEKEEPERS (1999) .................................................................... 2187
5. RELEASE OF UNAMSIL PEACEKEEPERS (2000) ....................................................... 2208
6. COMMUNICATIONS WITH ISSA SESAY ON DISARMAMENT ......................................... 2235
I. LEADERSHIP AND COMMAND STRUCTURE .................................................................. 2252
1. ACCUSED RELATIONSHIP WITH THE RUF/AFRC ...................................................... 2252
2. ANALYSIS OF THE RUF/AFRC ALLIANCE ................................................................. 2351
J. THE WAR STRATEGY OF THE RUF/AFRC .................................................................. 2371
K. KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCUSED .................................................................................. 2374

IX. LEGAL FINDINGS ON RESPONSIBLITY (page 2405)
A. ARTICLE 6.1 OF THE STATUTE .................................................................................... 2405
1. JOINT CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE .................................................................................... 2405
2. AIDING AND ABETTING ............................................................................................. 2410
3. PLANNING ................................................................................................................. 2424
4. INSTIGATING .............................................................................................................. 2429
5. ORDERING ................................................................................................................. 2429
B. ARTICLE 6.3 OF THE STATUTE .................................................................................... 2429
1. SUPERIOR RESPONSIBILITY ........................................................................................ 2429
X. CUMULATIVE AND CONCURRENT CONVICTIONS (page 2433)
A. CUMULATIVE CONVICTIONS ....................................................................................... 2433
1. CUMULATIVE CONVICTIONS FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY AND WAR CRIMES... 2433
B. CONCURRENT CONVICTIONS ...................................................................................... 2435
XI. DISPOSITION (page 2437)
XII. ANNEX A: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS (page 2441)
XIII. PROCEDURAL HISTORY (page 2446)
A. INDICTMENT, AKREST, AND INITIAL APPEARANCE ..................................................... 2446
1. PRELIMINARY OBJECTION BASED ON LACK OF JURISDICTION ................................... 2447
2. PRE-TRIAL PROCEEDINGS .......................................................................................... 2448
3. TRIAL PROCEEDINGS ................................................................................................. 2452
4. PROSECUTION CASE .................................................................................................. 2455
5. DEFENCE CASE .......................................................................................................... 2462
6. FINAL JUDGEMENT .................................................................................................... 2472
XIV. ANNEX C: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (page 247)
1. JUDGEMENTS AND DECISIONS ................................................................................... 2473
2. INTERNATIONAL LEGAL DOCUMENTS ....................................................................... 2489
3. SECONDARY SOURCES ............................................................................................... 2491
XV. ANNEX D - MAPS OF SIERRA LEONE AND LIBERIA ................................... 2492

I. INTRODUCTION
1. The Special Court for Sierra Leone ("Special Court" or "Court") was established to
prosecute persons who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international
humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra Leone since
30 November 1996.l It is an international courtz established under an Agreement between
the United Nations3 and the Government of Sierra Leone ("Agreement"),4 and independent
from the domestic legal system of Sierra Leone. The Statute of the Special Court
("Statute")5 empowers the Court to prosecute persons who committed crimes against
humanity, serious violations of Article 3 Common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the
Protection of War Victims and of Additional Protocol 11, other serious violations of
international humanitarian law and speciiied crimes under Sierra Leonean law.° The Special
Court is governed by the Agreement, the Statute and by its Rules of Procedure and Evidence
("Rules").7
2. This Judgement is rendered by Trial Chamber 11 of the Special Court for Sierra
Leone,8 pursuant to the mandate granted to the Special Court by the United Nations and the
Republic of Sierra Leone and in accordance with Article 18 of the Statute and Rule 88 of the
Rules.
1 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Article 1(1) ("Statute").
2 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-I-059, Decision on Immunity from Jurisdiction, 31 May 2004. para.
57.
X Authorised pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1315 (2000) of 14 August 2000, UN
Doc. S/RES/1315 (2000).
4 Agreement between the United Nations and the Government of Sierra Leone on the Establishment of a
Special Court for Sierra Leone, signed on 16 January 2002.
5 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, annexed to the Agreement.
6 Articles 2 to 5 of the Statute.
7 Rules of Procedure and Evidence of the Special Court for Sierra Leone ("Rules").
8 Composed of Justice Teresa Doherty (Northern Ireland), appointed by the Secretary General of the United
Nations; Justice Richard Lussick (Samoa), appointed by the Government of Sierra Leone; Justice Julia Sebutinde
(Uganda), appointed by the Secretary General of the United Nations; Justice El Hadji Malick Sow (Senegal)
appointed as Alternate Judge by the Secretary General of the United Nations and by the Government of Sierra
Leone.

---- End of Page Page 1 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T X (3469 18 May 2012

3%,014 1+
A. THE ACCUSED
3. The Accused, Charles Ghankay Taylor,9 was born on 28 January 1948 in Arthington
in the Republic of Liberia. Taylor was the third eldest of eleven children and by his own
testimony came from a ‘humble’ background.IO
4. Taylor completed his high school studies to become a teacher in 1967, and went on
to become an accountant.II ln 1972, he went to the United States and graduated with an
associate degree in accounting in May 1974 from Chamberlayne Junior College in Boston,
Massachusetts. ln 1976, he graduated with a BSc degree in economics with specialisation in
development from Bentley College in Waltham, Massachusetts.I2
5. When Taylor arrived in the United States in 1972, he, along with others, rounded the
Union of Liberian Associations in the Americas ("ULAA") with the aimto bring about
peace, as well as political and democratic changes, in Liberia. ln 1979, Taylor became
chairman of ULAA. I3
6. ln that capacity Taylor visited Liberia in January 1980.I4 During that visit, in April
1980, Samuel Doe successfully staged a coup d’etat to become the President of Liberia.
Taylor joined Doe's government as a Director General of the General Services
Administration and Deputy Minister of Commerce until he fled to the United States in late
1983 following embezzlement allegations by the Doe Government.I5 Taylor was arrested in
9 The Accused is also known as "Dankpannah Dr Charles Ghankay Taylor" and "Dankpannah Charles
Ghankay Macarthur Taylor" and has operated under the alias "Jean-Michel Some" (see Charles Ghankay Taylor,
Transcript 9 November 2009, p. 31427; Transcript 1 December 2009, p. 32697). "Dankpannah" is a traditional
title given to the most senior chief in Liberia who serves as the chairman of the chiefs and elders and as the
"father of the land", see Defence Exhibit D-421, Affidavit of Chief Jalloh Loon. This title has been spelled in a
variety of ways, such as "Dah Kpannah" (Exhibit D-421), "DahlSCSL-03-01-T-292,) or "Dankpannah".
I0 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 14 July 2009, pp. 24354-24356, 24361.
II Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 14 July 2009, pp. 24368, 24372-24374.
I2 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 14 July 2009, pp. 24374-24379; Exhibit P-031, "Report for the
Special Court for Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and the War in Sierra Leone, Stephen Ellis, 5 December 2006",
p. 2. Mr Taylor received honorary doctorate degrees from the University of China and University of Liberia see
Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 14 July 2009, p. 24355.
I3 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 14 July 2009, pp. 24385-24387; Exhibit P-031, "Report for the
Special Court for Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and the War in Sierra Leone, Stephen Ellis, 5 December 2006",
p. 2.
I4 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 14 July 2009, pp. 24423-24424.
I5 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 15 July 2009, pp. 24467-24468, 24489-24491. 24501-24502; Exhibit
P-031, "Report for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and the War in Sierra Leone, Stephen
Ellis, 5 December 2006", p. 2.

---- End of Page Page 2 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / 18 May 2012 2

32; was
June 1984 in the United States pursuant to an extradition request on the Liberian
embezzlement charges by Liberia.l° He was detained on remand pending extradition in
Plymouth County House of Correction in Massachusetts, and was able to escape in
November 1985.17
7. Following his escape from prison in the United States Taylor travelled back to West
Afiica and in 1986 foiined an arined opposition group in Cote d’Ivoire, the National
Patriotic Front of Liberia ("NPFL").l8 The NPFL received military training in Libya in
1987.19 Following the training in Libya, Taylor retumed to West Afiica in order to plan his
insurgency and incursion into Liberia. 1n December 1989, Taylor led the NPFL insurgency
into Liberia from Cote d’1voire and a civil war ensued. Taylor established the National
Patriotic Reconstruction Assembly Government ("NPRAG") in the NPFL held territories,
which he headed.2O He remained the leader of the NPFL throughout the Liberian civil war
until its official end in 1996, following the peace agreement amending and supplementing
the Cotonou Accord, the Akosombo Agreement and its Accra Clarification, commonly
referred to as the Abuja Peace Accord.2l
8. As part of the peace process, Taylor, along with all the waning factional leaders,
formed and became a member of the interim govemment known as the Council of State.22
Taylor resigned from the Council of State in January 1997 in order to be eligible to stand as
a candidate for the 1997 general election.23 He won the election,24 which was declared "free
and fair" by governmental organisations and intemational observers,25 to become the 21st
16 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 15 July 2009, p. 24508; Exhibit P-031, "Report for the Special Court
for Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and the War in Sierra Leone, Stephen Ellis, 5 December 2006", p. 3.
17 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 15 July 2009, p. 24509; Exhibit P-031, "Report for the Special Court
for Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and the War in Sierra Leone, Stephen Ellis, 5 December 2006", p. 3.
lg Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 15 July 2009, pp. 24534-2453 5.
19 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 15 July 2009, pp. 24539, 24553-24554.
20 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 16 July 2009, p. 24690-24691; Stephen Ellis, Transcript 18 January
2008, p. 1550.
Zi Exhibit P-031, "Report for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and the War in Sierra
Leone, Stephen Ellis, 5 December 2006", p. 3; Exhibit P-478, "Excerpts From: US Deptarrnent of State Liberia
Country Report on Human Rights for 1998, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, February 26,
1999;" Edward Zaymay, Transcript 6 May 2010, pp. 40606-40607.
22 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 22 July 2009, pp. 25015-25016.
23 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 1 December 2009, p. 32764.
24 Exhibit D-385, "Official Journal of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS),
Volume 22, Special Edition", pp. 185-190.
25 Exhibit D-338, "Letter Dated 24 July 1997 from the Secretary General Addressed to the President of the
Security Council, UN Doc. S/1997/581, 24 July 1997", p. 3 (stating that "[o]n behalf of the United Nations and

---- End of Page Page 3 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T % 18 May 2012

gg oaf;.
President of` Liberia on 2 August 1997 for a six-year term.26 In that capacity he was involved
and held positions in regional organisations, such as the Economic Community of West
African States ("ECOWAS").27
9. In 1999, Taylor's Government came under military pressure by an armed rebellion
which reached the outskirts of Monrovia by January 2002. Given this military pressure,
combined with the political pressure following the unsealing of his Indictment and Warrant
of Arrest on 4 June 2003, Taylor stepped down from the Presidency on 11 August 2003.28
Taylor went into exile in Nigeria and remained there until his arrest by Nigerian authorities
on 29 March 2006, following a request by Liberian President J ohnson-Sirleaf to the
Nigerian authorities that he be surrendered to the Special Court pursuant to the Warrant of
Arrest issued by the Special Court.29
10. On the same day, Taylor was transferred into the custody of the Special Court in
Freetown. He was arraigned and pleaded not guilty to all counts in the Indictment on 3 April
2006.30 Followin ¤ securit concerns about holdin the trial in West Africa, UN Securit
L Y S Y
Council Resolution 1688 (2006) and agreements with the Government of The Netherlands
and the Intemational Criminal Court, the President of the Special Court ordered his transfer
to The Netherlands in June 2006 in order to stand trial in The Hague.3]
ll. Taylor is currently held in the detention centre of the International Criminal Court
("ICC") located in The Hague under the authority of the Special Court.
ECOWAS, the elections were certified as having been free and fair".); Exhibit D-385, "Official Journal of the
Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), Volume 22, Special Edition", pp. 185, 186 (where
Nigerian Foreign Minister Tom Ikimi states before the release of the election results that he did not observe and
did not receive any reports of "intimidation, harassment and hostility" and the Independent Election Commission
states that ECOWAS, the UN, the OAU, European Union and the Carter Centre have been unanimous that the
elections were "peaceful, free, fair and trnsparent"); Exhibit D-126, "The Carter Center Report, ‘Observing the
1997 Special Elections Process in Liberia"’, p. 9.
26 Exhibit D-141, "Presidential Papers 2 August 1997- 31 December l998", p. I4; Charles Ghankay Taylor,
Transcript 31 August 2009, p. 28056.
27 Exhibit D-171, "New African, No. 358, ‘Taylor's Triumph Liberia's 100 Days,’ December l997", pp. 8-
9.
28 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript I4 July 2009, pp. 24344-24347.
29 Exhibit D-410, "Security Council Approves Trial Transfer of Former Liberian President Charles Taylor
to Netherlands, UN Doc. SC/8755", 16 June 2006. I
30 Transcript 3 April 2006, p. I4.
3 1 Exhibit D-410, "Security Council Approves Trial Transfer of Former Liberian President Charles Taylor
to Netherlands, UN Doc. SC/8755, 16 June 2006".

---- End of Page Page 4 ---------------------------


Case No; SCSL-O3-O]-T Z @ 18 May 20] 2

EQQ Civ"? B. Summary of the charges
12. The Accused faces an 11 count indictment.32 Five of these counts charge the
Accused with crimes against humanity, punishable under Article 2 of the Statute, in
particular: murder (Count 2); rape (Count 4); sexual slavery (Count 5); other inhumane acts
(Count 8); and enslavement (Count 10). Five additional counts charge the Accused with
violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions ("Common Article 3") and of
Additional Protocol 11, punishable under Article 3 of the Statute, in particular: acts of
terrorism (Count 1); violence to life, health and physical or mental well—being of persons, in
particular murder (Count 3); outrages upon personal dignity (Count 6); violence to life,
health and physical or mental well—being of persons, in particular cruel treatment (Count 7);
and pillage (Count 11). The remaining count charges the Accused with conscripting or
enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups, or using them to
participate actively in hostilities (Count 9), a serious violation of international humanitarian
law punishable under Article 4 of the Statute.
13. The Indictment charges that "[m]embers of the RUF, AFRC, AFRC/RUF Junta or
alliance and/or Liberian fighters, including members and ex—members of the NPFL (Liberian
fighters), assisted and encouraged by, acting in concert with, under the direction and/or
control of, and/or subordinate to the Accused"33 committed the crimes underlying the 11
charged counts spanning over a period of 61 months and 19 days, i.e. from 30 November
1996 to 18 January 2002, in named locations within six districts of Sierra Leone, as follows:
(i) From 30 November 1996 to 24 May 1997: rape, sexual slavery, outrages upon
personal dignity, physical violence and enslavement in Kailahun District.
(ii) From 25 May 1997 to 31 January 1998: unlawful killings and enslavement in
Kenema District; unlawful killings, rape, sexual slavery, outrages upon personal dignity,
physical violence and enslavement in Kono District; unlawful killings, rape, sexual slavery,
outrages upon personal dignity, physical violence and enslavement in Kailahun District.
(iii) From 1 February 1998 to 31 December 1998: unlawful killings and enslavement in
Kenema District; pillage in Port Loko and Bombali Districts; burnings as acts of terrorism,
32 Prosecutor v, Taylor, SCSL—03—01—PT—263, Prosecutions Second Amended lndictment, 29 May 2007
("1ndictment").

---- End of Page Page 5 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T / Gb; 18 May 2012 \@

uq
unlawful killings, rape, sexual slavery, outrages upon personal dignity, physical violence,
enslavement and pillage in Kono District; unlawful killings, rape, sexual slavery, outrages
upon personal dignity, physical violence and enslavement in Kailahun District; burnings of
civilian property as acts of terrorism in Freetown and Western Arca.
(iv) From I January 1999 to 28 February 1999: unlawful killings and enslavement in
Kono District; rape, sexual slavery, outrages upon personal dignity, physical violence and
enslavement in Kailahun District; bumings of civilian property as acts of terrorism, unlawful
killings, rape, sexual slavery, outrages upon personal dignity, physical violence,
enslavement and pillage in Freetown and Western Arca.
(v) From I March 1999 to 18 January 2002: unlawful killings and enslavement in Kono
District; rape, sexual slavery, outrages upon personal dignity, physical violence and
enslavement in Kailahun District.
14. Thc indictmcnt chargcs as follows:
(vi) that "[m]cmbcrs of the RUF, AFRC, AFRC/RUF Junta or alliance and/or Liberian
fighters, including members and cx-members of the NPFL (Liberian fighters), assistcd and
cncouragcd by, acting in concert with, under the dircction and/or control of and/or
subordinatc to the Accused" routincly conscriptcd, cnlistcd and/or uscd boys and girls under
thc agc of 15 to participatc in activc hostilitics, throughout the pcriod of the indictmcnt -
from 30 Novcmbcr 1998 to 18 January 2002 -and throughout the territory of Sierra Lconc;34
(vii) that "[m]cmbcrs of the RUF, AFRC, AFRC/RUF Junta or alliance and/or Liberian
fighters, including members and cx-members of the NPFL (Liberian fighters), assistcd and
cncouragcd by, acting in concert with, under the dircction and/or control oi, and/or
subordinatc to the Accused" burncd civilian property, and committcd cach of the forgoing
crimes, as part of a campaign to terrorise the civilian population of the Republic of Sierra
Lconc.35
(viii) that the Accused, by his acts or omissions, is individually criminally responsible
pursuant to Articlc 6(1) of the Statutc for the crimes as alleged in the Indictmcnt, which
13 lndictmcnt, paras 5, 9, 14, 18, 22, 23, 28.
34 lndictmcnt, para. 22.
35 lndictmcnt, para. 5.

---- End of Page Page 6 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T uf GK 18 May 2012 %
l

3 CT CI
crimes the Accused planned, instigated, ordered, committed, or in whose planning,
preparation or execution the Accused otherwise aided and abetted, or which crimes
amounted to or were involved within a common plan, design or purpose in which the
Accused participated, or were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of such common plan,
design or purpose.36
(ix) that in addition or alternatively, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute, the
Prosecution alleges that the Accused, while holding positions of superior responsibility and
exercising command and control over subordinate members of the RUF, AF RC, AFRC/RUF
Junta or alliance, and/or Liberian fighters, is individually criminally responsible for the
crimes as alleged in the Indictment. It charges that the Accused is responsible for the
criminal acts of his subordinates in that he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate
was about to commit such acts or had done so and the Accused failed to take the necessary
and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof37
C. Summary of the Defence Case
15. The Accused pleaded not guilty to all counts in the Indictment.38
l6. The Defence accepts that crimes against humanity and war crimes were committed in
the armed conflict in Sierra Leone during the Indictment period, but denies that the Accused
is responsible for them.39 The Defence submits that the burden of proof is upon the
Prosecution to prove each and every count of the Indictment.4O Specifically, the Defence
submits that the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt (i) that the crimes were
actually committed; (ii) that the crimes fulfil all the legal — contextual and specific —
elements of Article 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute; and (iii) that there is a nexus between the
alleged crimes and the Accused.4l
36 Indictment, para. 33.
37 Indictment, para. 34.
38 Transcript 3 April 2006, p. l4.
39 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-0l-T-1229, Defence Final Trial Brief, 9 March 20ll ("Defence Final
Trial Brief’), para. 1557; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-0l-PT-229, Defence Pre-Trial Brief] 26 April 2007,
("Defence Pre-Trial Brief ’), para. 43.
40 Defence Final Trial Brief] para. 27.
ll Defence Pre-Trial Brief, para. 42.

---- End of Page Page 7 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-0l-T //6/ gw 18 May 20l2

3% lov
17. In addition to denying responsibility for crimes committed, the Defence also
maintains that:
(i) the Accused did not have the means to support the war in Sierra Leone
because he was President of a country that was "effectively bankrupt" and subject to an arms
embargo;42
(ii) the Accused had no reason to have gone into Sierra Leone to take its natural
resources as alleged when "he had vast amounts of untapped natural resources in Liberia";44
(iii) the Accused did not support the war in Sierra Leone because he had a justifiable
apprehension that a major war in Sierra Leone would lead to regional instability and so it is
"incredulous" that the Accused "would have been in cahoots with the Junta";44
(iv) contrary to the Prosecution's submissions, the Accused, through his diplomatic
efforts, played a substantial role in fostering peace and security in Sierra Leone and that his
contribution to the peace process was significant;45
(v) the Prosecution adduced a considerable amount of evidence outside the temporal and
geographical scope of the Indictment and that this evidence is so prejudicial to the Accused
that it contravenes the Accused's right to a fair trial and its admission would bring the
administration of justice into serious disrepute,4°
(vi) much of the Prosecution's case has in large measure been "shrouded in secrecy" as
some insider witnesses have testified with protective measures,47
(vii) the Prosecution provided financial inducements to potential witnesses and sources in
exchange for cooperation and testimony, that these were made independent of and distinct
from those made by the Witnesses and Victims Section and are a case of prosecutorial abuse
of process depriving the Accused of a fair trial,48
42 Defence Final Trial BriefQ paras 461-471, 707.
43 Defence Final Trial Brief; para. 468.
44 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 859
45 Defence Final Trial Briefl paras 87-102.
46 Defence Final Trial Brief; paras 28-37, 42-46, 1558- 1567.
44 Defence Closing Arguments, Transcript 9 March 201 1, pp. 49408-49409.
444 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 23-26.

---- End of Page Page 8 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 5// 18 May 2012 U

Ba I G \
(viii) some of the Prosecution's witnesses, particularly the linkage witnesses, were so
lacking in credibility that the Trial Chamber should completely put aside several Prosecution
witnesses altogether;49
(ix) the Prosecution failed to call key individuals as witnesses, resulting in the
Prosecution's case being largely focused on hearsay, circumstantial evidence and broad
assumptions;50
(x) much of the Prosecution's evidence was uncertain, contradictory and implausible;5l
(xi) the Prosecution's cross-examination of the Accused was unfocused, disjointed and
generally ineffective in discrediting his evidence—in—chief;52
(xii) procedural irregularities surrounding the pleading and adjudication of issues relating
to the joint criminal enterprise ("ICE") and the delay in rendering a decision on a Defence
motion53 had a prejudicial and irremediable impact on the Accused's fair trial rights;54
(xiii) under international criminal law, the Accused cannot be individually criminal
responsible under the third form of ICE for participating in a ICE that had as its primary
purpose the commission of a specific intent crime, such as terrorism;55 and, moreover, there
is a lack of Prosecution evidence to sustain a ICE as a mode of liability;56 and I
(xiv) the prosecution of the Accused is "selective and vindictive in nature" and that the
Accused was "singled out and prosecuted on the basis of [the United States Government's]
political motives and interests".57
49 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1377-1556, Defence Closing Arguments, Transcript l0 March 2011, pp.
49473, 49518.
50 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 72-81; Defence Closing Arguments, Transcript 9 March 201 1, p. 49401.
51 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 385, 418, 490, 548, 589-596.
52 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 82-86.
53 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-378, Public Urgent Defence Motion regarding a Fatal Defect in the
Prosecution's Second Amended Indictment relating to the Pleading of ICE, 14 December 2007.
54 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 47-71.
55 Defence Rebuttal to Prosecution's Closing Arguments, Transcript 1 1 March 2011, pp. 49615-49617.
56 Defence Rebuttal to Prosecution's Closing Arguments, Transcript l 1 March 20l 1, p. 49580.
57 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras l-22.

---- End of Page Page 9 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012
_’//

Ez lo T2.
II. CONTEXT
18. The Sierra Leone Civil War commenced on 23 March 1991 when armed fighters
known as the Revolutionary United Front ("RUF") launched an insurgency from Liberia's
Lofa County into Sierra Leone's Kailahun District.58 The conflict continued until President
Ahmad Tejan Kabbah of Sierra Leone announced the cessation of hostilities on 18 January
2002.59 The Prosecution alleges that the Accused is responsible for crimes committed
throughout the Indictment period — that is, from the signing of the Abidjan Accord on 30
November 1996 until the formal declaration of the end of the war on 18 January 2002.60 The
Accused is indicted for crimes alleged to have been committed in six of Sierra Leone's
thirteen districts.6l
19. The ll-year civil war was complex, featuring a number of armed groups. Some of
these groups formed alliances and some also experienced intemal divisions and fracturing.
In order to explain these complex events and relationships, an overview of the conflict in
Sierra Leone is necessary. Further, as the Accused is alleged to have participated in the civil
war without being physically present on theterritory of Sierra Leone, it is necessary to
rovide a brief outline of the broader eo olitical context in which the civil war took lace.
P S P P
In this section, the Trial Chamber provides an introduction to the politics, personalities and
events necessary to understand the allegations against the Accused. The Trial Chamber also
highlights the major areas of dispute between the parties and briefly summarises the parties’
submissions on these issues, reserving its findings for later in the judgement.62
58 Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-1-T, Decision on the Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice, 7 December
2007 [Decision on Judicial Notice], Annex A, Facts C and N; DCT-190, Transcript 7 June 2010, pp. 42182-
42183; DCT-025, Transcript 12 March 2010, pp. 37252-37255; Exhibit P—431, "Excerpts from: News Article,
IPS — Inter Press Service/Global Information Network, Politics — Sierra Leone: No Lawyer Willing to Defend
Rebel Leader (Lexis Nexis), 7 September 1998", p. 1; Exhibit P-497, "Witness to the Truth: Report of the Sierra
Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, Vol. 2", p. 41; Fayia Musa, Transcript 13 April 2010, pp.
3.8839- 38840; Sam Kolleh, Transcript 1 November 2010, pp. 48369-48370, 48377; John Vincent, Transcript 25
March 2010, pp. 38008-38011.
59 Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-01-PT-227, Joint Filing by the Prosecution and Defence Admitted Facts &
Law, 26 April 2007 [Admitted Facts and Law], Agreed Fact 35; Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact C.
60 Prosecution Final Trial Brief para. 1.
Ol The Accused is charged with crimes alleged to have been committed in Kailahun, Kenema, Kono,
Bombali, Port Loko and Freetown and the Western Area.
62 The issues and submissions highlighted in this Chapter are not exhaustive of all the issues raised by the
parties.

---- End of Page Page 10 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T %/ QU) 18 May 2012 M

5% {G3
A. Origins of the Sierra Leone Civil War
1, Siena Leone and the Rise of Pan-Afiicanism
20, A former British colony, Siena Leone achieved independence on 27 April 1961, ln
the decades following independence, Siena Leone experienced several military coups until
21 April 1971 when Siaka Stevens assumed the Presidency under the All Peop1e's Congress
("APC"), ln 1978 he established a one-pany state, Major-General Joseph Saidu Momoh
succeeded Stevens as President in 1985,63 Despite its rich natural resources, including
alluvial diamonds, Siena Leone experienced economic decline during the 1980s as a result
of corruption and nepotism under the APC regime,64 Disenchanted by the political and
economic decadence, a dissident group known as the RUF was formed in the late
1980s/early 1990s with the aim of forcibly removing the APC Government and restoring
democracy and good governance to Siena Leone,65
21, During the 1980s, Pan-Africanism became increasingly popular in West Africa and
within Siena Leone this movement was promoted by Fourah Bay College student Ali
Kabbah.66 Siena Leonean students with connections to the Pan—Afiican movement,
including Abu Kanu, Rashid Mansaray, Mohammed Dabo and Cleo Hanciles, travelled to
Libya to train with other supponers of the Pan-African ideology and to prepare for a
revolution in Siena Leone.67 While in Libya, Ali Kabbah formed the Siena Leone Pan
African Revolutionary Movement ("SLPARM"), a dissident group which he led from 1987
until his departure from Libya in 1989,68
63 Stephen Ellis, Transcript 18 January 2008, p. 1555; DCT-068, Transcript 11 March 2010, p. 37013;
Exhibit D-062, "How Diamonds Puelled the Conflict, Chronology of Siena Leone, Siena Leone Diamonds,
Africa Confidential, April 1998", p. 1.
64 D-006 (Confidential) ERN 16493-16494; Ngulu Kpakai, Transcript 1 1 March 2010, pp. 37014-37016.
65 Exhibit D-336, "Footpaths to Democracy, Toward a New Siena Leone, Volume One, 1995", pp. 19-21;
TF1-371, Transcript 29 January 2008, pp. 2545-2549 (CS).
66 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 16 July 2009, p, 24645; DCT-068, Transcript 11 March 2010, pp.
37111, 37157; Transcript 12 February 2008, p, 3675.
67 Exhibit P-277 (Confidential), ERN 18108-18109; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 15 July 2009, p.
24568; Transcript 20 July 2009, pp. 24748-24749; Transcript 10 September 2009, p. 28568; TF1-168, Transcript
2009, pp. 23393-23394 (CS).
68 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 20 July 2009, p. 24748; Transcript 10 September 2010, p. 28568;
Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 18 November 2009, p. 32076; Yanks Smythe, Transcript 22 February 2010,
p. 35609; DCT-125, Transcript 9 March 2010, p, 36849; Issa Sesay, Transcript 17 August 2010, p. 46427,

---- End of Page 11 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / 18 May 2012 @

3% 1 Cr 1-1-
2. Training of Dissident Revolutionaries in Libya
22. During the late 1980s, the training of members of SLPARM in Libya was organised
by an institution known as the Mathaba Alimia ("the Mathaba"), a military and ideological
or anisation that romoted Pan-Aiiicanism.69 The Mathaba or anised milita trainin in
3 P g YY g
Libyan camps such as "Tinning March" and "Tajura".7O A number of other West African
revolutionaries were trained in Libya, including Charles Taylor from Liberia, Foday Sankoh
from Sierra Leone and Kukoi Samba Sanyang (a.k.a. Dr Manneh) from the Gambia.71 The
Accused was the leader of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia ("NPFL"), a group that had
been formed in order to remove President Samuel Kanyon Doe's regime from power, citing
concerns about corruption.72 Members of the RUF who trained in Libya were called Special
Forces and held the highest status within the RUF .73
23. The Prosecution submits that the origins of the Sierra Leone Civil War can be traced
back to "a common cause" formed between the Accused, Sankoh and Manneh in which they
agreed to assist each other in waging war in Liberia, Sierra Leone and the Gambia.74 The
Defence denies the existence of an alleged common plan between the Accused and Foday
Sankoh to wage war in Sierra Leone.75 It maintains that the Accused was based in Burkina
Faso during this period and occasionally visited the Mathaba, interacting only with the
Liberian group and other leaders such as Ali Kabbah and Dr Manneh.76 The Defence further
maintains that the Accused did not even know Sankoh while in Libya and that the two men
did not have any contact until 1991 in Liberia when they agreed to cooperate strategically
a ainst the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democrac ULIMO .77
3 Y
69 DCT-125, Transcript 4 March 2010, pp. 36665-36668, p. 36681 (CS); DCT-068, Transcript ll March
2010, p. 37111.
70 Exhibit D-115A, "Untitled Map ot`Libya"; Moses Blah, Transcript 14 May 2008, pp. 9802-9803; DCT-
125, Transcript 4 March 2010, pp. 36672-36673; Yanks Smythe, Transcript 22 February 2010, pp. 35571-35577.
71 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 15 July 2009, p. 24568; Transcript 20 July 2009, pp. 24748-24749;
Transcript 10 September 2009, p. 28568; TFl-168, Transcript 2009, pp. 23393-23394 (CS).
72 Exhibit P-031, "Report for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and the War in Sierra
Leone, Stephen Ellis, 5 December 2006", p. 3, ERN 26606; Exhibit D-383, "Statement by Charles Ghankay
Taylor, Leader of the National Patriotic Front of Liberia, 1 January l990".
73 TFl-371, Transcript 25 January 2008, pp. 2211-2212 (CS); Perry Kamara, Transcript 4 February 2008, p.
3042; Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008, p. 21317; TF1—579, Transcript 5 November 2008, p.
19787; Issa Sesay, Transcript 5 July 2010, pp. 43606, 43609.
74 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 51-52. ,
75 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 306, 736-770.
Y6 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 745.
77 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 815.

---- End of Page 12 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T % gk 18 May 2012 M

$4:1 cr;.
3. Formation of the Revolutionary United Front and Training in Liberia ( 1989-1990)
24. By August 1990, the RUF had been formed and were training in Liberia.78 The
NPFL, following its incursion into Liberia on 24 December 1989, seized control of Gbarnga
and the Camp Naama training base.79 From August 1990, Camp Naama was used as a
trainin base for both NPFL and RUF fi ters.8O A roximatel 300 RUF fi hters
8 PP Y 8
comprising Sierra Leoneans and Liberians were trained at Camp Naama, including persons
who later became senior members of the RUF, such as Sam Bockarie, Issa Sesay, Morris
Kallon, Philip Palmer, Augustine Gbao and Mike Lamin.8l Members of the RUF who
trained in Liberia were called Vanguards and held the second highest status within the
RUF.82
25. The Prosecution submits that, in furtherance of the common cause alleged to have
been formed between Taylor and Sankoh in the late 1980s, the NPFL and RUF trained
alongside each other at Camp Naama and were "carbon copies" modelled by Taylor.88 lt
iirrther submits that the Accused was the "father" or "godfather" of the RUF88 in the sense
that he created the RUF as a viable organised armed force,88 nurtured and sustained it by
providing a secure training environment,88 supplies,87 instructors88 and new recruits;89
ensured its continued survival; taught it how to terrorise civilians;9O directed it in its first
78 DCT-025, Transcript 12 March 2010, pp. 37226-37228.
78 DCT-292, Transcript 1 June 2010, pp. 41838-41839.
80 Exhibit P-031, "Report for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Charles Taylor and the War in Sierra
Leone, Stephen Ellis, 5 December 2006", pp. 3-4; Exhibit D-006 (Confidential); DCT-125, Transcript 4 March
2010, pp. 36696-36697; Exhibit P-414, "Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission Diaspora Project —
Appendix D, Key events in Liberian History from 1979-2003"; Decision on Judicial Notice, para. 66; Defence
Final Trial Brief, para. 395; DCT-025, Transcript 12 Marc}1 2010, pp. 37226-37228.
81 lsaac Mongor, Transcript 10 March 2008, pp. 5666-5667; Foday Lansana, Transcript 20 February 2008,
p. 4374; TF1-371, Transcript 24 January 2008, pp. 2204, 2206-2208 (CS); DCT-025, Transcript 17 Marc}1 2010,
p. 3741 1; TF1-168, Transcript 21 January 2009, pp. 23203-23204 (CS); TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008,
p. 4805 (CS); TF1-367, Transcript 20 August 2008, p. 14096.
82 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008, pp. 21301-21302; TF1-371, Transcript 25 January
2008, pp. 2230-2231 (CS); Jabaty Jaward, Transcript 8 July 2008, pp. 13234-13235; Perry Kamara, Transcript 4
February 2008, pp. 3042-3043; TF1-168, Transcript 21 January 2009, pp. 23157-23160 (CS); Issa Sesay,
Transcript 5 July 2010, pp. 43606, 43609; Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 1 April 2010, p. 38609.
83 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 61.
84 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 58.
85 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 60, 65.
88 Prosecution Final Trial Brief paras 66-67.
87 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 75. 8
88 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 71-73.
88 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 68-70.
80 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 74.

---- End of Page 13 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T M! Sh 18 May 2012 W

3% ( ck
endeavours, protected it from outside threats to its existence, and strengthened the basic
unity of the group".91
26. The Defence denies that the Accused played any role in creating or supporting the
RUF and submits that the RUF forged its own identity separate from the NPFL and was a
"self-reliant struggle".92 While it accepts that the NPFL and RUF fighters were trained at
Camp Naama at the same time, the Defence maintains that the two forces were segregated in
that they trained separately, had separate command structures93 and that the RUF fighters
were strictly confined to their area, known as "Crab Hole" or "Sokoto".94
4. insurgency into Sierra Leone (1991-1992)
27. In late February 1991, Foday Sankoh issued an ultimatum to President Momoh to
resi from the Presidenc within 90 da s or else face a revolt.95 On 23 March 1991, rior to
an Y Y P
the expiration of the 90-day deadline, about 150 RUF and NPFL96 fighters from Camp
Naama launched an insurgency into eastern Sierra Leone, signifying the commencement of
the civil war.97 The armed forces of Sierra Leone, commonly known as the Sierra Leone
Ariny (‘"SLA") fought to repel the RUF's offensives. As the RUF spread throughout the
country, they set up bases and captured civilians who were trained in fighting techniques,
war tactics and ideology of the RUF.98 Those trained in Sierra Leone were called Junior
Commandos and were considered junior in rank to the Vanguards.99
91 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 60.
92 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 391.
93 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 398.
94 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 392-393.
95 Martin George, Transcript 22 April 2010, pp. 39642, 39645-39646.
Q6 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 78-79, 256; Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 423.
97 DCT-190, Transcript 7 June 2010, pp. 42182, 42183; DCT-025, Transcript 12 March 2010 pp. 37252-
37255; Exhibit P-431, "Excerpts from: News Article, IPS - Inter Press Service/Global Information Network,
Politics 4 Sierra Leone: No Lawyer Willing to Defend Rebel Leader (Lexis Nexis), 7 September 1998", p. 1;
Exhibit P-497, "Witness to the Truth: Report of the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report,
Vol, 2", p. 41; Fayia Musa, Transcript 13 April 2010, pp. 38839- 38840; Sam Kolleh, Transcript 1 November
2010, pp. 4836948370, 48377; John Vincent, Transcript 25 March 2010, pp. 38008-3801 1; Decision on Judicial
Notice, Annex A, Facts C and N.
98 TF1-371, Transcript 25 January 2008, pp. 2228-2232, 2248-2255 (CS); DCT-025, Transcript 17 March
2010, pp. 37428-37433; Jabaty Jaward, Transcript 8 July 2008, pp. 13222—13224.
QQ TF1-371, Transcript 25 January 2008, pp. 2253-2255 (CS); Perry Kamara, Transcript 4 February 2008,
pp. 3042-3043; DCT-025, Transcript 17 March 2010, pp. 37434-37435; Jabaty Jaward, Transcript 8 July 2008.
pp. 13234-13235.

---- End of Page 14 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / (QM l8 May 2012

Ba Seite;
28. The Prosecution alleges that the Accused, Sankoh and NPFL commanders planned
the March 1991 invasion of Sierra Leone at a meeting chaired by the Accused in Voinjama
in Liberia's Lofa County in March 1991,lOO The Prosecution further claims that the NPFL
commanders and fighters under the command of the Accused were the primary participants
of the initial invasion into Sierra Leone and during the early stages of the conflict until they
were withdrawn in about June 1992.lOl Further, it claims that about 300 novice RUF fighters
trained at Camp Naama were integrated into the NPFL battalions which led the invasion into
Sierra Leone "in order to gain experience as the invasion continued";lO2 and that during the
period 1991-1992 the Accused regularly sent NPFL fighters to Sierra Leone to reinforce the
RUF 103
29, The Defence maintains that the Accused was not present at the Voinjama meetingm
and neither planned nor had knowledge of the alleged plan to attack Sierra Leone, IOS \Vhilst
the Defence does not deny that the invasion force did include members of the NPFL, or the
fact that the majority of RUF recruits were Liberian, it maintains that these men were not
sent to invade Sierra Leone by the Accused. W6
B. Civil War in Sierra Leone {1991-19961
1, 1991-1992
30. In fighting against the RUF, the SLA cooperated with ULIMO, an armed group that
was initially formed to fight against the NPFL in Liberia,l07 ln addition, in early 1991 the
Sierra Leone Government created the Special Task Force ("STF"), an armed group
consisting of mainly Liberian recruits who were former ULIMO members, in order to assist
the SLA in repelling the rebels, mg
mo Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 77.
ml Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 78-80.
mz Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 78-81.
'O3 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 82-84.
IO4 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 415-417.
IOS Defence Final Trial Brief, para, 417,
W6 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 423,
W Exhibit P-031, "Repor"t for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Charles Ghankay Taylor and the War in
Sierra Leone, Stephen Ellis, 5 December 2006", p. 7; Varmuyan Sherif, Transcript 9 January 2008, pp, 796-799;
Exhibit D-026, "Submissions to the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Appendix 2, Statement
by His Excellency the President Alhaji Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, 4 August 2003".
M8 Exhibit D-469, "Letter from Brigadier General David L M Bropleh to Acting CDs, DHQ, Request for

---- End of Page 15 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / W. 18 May 2012

3% 1 oi
31. From at least August 1991 until at least May 1992, the RUF cooperated with the
NPFL in fighting against ULIMO and the SLA.lO9 In early 1992, however, at a time when
the RUF was seeking peace talks with President Momoh's APC Government, a group of
young military ofHcers led by 26-year-old Captain Valentine Strasser overthrew the APC
Government in a coup and established a ruling military council known as the National
Provisional Ruling Council ("NPRC").HO While many in the RUF saw this as the
culmination of their struggle to rid Sierra Leone of the APC's one-party state,] H the Strasser
regime refused to pursue negotiations with the RUF and instead mounted a crushing
offensive that drove the RUF towards and over the border into Liberia by the end of
1992/early 1993.**2
32. In early 1992, tensions emerged between the RUF and the NPFL over the way in
which the latter were treating Sierra Leonean civilians.l 13 Fighting erupted between the two
groups resulting in the execution of at least 30 Vanguards and escalating into a series of
three military operations code-named "Top 20", "Top 40" and "Top Final"H4 respectively,
in which the NPFL withdrew from Sierra Leone and returned to Liberia after June 1992.115
Some NPFL members remained in Sierra Leone and assumed senior roles within the RUF,
Redress on the Twenty-Six (26) Liberians Rejected at BTC BSTTT 4 Training Program on Constitutional
Grounds, November 30 2000"; TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2387-2388 (CS); Exhibit D-462
(Confidential); Exhibit D·026, "Submissions to the Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Commission,
Appendix 2, Statement by His Excellency the President Alhaji Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, 4 August 2003".
mq Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 14 July 2009, pp. 24328-24329; Transcript 20 July 2009, pp. 24796-
24797; Transcript 10 September 2009, pp. 28535-28536, 28563-28564; Transcript 22 September 2009, pp.
29296, 29298-29299; Transcript 15 September 2009, pp. 28939-28940; Transcript 25 November 2009, pp.
32367-32369.
H0 Exhibit P-031, "Report for the Special Court for Sierra Leone, Charles Ghankay Taylor and the War in
Sierra Leone, Stephen Ellis;" Stephen Ellis, Transcript 22 September 2008, p. 16906; Charles Ngebeh,
Transcript 22 March 2010, p. 37781.
HI Fayia Musa, Transcript 14 April 2010, pp. 38928-38929.
H2 Exhibit D-062, "How Diamonds Fuelled the Conflict, Chronology of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone
Diamonds, Africa Confidential, April 1998", p. 2; Fayia Musa, Transcript 14 April 2010, p. 38929.
H3 TF1-561, Transcript 14 May 2008, p. 9862; TF1-371, Transcript 25 January 2008, pp. 2235-2237 (CS);
TF1-168, Transcript 21 January 2009, p. 23167 (CS); Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 20 July 2009, pp.
24812, 24839.
H4 TF1-168, Transcript 23 January 2009, pp. 23437-23438 (CS); Fayia Musa, Transcript 14 April 2010, pp.
38897, 38900; Foday Lansana, Transcript 20 February 2008, pp. 4371-4373.
H5 Fayia Musa, Transcript 14 April 2010, pp. 38908-38909, 38913-38914; Exhibit P-277 (Confidential), pp.
00018120-00018121; Jabaty Jaward, Transcript 14 July 2008, p. 13670; TF1-168, Transcript 21 January 2009,
pp. 23212-23213 (CS); Isaac Mongor, Transcript 3 April 2008, pp. 6615-6617.

---- End of Page 16 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / 18 May 2012

ia tccl
including Denis Mingo (a.k.a. Superman),l 16 Isaac Mongorl 17 and Foday Lansana (a.k.a. CO
33. The Prosecution claims that after the initial attack in March 1991, the Accused sent
NPFL troops including radio operators and commandos from Liberia to reinforce the RUF
forces fighting on the front lines in Sierra Leone, and created and equipped a special unit
known as "Black Gadaffa" tasked with regaining the border areas of Sierra Leone and
preventing ULIMO from cutting off the Liberia-Sierra Leone supply channelsllg The
Prosecution further claims that Taylor's forces remained in Sierra Leone, directing and
artici atin in the fi htin and the crimes committed a ainst civi1ians;l2O and that even
P P g g g g
after the NPFL's withdrawal from Sierra Leone in June 1992, the Accused continued his
involvement, participation and concerted action within the RUFIZI and was in contact with
Sankoh through radio communication, checking on the situation within the RUF.l22 The
Prosecution further alleges that the Accused ordered the RUF to capture Sierra Leone's
diamondiferous areas and thereafter provided the RUF with arms and ammunition in
exchange for diamonds. 123
34. The Defence argues that Charles Taylor's involvement in the initial stages of the
Sierra Leone conflict was not intended to aid Sankoh's revolution but rather was "a strategic
expansion that would create a frontier buffer zone behind which the revolution in Liberia
could be adequately protected" against ULIMO.l24 It submits further that while the RUF
obtained "some ammunition" from Taylor in this early part of the war, his contribution was
negligible and not sufficient to support an RUF military victory.l25 It submits further that by
May/June 1992, about a year after the launch of the invasion into Sierra Leone, Taylor cut
back his support to Foday Sankoh and ultimately withdrew all the NPFL forces from Sierra
lm TF1-371, Transcript 25 January 2008, pp. 2258-2259 (CS); TF1-567, Transcript 2 July 2008, p. 12873.
H7 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 11 March 2008, pp. 5712, 5722-5723; TF1-371, Transcript 25 January 2008,
pp. 2258-2259 (CS);
HS TF1-567, Transcript 2 July 2008, pp. 12830-12831; Dauda Aruna Fomie, Transcript 1 December 2008, p.
21351.
H9 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 82-83
120 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 84.
m Prosecution Final Trial Brief; paras 84-94.
H2 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 85, 93-101.
I2} Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 86-87, 206, 349.
D4 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 428, 814-820.
Us Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 428.

---- End of Page 17 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 4/ (M 18 May 2012

3% 1 1G
Leone in mid—l992 during Operation Top Final.126 The Defence also maintains that
Operation Top Final and the NPFL's withdrawal caused a rift between the Accused and
Foday Sankoh, with the two men ceasing all contact from mid—1992 until 1999.127 The
Defence denies that the Accused maintained radio communications with Foday Sankoh or
the RUF from mid—l992 to the time of the Junta in 1997,128 or that he provided the RUF
with arms and ammunition after May 1992,129 or that the RUF provided the Accused with
diamonds.1311 The Defence submits that it would not have been possible for the Accused to
su l the RUF with arms and ammunition because ULIMO controlled the Liberian—Sierra
PP Y
Leonean border sem rere 1992 umu 1996.131
2. 1993-1995
35. Throughout the early period of the civil war, the RUF were scattered throughout the
jungles of Sierra Leone, from where fighters launched guerrilla attacks on towns in order to
capture arms, ammunition and other supplies. ln late 1993, after the capture of Kono, the
RUF retreated from Kono District and crossed into Kailahun District, where they maintained
control over many of the major towns until early 1994.132 The RUF then moved to Kenema
District, capturing the Tongo mining area and establishing their main base at "Camp
Zogoda", in the Kambui Hills.133 ln late 1994 or early 1995, the RUF attacked the
international mining company Sierra Rutile in Bonthe District, holding the site until a
counter—attack by SLA forces in January 1995.134
**6 Defence rieer r1~1e1B1~1e1; paras 429-430.
127 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 431; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 10 September 2009, pp. 28669-
28670; Transcript 26 October 2009, pp. 30245-30254, 30255-30256; Transcript 7 September 2009, p. 28192;
Fayia Musa, Transcript 14 April 2010, p. 38915.
128 Defence Final Trial Briefj para. 820.
129 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 430-431.
*1*1 Defence Response to Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 73-81.
131 Defence Final Trial Brief] paras 434-436.
132 Martin George, Transcript 22 April 2010, pp. 39702-39704; TF1-168, Transcript 21 January 2009, pp.
23228-23230(CS); Exhibit P-277 (Confidential), p. 31.
133 Martin George, Transcript 22 April 2010, pp. 39704-39706; TF1-567, Transcript 2 July 2008, pp. 12874-
12875; TF1-168, Transcript 21 January 2009, pp. 23233-23236; Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 22 March 2010, pp.
37790-37791; Martin George, Transcript 22 April 2010, pp. 39708-39712. For the fact that Camp Zogoda was
located in the Kambui Hils, see TF1-371, Transcript 25 January 2008, p. 2251; TF1-516, Transcript 8 April
2008, p. 6839; Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 4 December 2008, p. 21762; TF1-168, Transcript 21 January
2009, p. 23488.
134 TF1-567, Transcript 2 July 2008, p. 12876; Perry Kamara, Transcript 4 February 2008, pp. 3053-3054;
Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 12 April 2010, p. 38653; Martin George, Transcript 22 April 2010, pp. 39712-
39716; Issa Sesay, Transcript 6 July 2010, p. 43747.

---- End of Page 18 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T J Cb 18 May 2012

3%; 1 1 1
36. ln March 1995, some RUF fighters launched several ambushes near Freetown,
prompting Strasser's NPRC government to invite a South African private security firm
known as Executive Outcomes to assist in repelling the RUF. 135 Executive Outcomes trained
the SLA and local militia groups, including Donsos, Gbethis, Tamboros and Kamajors.
These combined forces repelled the RUF fighters that were located near the Freetown
Peninsula, forcing them to withdraw to Fogbo and then Makoot.136 This defeat prompted the
RUF to initiate peace talks with the NPRC. In early 1995, preliminary talks were held
between the two groups in Yamoussoukro, Cote d’Ivoire. 137
37. The Prosecution submits that RUF persomrel remained in Liberia until late 1992 or
early 1993 and that Gbamga, Taylor's Headquarters, continued to be the transit point
through which Sankoh and the RUF fighters would transit to and from Sierra Leone;l38 and
that until access to the Sierra Leone/Liberian border was significantly reduced, Taylor
regularly provided the RUF with arms, ammunition, food and medicines from various areas
in Liberia within his control, 139 as well as communication equipment,l40 training suppor"t,14l
and a safe haven,142 in order to sustain the RUF war in Sierra Leone. The Prosecution further
alleges that in late 1992, Sankoh and Taylor planned the capture of diamond-rich Kono
District, Taylor provided the arms and ammunition for that attack and that after Kono was
captured, Sankoh took diamonds to the Accused in exchange for more ammunitionm lt
further alleges that during this period and throughout the conflict in Sierra Leone, the i
Accused continued to provide the leaders of the RUF and AFRC/RUF with strategic
instruction, direction and guidance in relation to a range of political, military and other
135 Exhibit D-062, "How Diamonds Fuelled the Conflict, Chronology of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone
Diamonds, Africa Confidential, April 1998", p. 4; Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 23 March 2010, pp. 37825-37827.
136 Exhibit D-062, "How Diamonds Fuelled the Conflict, Chronology of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone
Diamonds, Africa Confidential, April 1998", p. 4; Stephen Smith, Transcript 22 September 2008, pp. 16911-
16914; Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 23 March 2010, pp. 37825-37827; Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 23 March
2010, pp. 37834-37835.
137 Exhibit P-277 (Confidential), p. 43; TF1-168, Transcript 22 January 2009, p. 23270; Issa Sesay,
Transcript 6 July 2010, pp. 43738-43739.yExhibit P-567, "Sierra Leone Web, Sierra Leone News, March 1996";
Exhibit D-062, "How Diamonds Fuelled the Conflict, Chronology of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone Diamonds,
Africa Confidential, April 1998", pp. 4-5; Stephen Smith, Transcript 22 September 2008, pp. 16913-16916.
138 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 86.
139 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 88-94.
140 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 93-101.
M1 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 102-110.
142 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 111-1 13.
143 Prosecution Final Trial Brief; paras 86 - 88.

---- End of Page 19 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T A Z 18 May 2012
=\

@$,111
mattersm including advising the RUF to set up "jung1es" from which to launch attacks,l45
advising the RUF to attack "a maj0r p1ace" in order to capture the attention of the
interi1ationa1 community and to force the Strasser Government into agreeing to a peace
dea1l46 and advising the RUF to set up an "exteri1a1 de1egation" that would handle dip10matic
re1ations. 147
38. The Defence argues that ii0m late 1992 or early 1993 until 1996, the border between
Sierra Leone and Liberia was effectively c10sed by the activities of ULIMO and that it
remained c10sed during the 1996 Sierra Leone e1ections.l48 The Defence maintains that alter
the RUF were pushed to the border by the NPRC regime forces, the former changed their
tactics by waging a "se1f-reliant strugg1e" in which they set up bases in vari0us jungles in
Sierra Leone and 0btained arms and ammunition principally ii0m ambushes and battles, but
not from Liberia.l49 The Defence specifically denies that the Accused was in radi0 contact
with Sankoh or the RUF alter 1992 or that he ordered the Sierra Rutile attack.l5O
3. E1ections in Sierra Leone and "Operation St0p E1ection" g 1996-1997)
39. Strasser announced that elections were to be held in Sierra Leone but, before these
cou1d take place, he was overthrown as leader of the NPRC government by his deputy,
Brigadier General Julius Maada Bi0.l5l Peace talks between the NPRC Government and the
RUF were scheduled to take place in C0te d’1v0ire but despite calls ii0m the latter for peace
before dem0cratic e1ections,l52 presidential elections were held in Sierra Leone on 26 and 27
February 1996 before any peace agreement was signed. However, as no candidate w0n the
necessary percentage of the v0te, it was necessary to h01d a second round of v0ting.l53
Before the second round of v0ting cou1d cornmence, Sankoh called an RUF forum in
M4 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 1 19-120.
M5 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 121.
M6 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 122-124.
M7 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 125.
M8 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 434-436.
M9 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 435-436.
wo Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 820-835.
15 I Exhibit D-062, "How Diamonds Fuelled the Conf1ict, Chronology of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone
Diamonds, Africa Confidential, April 1998", p. 4; Exhibit P-329, "Hurnan Rights Watch Report, Sierra Leone:
Getting Away with Murder, Mutilation and Rape, New Testirn0ny fr0rn Sierra Leone, V01. 11, No.3, Part [II,
July l999", p. 1.
152 TF1-168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp. 23265-23267 (CS).
153 Exhibit D-062, "How Diamonds Fuelled the Conf1ict, Chronology of Sierra Leone, Sierra Leone
Diamonds, Africa Contidential, April 1998", p. 4.

---- End of Page 20 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T J Sm 18 May 2012 %

Ba i s 2
Zogoda and ordered "Operation Stop Election"154 during which the disgruntled RUF
attacked several towns, including Bo, Magburaka and Kenema155 and committed numerous
atrocities against civilians, including carving "RUF" on the chests of civilians and the
amputation of the fingers and/or hands of those who attempted to vote. 156
40. On 15 March 1996, Ahmad Tejan Kabbah was elected President of Sierra Leone and
was inaugurated two weeks later, on 29 March 1996.151 Kabbah continued peace
negotiations with the RUF and on 30 November 1996, the Abidjan Peace Accord was
si ed1511 wherein Foda Sankoh a eed to a ceasefire, the RUF was anted the status of a
an Y gf gf
"political movement" and its members an amnesty against prosecution for their past
crimes. 159 The temporary cessation of active hostilities brought about by the Abidjan Accord
was short—lived and the civil war in Sierra Leone continued. 1611 In November 1996, the SLA
and the Kamajors attacked the RUF base in Zogoda, forcing the RUF from their stronghold
and into Kailahun and Pujehun Districts.161 In March 1997 while returning to Sierra Leone
from Cote d’1voire, Sankoh was detained by Nigerian authorities for possession of arms and
ammunition11"2 and kept under house arrest. He was however, permitted to remain in contact
with the RUF by radio.1113 Members of the RUF's External Delegation, who did not support
Sankoh's lack of respect for the peace negotiations at Abidjan, took advantage of Sankoh's
1511 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 12 November 2008, pp. 20104-20106.
155 Exhibit P-277 (confidential), p. 42; Issa Sesay, Transcript 6 July 2010, p. 43746; Transcript 17 August
2010, p. 46494; Augustine Mallah, Transcript 12 November 2008, pp. 20107-20108; Samuel Kargbo, Transcript
21 May 2008, pp. 10422-10423; Isaac Mongor, Transcript 10 March 2008, pp. 5697-5698.
1511 Issa Sesay, Transcript 6 July 2010, p. 43746; Transcript 17 August 2010, p. 46494; Isaac Mongor,
Transcript 10 March 2008, pp. 5697-5698; Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, pp. 10422-10423;
Augustine Mallah, Transcript 12 November 2008, pp. 20107-20108; TFl-375, Transcript 23 June 2010, p.
12483.
157 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 28 April 2008 , p. 8677; Alice Pyne, Transcript 20 June 2008, p.
12347; Exhibit P-567, "Sie1ra Leone Web, Sierra Leone News, March l996".
1511 Fayia Musa, Transcript 14 April 2010, p. 39014; Exhibit P-277 (confidential), p. 43; Exhibit D-087,
"Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United
Front"; Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact O; Exhibit D-199, "Special ECOWAS Report on Successful
Peace Talks in Lomé, l999", pp. 35-36; Exhibit D-087, "Peace Agreement between the Government of the
Republic of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF/SL)", Articles 13 and 14.
159 Exhibit D-199, "Special ECOWAS Report on Successful Peace Talks in Lomé, l999", pp. 35-36; Exhibit
D-087, "Peace Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone and the Revolutionary
United Front (RUF/SL)", Articles 13 and 14.
160 Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact T; Admitted Facts and Law, Agreed Fact 28.
161 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 12 November 2008, pp. 20108-20112; Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 23
March 2010, pp. 37842-37846; Martin George, Transcript 23 April 2010, pp. 39748-39750.
1112 Exhibit P-078, "Sie1ra Leone 1998, A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", p. 2; Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, p. 39098; Issa Sesay, Transcript 6 July 2010, p. 43737.
163 Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, p. 39100.

---- End of Page 21 ---------------------------


Case No.: scsr-03-01-r / 18 May 2012
N

Ea a 1 at
absence to advocate for change of leadership of the RUFI64 Bockarie, however, remained
loyal to Sankoh and on 29 March 1997 ordered the arrest of the External Delegation,
accusing them of attempting to take over control of the RUF. 165
41. The Prosecution claims that Taylor convinced Sankoh to take part in the peace talks
in Cote d’1voire in 1996, to negotiate a peace deal which would allow the RUF to end its
isolation in Sierra Leone. The Prosecution further alleges that Taylor convinced the RUF to
participate in the peace talks in order to ensure that the RUF would survive to continue its
fight to control the Sierra Leonean people and territory and to pillage the resources of Sierra
Leone.l66 It submits that although the plan to disrupt the elections by teirorising civilians
was not devised by the Accused, the RUF leadership sought his approval and guidance
before implementing Operation Stop Election, and that the Accused approved of it, telling
Sankoh that the plan "was not a bad one".l°7 The Defence denies this allegation and
maintains that the Accused was not in contact with Sankoh at this time.l°8 It submits that
Foday Sankoh bears full responsibility for the failure of the Abidjan Peace Accord and for
the continuation of the war thereafter. 169
C. AF RC/RUF Junta Period g1997-l998[
1. AFRC Coup
42. Disillusionment grew within SLA ranks as a result of Kabbah's support for the local
militias rather than the professional army and, on 25 May 1997, a group of SLA soldiers
overthrew the Kabbah Government in a coup d’état.l7O On 28 May 1997, the group
IM Issa Sesay, Transcript 6 July 2010, pp. 43707-4371 1; Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 15 September 2008,
pp. 16268-16269; Exhibit P-277 (confidential), pp. 18144-18148; Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, pp.
39056-39058, 39081, 39101; TF1-168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp. 23296-29302 (CS).; Exhibit P-531,
"Article, Sierraleone.org, Sierra Leone Web, Sierra Leone News, March l997"; Exhibit D-083, "Expo Times
Gazette, Vol. 1, No. 44, Kabbah Hails New RUF, 17 March l997".
M5 Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, pp. 39110-39112; TF1-168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp.
23313-23316 (CS); Issa Sesay, Transcript 7 July 2010, pp. 43881-43892; Exhibit P-067, "RUF People's Army,
Situation Report to Foday Sankoh from the Black Guard Commander", pp. 9672-9681; Exhibit P-277 S
(confidential), pp. 18160-18161; Exhibit P-531, "Article, Sierraleone.org, Sierra Leone Web, Sierra Leone
News, March l997".
I66 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 136.
M Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 130-133.
mg Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 820, 836-841.
mg Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 447. .
no Admitted Facts and Law, Agreed Fact 17; Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact D; Prosecutor v
Taylor, SCSL-03-1-T-765, Decision on Defence Application for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts from the
AFRC Trial Judgement pursuant to Rule 94(B), 23 March 2009 [Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC

---- End of Page 22 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T J gg 18 May 2012 %

1 ?>%| 1S`
announced that they had formed the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council ("AFRC") and
that they had assumed the governance of Sierra Leone.{7{ Koroma assumed the leadership of
the AFRC, while President Kabbah went into exile in neighbouring Guinea.{72 W"hile in
exile, Kabbah united the local militias into a single armed force, known as the Civil Defence
Forces ("CDF"). *73
43. Shortly after the AFRC seized power, the RUF joined the AFRC in governing Sierra
Leone.{74 As the founders of the AFRC belonged to the Sierra Leonean Army and had
therefore been fighting the RUF since 1991, the coalition between the two factions was not
based on longstanding common interests; both factions officially declared that they were
'oinin forces to brin eace and olitical stabilit to Sierra Leone. On 18 June 1997 the
J S S P P Y 7
RUF issued an ofhcial apology for its crimes, and praised Koroma's government.{75
44. The coup was widely condemned by the international community.{7° On 26 August
1997, members of the Economic Community of West African States ("ECOWAS") agreed
to an almost total embargo against Sierra Leone and raised the possibility of using armed
force.{77 A Ministerial Committee of Four, comprising the foreign ministers of Nigeria,
Guinea, Cote d’Ivoire and Ghana, was charged with the responsibility of implementing the
ECOWAS initiatives.{78 On 29 August 1997, the Economic Community of West African
States Cease-fire Monitoring Group ("ECOMOG"), a Nigerian-led West African
Adjudicated Facts], Annex A, Fact 1.
{7{ Exhibit P-100, "Supplement to the Sierra Leone Gazette No. 34, 28 May 1997, Public Notice No. 3 of
l997", Proclamation Administration of Sierra Leone; Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact D. .
{72 Admitted Facts and Law, Agreed Fact 18; Exhibit P-329, "Human Rights Watch Report, Sierra Leone:
Getting Away with Murder, Mutilation and Rape, New Testimony from Sierra Leone, Vol. ll, No.3, Part III,
July l999", p. 2.
{73 Exhibit D-169, "UN Security Council, Second Progress Report of the Secretary·General on the United
Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1998/960, 16 October l998", p. 00012371; Exhibit D-443, "Report
To the United Nations Secretary General, Mr Kofi Annan, New York, From Interim Leader-RUF/ SL, General
Issah H. Sesay, Detail Information About The RUF and Her Position on the Ongoing Peace Process, April 6
200l", p. 00025662; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 29 July 2009, p. 25559.
{74 Joint Filing by the Prosecution and Defence: Admitted Facts and Law, No. 30.
{75 Decision on Defence Application for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts from the AFRC Trial
Judgement Pursuant to Rule 94(B), Fact 1.
{76 Exhibit D-135, "ECOWAS, Report of the Committee of Four on the Situation in Sierra Leone, Abuja,
Ni eria, 26 Au ust l997", pp. 1-2; Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone 1998, A Year of Atrocities A ainst Civilians,
8 S 8
Amnesty International Report", p. 2.
{77 Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact AC; Exhibit D-135, "ECOWAS, Report of the Committee of
Four on the Situation in Sierra Leone, Abuja, Nigeria, 26 August l997", p. 3; Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone 1998,
A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International Report", p. 2; Exhibit P-034, "Profile: Economic
Community of West African States (ECOWAS)".
~ {78 Exhibit D-135, "ECOWAS, Report of the Committee of Four on the Situation in Sierra Leone, Abuja,

---- End of Page 23 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / JM 18 May 2012

Bai i lc
intervention force that had previously fought in Liberia, had its mandate extended to cover
the civil war in Sierra Leonem ln October 1997, the United Nations Security Council
adopted Resolution 1132 which imposed mandatory sanctions on Sierra Leone.l80 The
United Nations Security Council also expressed its full support for the efforts and role of the
ECOWAS Committee to resolve the political crisis and restore lasting peace and stability to
Sierra Leonem
45. By this time, peace had been realised in Liberia after seven years of conflict and, on
19 July 1997, the Accused was elected as President.l82 ECOWAS invited the Liberian
Govemment to join the Committee of Four for Sierra Leone, thereby transforming it into a
Committee of Five.l83 On 23 October 1997, the Committee of Five met in Conakry and
agreed to a peace plan for Sierra Leone.l84 The Conakry Accord called for the cessation of
hostilities, humanitarian assistance for refugees and the reinstatement of President Kabbah
Nigeria, 26 August 1997", p. 3.
179 Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact Z; Exhibit P-031, "Report for the Special Court for Sierra
Leone ~ Charles Taylor and the War and Sierra Leone, Report and Corrigenda, Stephen Ellis, p. 4.
180 Exhibit P-329, "Human Rights Watch Report, Sierra Leone: Getting Away with Murder, Mutilation and
Rape, New Testimony from Sierra Leone, Vol. 11, No.3, Part 111, July 1999", p. 2; Exhibit P-069, "United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1132, S/RES/1132 (1997), 8 October 1997"; Exhibit P-305, "United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1181, S/RES/1181 (1998), 13 July l998"; Exhibit P-311, "United Nations
Security Council Resolution 1231, S/RES/1231 (1999), 11 March 1999", paras 1-4, 7-12; Exhibit D-135,
"ECOWAS, Report of the Committee of Four on the Situation in Siena Leone, Abuja, Nigeria, 26 August
1997", p. 3.
181 Exhibit P-069, "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1132, S/RES/1132 (1997), 8 October 1997";
Exhibit P-305, "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1181, S/RES/1181 (1998), 13 July 1998"; Exhibit
P-311, "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1231, S/RES/1231 (1999), 11 March 1999", paras 1-4, 7-
12.
182 Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact L; Exhibit D-127, "New African, No. 358, "Taylor's
Triumph, Liberia's 100 Days, December l997".
183 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 14 July 2009, pp. 24331—24332; Transcript 27 July 2009, pp. 25299-
25300; Exhibit D-136, "ECOWAS, Final Report, Sixteenth Meeting of ECOWAS Chiefs of State, Abuja,
Nigeria, 26-27 August 1997", pp. 3, 10.
184 Exhibit D-339, "ECOWAS, Communiqué, Sixth Meeting of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the
Committee of Five on Sierra Leone, Conakry, 22—23 October 1997"; Exhibit P-036, "ECOWAS Six-Month
Peace Plan for Sierra Leone 23 October 1997 ~ 22 April 1998"; Exhibit D-342, "ECOWAS, Second Report of
the ECOWAS Committee of Five on Sierra Leone to the United Nations Security Council Pursuant to Resolution
S/RES/1132 (1997) of8 October 1997", p. 2.

---- End of Page 24 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T X pj ; 18 May 2012

3 an ra-
by 22 April 1998.lgS Hostilities continued, however, notwithstanding the signing of the
A Conakry Accord.l86
46. The Prosecution maintains that during the Junta and throughout its existence, Taylor
provided invaluable instruction, direction and guidance to the leaders of the AFRC/RUF
I alliance and that this was often crucial to the continued survival of the alliance as a viable
} entity with the ability to continue carrying out the campaign of terror against the civilian
population of Sierra Leone, encompassing all the crimes alleged in the Indictment.l87 The
Prosecution further claims that in violation of a UN arms embargo against the AF RC/RUF
Junta, Taylor provided vital arms and ammunition to the Junta in exchange for diamonds. 188
47. The Defence refutes the Prosecution allegations, arguing that the Accused had no
conrrnunication with any members of the Junta Government nor did he provide the Junta
with arms and ammunition.l89 The Defence argues that the Accused was not in a position to
· provide support for the Junta, because at the time he had neither the time nor the means to
provide support as he had just assumed the Presidency and Liberia was bankrupt and subject
to an arms embargo.l90 The Defence further argues that the Accused supported the
I restoration of the Kabbah Government and sought to use his position on the Committee of
Five to secure peace in Sierra Leonem The Defence denies that the Accused organised the
Magburaka arms shipment and instead submits that the arms were purchased by Sankoh
from Burkina Faso, prior to his arrest in Nigeria}92
2. ECOMOG Intervention g 1998-1999)
J 48. On 5 February 1998, ECOMOG commenced a major offensive against the
AFRC/RUF forces and, by 14 February 2008, had succeeded in expelling the Junta from
{S5 Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone 1998, A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", p. 2; Exhibit D-339, "ECOWAS, Communique, Sixth Meeting of the Foreign Affairs Ministers of the
Committee of Five on Sierra Leone, Conakry, 22—23 October 1997"; Exhibit D-342, "ECOWAS, Second Report
of the ECOWAS Committee of Five on Sierra Leone to the United Nations Security Council Pursuant to
Resolution S/RES/1132 (1997) of8 October 1997", p. 2.
{S6 Decision on Judicial Notice of AF RC Adjudicated Facts, Annex A, Fact 5.
{S7 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 139.
{gg Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 223-237.
{S9 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 842-868, 1042-1062.
'°° oaraaaa Final Trial Briar, paras 461-471, 707.
*9* Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 87.
m Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 862.

---- End of Page 25 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 4/ QQ 18 May 2012

B2: r %
Freetownm On 10 March 1998, the Kabbah Government was restored to power in Sierra
Leone.l94 By mid-March 1998, ECOMOG, acting in concert with the CDF, extended its
control to Bo, Kenema and Zimmi in the south of the country; Lunsar, Makeni and Kabala
in the north; and Daru in the east.l95
49. Bockarie's group retreated from Kenema to Kailahun Town, while the AFRC/RUF
fighters who had been based in Freetown retreated to Masiaka under the leadership of
Koroma.l% Unable to pay his fighters, Koroma ordered an operation known as "Operation
Pay Yourself ’ in which his fighters engaged in extensive looting.l97
50. The Prosecution submits that during this period the AF RC/RUF depended
overwhelmingly on Taylor's direct provision of arms and ammunition to start repelling the
ECOMOG advancement or to contain the situation,l98 and that in exchange for vast amounts
of diamonds paid to Taylor, Sam Bockarie, as commander of the troops on the ground in
Sierra Leone, received substantial amounts of arms, ammunition and other assistance from
Taylor and Taylor's subordinates during Bockarie's numerous trips to Liberialqq The
Prosecution claims that the arms and ammunition obtained from Taylor and his subordinates
were used inter alia, to reinforce the RUF at their training base at Bunumbu,200 to capture
W3 Exhibit D-155, "United Nations Security Council, Fourth Report of the Secretary-General on the
Situation in Sierra Leone, S/1998/249, 18 March 1998", para. 6; Charles Gharrkay Taylor, Transcript 29 July
2009, pp. 25571-25572; Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact AD; Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-1-T-
765, Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC Adjudicated Facts, Annex A, Fact 5.
W4 Exhibit D-343, "United Nations Security Council Resolution 1156, S/RES/1156 (1998), 16 March 1998;
Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone 1998, A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International Report", pp.
1-2; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 7 September 2009, pp. 28261-28262; Decision on Judicial Notice,
Annex A, Fact E.
W5 Exhibit D-155, "United Nations Security Council, Fourth Report of the Secretary-General on the
Situation in Sierra Leone, S/1998/249, 18 March 1998"; Exhibit P-130, "United Nations Security Council, Fifth
Report of the Secretary-General on the Situation in Sierra Leone, S/1998/486, 9 June 1998"; Exhibit D-191,
"United Nations Security Council, Fifth Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Observer
Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1999/237, 4 March 1999", para. 13; Exhibit P-132, "IRJN West Africa, Update 146,
University of Pennsylvania African Studies Center,16 February l998".
W6 Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC Adjudicated Facts, Annex A, Fact 5; Exhibit P-132, "IR1N West
Africa, Update 146, University of Pennsylvania African Studies Center,16 February 1998"; Exhibit D-076, "Map
of Sierra Leone (marked by Dauda Aruna Forrrie)"; Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, pp. 10482-10486;
Issa Sesay, Transcript 7 July 2010, pp. 43959-43960; Isaac Mongor, Transcript 11 March 2008, p. 5733; TF1-
371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2349-2350 (CS).
W7 The fighters looted food, clothing and vehicles from the civilian population and broke into a bank to loot
money. Issa Sesay, Transcript 7 July 2010, pp. 43963-43968; Isaac Mongor, Transcript 11 March 2008, pp;
5734-5735; TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2352-2355 (CS); TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, pp.
12501-12502; Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7934-7937.
wg Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 238.
W) Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 239-248.
200 Prosecution Final Trial Brief para. 250.

---- End of Page 26 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012

Est ta
and hold on to Kono,2m and during the "Fitti—Fatta" mission, in the course of which
operations the RUF/AF RC forces committed crimes against the civilian population of Sierra
Leone.2O2
51. The Defence refutes the Prosecution allegations and submits that after President
Kabbah was reinstated, President Charles Taylor (as he then was) as a "point person" on the
Committee of Five, played a conciliatory role between the waning factions in Sierra
Leone.203
D. Civil War in Sierra Leone (1998-1999)
52. Following the ECOMOG Intervention, the RUF and AF RC forces retreated from
Freetown204 to Masiaka205 and onto Makeni.2O6 In late February—early March 1998,
combined AFRC/RUF forces attacked and ultimately captured Koidu Town (a.k.a. Kono),
the primary town in Kono District. 207
53. Koroma then went to Buedu to meet Bockarie and was later arrested by him on
suspicion of attempting to leave Sierra Leone with a large quantity of diamonds.208
Following this incident, Bockarie assumed control of the AFRC/RUF forces.2O9
201 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 251.
202 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 252-254.
203 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 502-517.
204 Decision on Judicial Notice, 23 March 2009, Annex A, Fact 5; Decision on the Prosecution Motion for
Judicial Notice, 7 December 2007, Annex A, Fact , AD.
205 Prosecutor v Taylor, SCSL-03-1-T, Decision on the Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice, 7 December
2007, Annex A, Fact AD; Prosecutor v Tay/or, SCSL-03-1-T, Decision on Judicial Notice, 23 March 2009,
Annex A, Fact 5; Exhibit D-155, "UN Security Council, Fourth Report of the Secretary-General on the Situation
in Sierra Leone, S/1998/249, 18 March 2008", p. 2, para 6
206 TFl-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2353-2354 (CS); Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, pp.
10495-10496; Isaac Mongor, Transcript ll March 2008, p. 5735; Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p.
3095; Foday Lansana, Transcript 21 February 2008, p. 4498; TFl-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12501; TFl-
539, Transcript 20 August 2008, p. 14136; Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, pp. 43991-43995.
207 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7943, 7946-7947; TFl-371, Transcript 28 January
2008, pp. 2355, 2358-2359 (CS); Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, pp. 10496-10497; Perry Kamara,
Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3098-3099; TFl-539, Transcript 20 August 2008, pp. 14139-14140; Isaac
Mongor, Transcript 1 1 March 2008, pp. 5737-5738; TFl-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, pp. 12503-12504.
203 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 22 May 2008, pp. 10526-10542; Exhibit D-084, "Revolutionary United Front,
Sierra Leone Defence Headquarters, Salute Report from Brigadier Issa Sesay, Battlefield Commander, RUF/SL,
to the Leader of the Revolution, 27 September l999", p. 6; Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, pp. 44018-44027.
209 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3109-3110; Isaac Mongor, Transcript ll March 2008, p.
5741; Exhibit D-009, "RUF Defence Headquarters, Salute report to the Leader of the Revolution, RUF/SL, from
Major General Sam Bockarie", p. 5, ERN 9662; Exhibit D-084, "Sierra Leone, Defence Headquarters, Salute
Report, from Brigadier Issa H. Sesay Battlefield Commander RUF/SL to the Leader of the Revolution, 27

---- End of Page 27 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 2/ 77 18 May 2012

38 u 2.0
54. A few weeks later, ECOMOG and the CDF regained control of Koidu Town and the
AFRC/RUF forces retreated to other locations in Kono District, including an area referred to
as "Su erman Ground".2111 Followin defeat of the AFRC/RUF forces at Koidu Town, Alex
P 8
Tamba Brima a.k.a. Gullit , a former SLA member of the Su reme Council, led another
P
ou of redominantl AFRC soldiers north to Koinadu to `oin SAJ Musa.211 B that
SY P P Y gu J Y
time, SAJ Musa had based in Koinadugu District in the north of Sierra Leone, leading a
breakaway group of predominantly AFRC troops, refusing to accept that AFRC soldiers be
subordinate to RUF soldiers.212 ln mid 1998, Brima's group commenced a march through
the north of Sierra Leone to Cam Rosos, where the established a base, while SAJ Musa's
P Y
group remained in Koinadugu.213
55. ln mid—1998, Bockarie instructed the RUF's battlefield commander for Kono
District, Denis Min o a.k.a. Su erman , to make another attem t to ca ture Koidu Town.214
8 P P P
The attack on Koidu Town code—named Operation Fitti—Fatta was a failure and Bockarie's
group suffered heavy casualties.215 Following this attack, Superman assumed the leadership
of a group of predominantly RUF fighters travelling to Koinadugu to join SAJ Musa's
ou .216 ln October 1998, however, there was a violent dis ute between Su erman's ou
SY P P P SY P
and SAJ Musa's group which resulted in Musa's group relocating to Camp Rosos, while
Superman's forces retreated to a place referred to as "Pumpkin Ground".217 Following this
September 1999", p. 6, ERN 7761. See also TF1-516, Transcript 8 April 2008, p. 6967; TF1-045, Transcript 13
November 2008, pp. 20202-20203; Transcript 17 November 2008, p. 20413; Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010,
p. 44028-44030, stating that Bockarie was the overall commander of the RUF at this point..
P
B10 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3112. 3182-3183; Issa Sesay, Transcript 11 August 2010,
p. 45973.
211 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8044; Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 4 December
2008, p. 21684; Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, p. 44053.
212 Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC Adjudicated Facts, Annex A, Fact 6; Issa Sesay, Transcript 7 July
2010, pp. 43982-43983.
213 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3173-3183.
214 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3160; Alice Pyne, Transcript 18 June 2008, pp. 12209-
12213; Transcript 19 June 2008, pp. 12233-12241.
215 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 11 March 2008, pp. 5749-5750; Alice Pyne, Transcript 19 June 2008, pp.
12236-12240; Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3170-3171; Foday Lansana, Transcript 21
February 2008, pp. 4517-4519; Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, pp. 44054-44055; Transcript 11 Au ust 2010,
8
p. 45972.
216 Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, pp. 44054—44055; Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3155-
3156, 3167-31769; TF1-375. Transcript 24 June 2008, pp. 12556-12557; Foday Lansana, Transcript 22 February
2008, pp. 4524-4525.
217 Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC Adjudicated Facts, Annex A, Fact 10; Komba Sumana, Transcript 6
October 2008, pp. 17966-17968; TF1-375, Transcript 24 June 2008, pp. 12578-12579; Perry Kamara, Transcript
6 February 2008, pp. 3209-3211; Foday Lansana, Transcript 22 February 2008, pp. 4524-4528.

---- End of Page 28 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T ·· 1 J 18 May 2012

?>%¤ at
incident, SAJ Musa severed ties with the RUF command and created an unaffiliated SLA
ou of a roximatel 1,000 fi ters at Cam Rosos, with Brima as his de ut .218
EY P PP Y P P Y
56. In late November 1998 or early December 1998, a meeting was held at Waterworks
in which Bockarie ordered his group to commence an attack.2l9 In mid-December 1998, an
attack on Kono commenced under the command of Issa Sesay, with ECOMOG forces
sustaining heavy casualties during their retreat.22O On 23 December 1998, Sesay's forces
ca tured Ma buraka and, on the followin da , took control of Makeni.22l
P S S Y
57. In mid-December 1998, SAJ Musa's group commenced its advance on Freetown and
by the end of December 1998 had reached Benguema on the outskirts of the capital.222
Following the capture of Benguema, SAJ Musa was killed and Brima took over as
commander of this group.223
58. The Prosecution submits that after the ECOMOG Intewention in mid-February 1998,
the Accused took immediate steps to secure the diamond-mining areas by planning or being
involved in a plan to take control and maintain control over Kono District. The plan was for
the AFRC/RUF to ho1d Kono and thereafter move to the capital to restore AFRC/RUF
control over Freetown. This plan resulted in the attacks on Kono in 1998. According to the
Prosecution a multi-axis offensive was implemented in late 1998 which culminated in the
attack on Freetown on 6 January 1999.224 _
218 Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC Adjudicated Facts, Annex A, Fact 10; Komba Sumana, Transcript 6
October 2008, pp. 17966-17968; TF1-375, 24 June 2008, pp. 12578-12579; Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February
2008, pp. 3209-3211; Foday Lansana, Transcript 22 February 2008, pp. 4524-4528.
219 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 11 March 2008, pp. 5789-5794; Karrnoh Kanneh, Transcript 9 May 2008, pp.
9418-9427; TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2410-2411 (CS); Transcript 30 January 2008, pp. 2640-
2642 (CS); Issa Sesay, Transcript 9 July 2010, pp. 44127-44129, 44138, 44160-44161.
220 Exhibit D-178, "United Nations Security Council, Second Report of the Secretary General on the United
Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1999/20, 7 January 1999", p. 1.
22] Exhibit P-093, "Restricted RUF/SL Comprehensive Report to Major Sam Bockarie from Brigadier Issa
Sesay on the Take Over of Koidu, 26 January 1999"; Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, pp. 44082—44083;
Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 23 March 2010, pp. 37918—37919; Alice Pyne, Transcript 19 June 2008, pp. 12269-
12272.
222 Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, pp. 3211-3213; Exhibit D-178, "United Nations Security
Council, Second Report of the Secretary General on the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone,
S/1999/20, 7 January 1999", p. 2.
323 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8243-8246; Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February
2008, pp. 3214-3216; Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC Adjudicated Facts, Annex A, Fact 13.
224 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 147-175.

---- End of Page 29 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T ,,.. 4/ 18 May 2012

3 Er 2 1-
59. The Prosecution claims that during the Freetown Invasion Bockarie went to
Monrovia to take instructions from the Accused225 and that during the second half of 1998
the Accused held clandestine meetings with Bockarie aimed at refining and implementing
the plan after the failed Fitti—Fatta mission.226 Furthermore, according to the Prosecution, the
Accused was instrumental in procuring and organising a major shipment of arms and
ammunition Burkina Faso that was supplied to the AFRC/RUF forces as part of this plan.227
60. The Defence denies that the Accused ever planned or ordered such offensives and
instead submits that the plan to capture Kono District was made by Bockarie and Superman
in Ma 1998.228 The Defence contests the alle ation that the Accused rovided Bockarie
Y S P
with arms and ammunition and argues that there is credible evidence that suggests that this
materiel was obtained from a variety of altemative sources.229 The Defence claims that the
Accused had never met Bockarie before his visit to Monrovia in September 1998230 but
acce ts that the Accused met with Bockarie on three occasions in late 1998 and maintains
P
that all meetings were open, transparent and arranged for the purpose of discussing
arrangements for facilitating peace in Sierra Leone.23 I
E. Civil War in Sierra Leone {1999-2002)
1. Freetown Attack
61. It is an adjudicated fact from the AF RC Trial Judgement that: "following the death
of SAJ Musa, the troops reorganised. On 5 January 1999, the Accused Brima gathered the
troops in Allen Town and told them the time had come to attack Freetown. On 6 January
1999, they invaded Freetown".232 During the operation, between 3,000 and 5,000 persons
were killed, including at least 2,000 civilians.233 Brima's forces held central Freetown for
four days, until a counter-attack by ECOMOG forces weakened their position.234 While the
225 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 173.
226 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 158-175, 1201.
227 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 257-264.
228 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 606.
229 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 926.
230 Defence rmi rmi Brief] para, 530.
23} Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 516-531, 920.
232 Decision on Judicial Notice of AF RC Adjudicated Facts, Annex A, Fact 14.
233 Exhibit D-191, "United Nations Security Council. Fifth Report of the Secretary General on the United
Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1999/237, 4 March 1999", para. 21,
P4 Exhibit D-191, "United Nations Security Council, Fifth Report of the Secretary General on the United

---- End of Page 30 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSI.-03-01-T 4/ 6'LQ 18 May 2012

38 12.2
AF RC managed a controlled retreat, RUF reinforcements arrived in Waterloo. On 24
February 1999, ECOMOG forces succeeded in expelling the rebels from Waterloo.235
62. The Prosecution submits that the Freetown invasion was a joint RUF and AF RC
operation.236 Brima commanded the AFRC troo s inside the cit while the RUF rovided
P P Y P
critical support by: (i) leading the nationwide offensive that altered the military balance in
Sierra Leone and made it possible for Brima's troops to enter Freetown;237 (ii) providing
communications, manpower and jet wamings;238 (iii) attacking ECOMOG forces at strategic
locations outside the city, which affected the battle inside;239 and (iv) giving orders from
Bockarie to be implemented during the attack.24O
63. The Defence submits that it was the AF RC, not the RUF, which planned and
executed the invasion and that the evidence that the Accused planned the attack with
Bockarie is contradictory and vague and does not show that the Accused "planned the
commission of crimes or was aware of the substantial likelihood of crimes as charged in the
Indictment as part of the January 6 invasion".241 Furthermore, the Defence maintains that the
arms and ammunition used by the AFRC to attack Freetown were not supplied by the
Accused, but rather captured by the AF RC during their approach to the capital.242
2. Lomé Peace Accord and Disarmament g 1999) J
64. On 7 January 1999, with the attack on Freetown ongoing, President Kabbah and
Foday Sankoh agreed to a ceasefire which was announced over the radio, but was
disregarded by the AFRC and RUF fighters. Further peace talks were facilitated by the
Accused and the other members of the Committee of Five and, on 18 May 1999, another
ceasefire agreement was signed in Lomé.243 This ceasefire agreement, however, failed to
Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1999/237, 4 March l999", para. 2; Decision on Judicial Notice of
AFRC Adjudicated Facts, Annex A, Fact 15.
235 Exhibit D—l9l, "United Nations Security Council, Fifth Report of the Secretary General on the United
Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1999/237, 4 March l999", para. 3.
236 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 513.
D7 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 514.
P8 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 515.
239 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 516.
M Prosecution Final Trial Brief para. 517.
241 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1345.
242 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1 1 12-1 1 13.
243 Exhibit D—l99, "Special ECOWAS Report on Successful Peace Talks in Lomé, l999", pp. 3, 9, 1 1.

---- End of Page 31 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL—O3—O1—'1" / 6* 18 May 2012 M

2% aw-}
bring about the end of hostilities.244 On 7 July 1999, the Lomé Peace Accord was signed by
President Kabbah and Poday Sankoh.245 The Government of Sierra Leone and the RUF
agreed to the immediate release of Sankoh, the transformation of the RUP into a political
party that would become part of the Government of Sierra Leone and amnesty for all
waning factions, including RUP members.246 Sankoh received a formal position within the
Sierra Leonean Government as Chairman of the Commission for the Management of
Strategic Resources, National Reconstruction and Development, a position with the status of
Vice-President of Sierra Leone.247
65. Despite the signing of the Lomé Peace Accord, hostilities continued.244 A splinter
group of AF RC fighters loyal to Koroma and known as the ‘"West Side Boys" continued to
attack ECOMOG forces and the civilian population in Port Loko District.249 In September
1999, Koroma and 13 of his subordinates issued a document claiming that the APRC had
been unrepresented, unrecognised and marginalised in the Lomé Peace Agreement.250 On 28
September 1999, Sankoh travelled to Monrovia to participate in two days of peace talks with
Koroma that were mediated by the Accused.254 Subsequently, the AF RC was included
244 Exhibit P-264, "Radio Log-Book 0008636-0008726", pp. 8653, 8656, 8658, 8660, 8662, 8665, 8668A,
8672; Exhibit D-022, "Sie1ra Leone News Archives, September 1999, Sierra Leone Web, 30 September l999";
Exhibit D-206, "Outgoing Code Cable, Urgent Issues, President Taylor's Request for Teleconference with the
Secretary General, to Riza for Secretary General, United Nations, New York, from Downes-Thomas, RSG,
UNOL, Monrovia, 6 August l999;" Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 12 August 2009, pp. 26668-26669; Issa
Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44201-44203; Corinne Dufka, Transcript 22 January 2008, p. 1930; Isaac
Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, pp. 6178-6180.
245 Exhibit D-224, "Letter to the President of Sierra Leone, Dr Alhaji Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, from Foday
Saybana Sankoh, 29 October l999", para. 3; Stephen Ellis, Transcript 17 January 2008, pp. 1482-1483.
446 Exhibit D-199, "Special ECOWAS Report on Successful Peace Talks in Lomé, l999", pp. 35-36.
244 Exhibit D-199, "Special ECOWAS Report on Successful Peace Talks in Lomé, l999", pp. 35-36.
248 Exhibit P-264, "Radio Log-Book 0008636-0008726", pp. 8680-8681, 8687, 8701; Exhibit D-022, "Sierra
Leone News Archives, September 1999, Sierra Leone Web, 30 September l999"; Exhibit D-206, "Outgoing
Code Cable, Urgent Issues, President Taylor's Request for Teleconference with the Secretary General, to Riza
for Secretary General, United Nations, New York, from Downes-Thomas, RSG, UNOL, Monrovia, 6 August
l999"; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 12 August 2009, pp 26668-26669; Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July
2010, pp. 44201-44203; Corinne Dufka, Transcript 22 January 2008, p. 1930; Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31
March 2008, pp. 6178-6180.
249 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44201-44203; Corinne Dufka, Transcript 22 January 2008, p.
1930; Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, pp. 6178-6180; Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April
2008, pp. 8416-8419; Transcript 24 April, pp. 8447-8760.
250 Exhibit D-022, "Sierra Leone News Archives, September 1999, Sierra Leone Web, 30 September l999".
254 Exhibit D-217, "Itinerary for the Visit of Hon. Foday Sankoh and Delegation Visit to Liberia, 8-30
September l999"; Exhibit P-530, "Ariicle, Sierra Leone News Archives, Sierra Leone Web, October l999"; Issa
Sesay, Transcript 14 July 2010, pp. 44430-44431; Exhibit D-022, "Sierra Leone News Archives, September
1999, Sierra Leone Web, 30 September l999"; Exhibit D-217, "Itinerary for the Visit of Hon. Foday Sankoh and
Delegation Visit to Liberia, 8-30 September l999".

---- End of Page 32 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T /4 18 May 2012 %

3*3 my
within the power—sharing government, with Koroma appointed as the Chairman of the
Commission for the Consolidation of Peace ("CCP").252
66. The Prosecution submits that the Accused's involvement in the Lome negotiations
were calculated to allow the Accused to give the appearance of a peacemaker, while
continuing his clandestine support for the RUF and AFRC.255 The Defence, however, denies
this allegation, and submits that the Accused's efforts towards achieving peace in Sierra
Leone were genuine.254 The disarmament process in Sierra Leone took time to eventuate.255
Bockarie strongly opposed RUF disarmament.256 On 14 December 1999 Bockarie resigned
from the RUF257 and in the same month left Sierra Leone with a group of men and relocated
to Monrovia.258 Some of the men who moved with Bockarie to Liberia were incorporated in
the Accused's ATU.259 The parties agree that Bockarie left Sierra Leone to Monrovia upon
the Accused's invitation, but while the Prosecution alleges that the Accused ordered
Bockarie to do so and that Bockarie's ariival in Liberia was kept secret,26U the Defence
submits that the Accused's actions were carried out under the auspices of ECOWAS as part
of the peace process.26l
3. RUF Capture of UNAMSIL Peacekeepers and Appointment of 1ssa Sesay as Interim
Leader (2000;
67. ln May 2000, the RUF captured between 400 and 500 UN peacekeepers in the area
between Lunsar and Makeni in Sierra Leone.262 Shortly after this, on 8 May 2000, Sankoh
was arrested by the Government of Sierra Leone and incarcerated in Freetown.265 Thereafter,
552 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 24 April 2008, pp. 8501-8503; Transcript 25 April 2008, p. 8644;
Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 August 2010, pp. 47190-4719].
555 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 1, 38.
255 Defence Final Trial Brief paras 965, 101 1.
255 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 26 November 2009, pp. 32562-32566.
556 TF1-371, Transcript 29 January 2008, pp. 2448-2450 (CS); Stephen Ellis, Transcript 18 January 2008 pp.
1595-1596; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 10 September 2009, pp. 28556-28557.
257 Exhibit D-003, "Radio Leg-Beers: BRN 8764.
555 TF1-371, Transcript 29 January 2008, pp. 2449-2451 (CS); Varmuyan Sherif, Transcript 9 January 2008,
pp. 882-883; Foday Lansana, Transcript 22 February 2008, pp. 4571. 4573-4574; TF1-516, Transcript 9 April
2008, pp. 7037-7038; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 17 August 2009, p. 26859
255 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 26 October 2009, pp. 30202-30203.
560 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 204, 334, 388.
26* Defence rmi rmi Brief, paras 663, 933, 1297.
562 Issa Sesay, Transcript 14 July 2010, pp. 44505-44513; Abu Keita. Transcript 23 January 2008, pp. 2030-
2032; Admitted Facts and Law, Agreed Fact 36.
5°5 Issa Sesay, Transcript 14 July 2010, pp. 44504-44505; Perry Kamara. Transcript 6 February 2008, p.

---- End of Page 33 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T /6/ Og 18 May 2012 w

$@126
the UN peacekeepers were taken to Liberia and released after having been held hostage for
approximately three weeks.264 Subsequently, and due to the arrest of Foday Sankoh, Issa
Sesay was appointed as interim leader of the RUF.265 From mid-2000 fighting between the
Government of Sierra Leone and the RUF ceased almost entirely266 and the RUF began to
take their commitment to disarm more seriously.267
68. The Prosecution submits that the Accused, as leader of the RUF, appointed Sesay as
the interim leader during an ECOWAS Heads of State meeting held in Monrovia on 26 July
2000.268 According to the Prosecution, the Accused ordered Sesay to release the hostages so
that the Accused could improve his standing in the international community and protect his
financial interests in Sierra Leone's diamond resources.269 The Defence, however, denies
that the Accused appointed Sesay as interim leader, and instead maintains that this
appointment was made by the ECOWAS Heads of State.270 The Defence submits that the
Accused earnestly negotiated for the unconditional release of the UN peacekeepers in
fulfilment of his responsibilities to ECOWAS and the international community.27l
_ 3269; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 16 November 2009, p. 31656 (the Accused agreed that an incident
occurred at Foday Sankoh's residence in Freetown); TF 1-338, Transcript 1 September 2008, pp. 15120-15121.
264 Issa Sesay, Transcript 14 July 2010, pp. 44515, 44538-44539; Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008,
pp. 3269-3270; Exhibit D-245, "Press Release, Secretary General Acknowledges Liberian President's Role in
Peacekeepers Release, SG/SM7396, Secretary General, Department of Public [nformation, New York, 15 May
2000"; Exhibit D-246, "Press release by the President of Liberia, Ministry of State for Presidential Affairs,
Liberia, 16 May 2000"; Exhibit D-244, "Press release by the President of Liberia, Ministry of State for
Presidential Affairs, Liberia, 13 May 2000"; Exhibit D-247, "Press release by the President of Liberia, Ministry
of State for Presidential Affairs, Liberia, 22 May 2000"; Exhibit D-250, "Fax—Letter, from the President of
Sierra Leone, Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, to the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary General,
Oluyemi Adeniji, Government Statement, 23 May 2000"; Exhibit D-253, "Letter from President of Liberia,
Dankpannah Dr Charles Ghankay Taylor to President of Sierra Leone, Alhaji Dr Ahmad Tejan Kabbah, 5 June
2000"; Stephen Ellis, Transcript 17 January 2008, p. 1482; Exhibit D-243, "Letter from General Issa Sesay, RUF
Field Commander, to the President of Liberia, Dankpannah Dr Charles Ghankay Taylor, 1 1 May 2000".
265 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 180; Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 686-689.
266 Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 July 2010, pp. 44570-44571.
267 Exhibit D-441A, "Witness Statement of Alpha Konaré, AU Headquarters, Addis Ababa, 13 March 2007";
Exhibit D-441B, "Witness Statement of Oluyemi Adeniji (Issa Sesay), Freetown/Nairobi (Telephone), 2 March
2008"; Exhibit D-441C, "Witness Statement of Daniel Opande, 7 March 2008"; Exhibit D-441D, "Witness
Statement of Ali Hassan, 10 March 2008; Exhibit D-441E, "Witness Statement of Ahmad Tejan Kabbah (Issa
Sesay), Juba Hill,l2 May 2008".
268 TF1-338, Transcript 2 September 2008, pp. 15145-15146, 15155-15156; Prosecution Final Trial Brief
paras 180-181.
i 269 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 178-179.
270 Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 July 2010, pp. 44548-44552; Admitted Facts and Law, Agreed Fact 34.
271 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 93, 672-674.

---- End of Page 34 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T UDA 18 May 2012

3% t 2.}
4. Abuja Peace Agreements and the end of the Sierra Leone Civil War (2000-2002)
69. On 10 November 2000, the Government of Sierra Leone and the RUF sigr1ed a peace
a eement known as the "Abu`a 1 Peace A eement".m The two arties affirmed their
sr J sr P
commitment to the Lomé Peace Agreement of 7 July 1999, agreed to an immediate ceasefire
and agreed to continue with the disarmament process.273 With the exception of skirmishes
between the CDF and the RUF in Kono District, the ceasefire generally held.274 A ceasefire
review conference was held in Abuja in May 2001, in what became known as the "Abuja 11
Peace Agreement". On this occasion, the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone
("UNAMS1L") joined the RUF and the Government of Sierra Leone in tripa1tite
discussions.275
70. From mid-2001, the RUF began to make significant progress in the disarmament
rocess.276 B the end of 2001, the RUF had disarmed com letel and hostilities had ceased
P Y P Y
in all areas of Sierra Leone, with the exception of Kono District.277 On or about 18 January
2002, President Kabbah announced the end of hostilities in Sierra Leone, signalling the end
of the warm
272 Decision on Judicial Notice, Amiex A, Fact H; Exhibit P-587, "Agreement on cease—fire and cessation of
hostilities between the Government of the Republic of Sierra Leone, represented by Solomon Ekuma Berewa,
and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) represented by Jonathan Jim Kposowa, S/2000/ 191, 10 November
2000".
273 Exhibit P-587, "Agreement on cease—fire and cessation of hostilities between the Government of the
Republic of Sierra Leone, represented by Solomon Ekuma Berewa, and the Revolutionary United Front (RUF)
represented by Jonathan Jim Kposowa, S/2000/ 191, 10 November 2000".
274 Exhibit P—590, "United Nations Security Council, Eleventh Report of the Secretary General on the United
Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, S/2001/857, 7 September 2001j’.
275 Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 July 2010, pp. 44572-44574.
276 Issa Sesay, Transcript 4 August 2010, pp. 45337-45341.
277 Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 12 April 2010, pp. 38696—38697.
278 Admitted Facts and Law, Agreed Fact 35; Decision on Judicial Notice, Annex A, Fact C.

---- End of Page 35 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T / dm 18 May 2012

. $$12.3
III. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
71. The Defence raises several preliminary objections to aspects of the Prosecution case.
The Defence submits that; (i) the charges against the Accused should be dropped as he has
been selectively prosecuted;279 (ii) certain evidence falling outside of the scope of the
Indictment and/or jurisdiction of the court should be excluded or the purposes for which it is
used should be limited28O and (iii) the Defence has been prejudiced by the delay in the Trial
Chamber's ruling on its challenge to the pleading of the joint criminal enterprise, and that
, the Trial Chamber should therefore decline to consider joint criminal enterprise as a mode of
criminal responsibility against the Accused.28l The Defence also raises the issue of
discretionary payments and other inducements to witnesses made by the Prosecution,
submitting that a case of prosecutorial abuse of process has been made out with the
consequence of depriving the Accused of a fair trial.282
72. In this section, the Trial Chamber has also considered related Prosecution
submissions, in which it requests the Trial Chamber to consider evidence of (i) locations not
specifically pleaded in the Indictment;283 (ii) evidence of crimes not specifically pleaded in
the 1ndictment,2g4 (iii) evidence of crimes which fall within the "approximate" timeframes of
the Indictment.285
A. Selective Prosecution
73. The Defence submits that the prosecution of Taylor has from the outset been
selective and vindictive in nature. The Defence argues that Taylor was singled out for
prosecution on the basis of improper political motives, and that other individuals who are
similarly situated to Taylor were not prosecuted.22;6 According to the Defence, whereas the
record is replete with evidence of alleged assistance given before and during the Indictment
period (30 November 1996 through 18 January 2002) to members of the RUF by other
279 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 9-22.
280 Defence Final Trial Brief] paras 28-46.
281 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 47-71.
282 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 23-26.
283 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 662,
284 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 663.
285 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 662.
2% Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 9-22. See also Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T, Transcript 9 March
2011, pp. 49389-49390.

---- End of Page 36 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01-T Og 18 May 2012 M

African leaders, notably Muammar al-Gaddafi of Libya and Blaise Compaoré of Burkina
Faso, only Charles Taylor stands charged for assisting the RUF.287 The Defence argues that
it was improper for Taylor to have been prosecuted despite the fact that others, namely
Ghaddafi and Compaoré, who bear the same level of responsibility were not prosecuted.288
74. The Defence submits that it has satisfied the two-pronged test established in the
Celibiéi Appeals Judgement that a party alleging selective prosecution must establish (i) an
unlawful or improper (including discriminatory) motive for the prosecution and (ii) that
other similarly-situated persons were not prosecuted.289 The Defence argues that it has
satisfied the first prong of this test by establishing improper and discriminatory motives
behind Taylor's prosecution. It argues that Taylor was singled out and prosecuted on the
basis of political motives and interests of the United States,290 and that evidence for this
assertion can be found in Prosecutor David Crane's comments to the U.S. Congress29l and
leaked U.S. Embassy cables.292 It also submits that it has satisfied the second prong of the
test, as other individuals who were similarly situated to the Accused, such as Gaddafi and
Compaoré, were not prosecuted, despite statements made by Crane that they had participated
in the same joint criminal enterprise as Taylor.293 The Defence therefore requests that the
Trial Chamber make a finding of selective prosecution and dismiss all charges against
Taylor as a consequence thereof.294
75. The Prosecution submits that disclosing the sealed Indictment against Charles Taylor
to governments was completely proper and within the Prosecutor's powers and that there is
no basis for the Defence submission that this indicates some kind of political misconduct by
the Prosecutor or interference by a Government. The Prosecution denies that the prosecution
287 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 9- 10.
288 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 13; Exhibit D—404, Hearing — Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human
Rights and International Operations of the Committee on International Relations House of Representatives, 109th
Congress, Second Session, Impact ofLiberia's Election on West Africa, 8 February 2006, p. 79, fn 1 1.
289 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 16, referring to Celibiéi Appeals Judgement, para. 61 1.
M Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 3, 5, 18, 22.
2% Exhibit D—404, "Hearing - Subcommittee on Africa, Global Human Rights and International Operations
of the Committee on International Relations House of Representatives, 109th Congress, Second Session, Impact
of Liberia's Election on West Africa, 8 February 2006", p, 79, fn. 10.
292 Exhibit D-481, "United States Government (USG) Embassy Cable: Rising Concern about the Taylor
Prosecution Case (10 March 2009), Guardian.co.uk, 17 December 2010"; Exhibit D—482, "United States
Government (USG) Embassy Cables: the Protracted Case against Charles Taylor (April 15 2009),
Guardian.co.uk., 17 December 2010".
M Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1 1, 17.
204 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 22.

---- End of Page 37 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / gm 18 May 2012 `E

3%l 30
of the Accused was politically motivated and submits that rather than demonstrating that the
prosecution of the Accused is in the interests of the United States Government, the evidence
demonstrates that the Accused and the Government of the United States had a close
relationship.295
76. Furthermore, the Prosecution submits that the second prong of the Cclibiéi test has
not been met, as no one is similarly situated to the Accused with respect to the armed
conflict in Sierra Leone. The Prosecution contends that the Accused had control over the
leaders of the groups that were perpetrating horrific crimes and there is far more evidence
linking the Accused to the crimes committed in Sierra Leone rather than Ghaddafr and
Compaoré, and that the majority of the assistance provided by other individuals went
through the Accused.296 The Prosecution also argues that while there is evidence that
Ghadaffi and Compaoré and the governments they headed aided the RUF, that evidence is
less than a tenth of the evidence involving Charles Taylor's assistance to the RUF and that
there is further evidence showing that a great majority of that aid went through Charles
Taylor.297
77. ln considering the question of selective prosecution, the Trial Chamber is mindful of
Article 15 of the Statute, which vests the Prosecutor with responsibility "for the
investigation and prosecution of persons who bear the greatest responsibility for serious
violations of intemational humanitarian law...". ln doing so, the Prosecutor shall "act
independently as a separate organ of the Special Court. He or she shall not seek or receive
any instructions from any Government or from any other source".
78. _Article 15 of the Statute gives discretion to the Prosecutor to determine which
individuals are to be prosecuted for crimes under the Statute, based on investigations and
evidence gathered. ln the present case, the Defence alleges that others who bear
responsibility for these crimes equal to the responsibility of the Accused have not been
charged, and that the decision not to charge them has been improperly motivated by the
interests of the U.S. Government, constituting an abuse of prosecutorial discretion.
295 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T, Transcript 9 March 2011, pp. 49368-49370; Transcript 11 March
2011, pp. 49573-49574.
2% Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T, Transcript 9 March 2011, pp. 49366-49368; Transcript 11 March
2011, pp. 49574-49575.
297 Prosecutor v. Zlzylor, SCSL-03-01-T, Transcript 9 March 2011, pp. 49366-49367.

---- End of Page 38 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T V//l [(19.. 18 May 2012

3% i gs
79. The Trial Chamber adopts the test set forth in the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the
Celibiéi case that in order to establish that there has been selective prosecution, the Defence
must establish: (i) an unlawful or improper (including discriminatory) motive for the
prosecution and (ii) that other similarly situated persons were not prosecuted.298 This test
puts a heavy burden on a claimant. To satisfy this test, the claimant must demonstrate "clear
evidence of the intent of the Prosecutor to discriminate on improper motives, and that other
similarly situated persons were not prosecuted".299 The threshold is a very high one. As the
ICTY Appeals Chamber noted, "it cannot be accepted that ‘unless all potential indictees who
are similarly situated are brought to justice, there should be no justice done in relation to a
person who had been indicted and brought to trial."’300
80. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has indicated that the rationale behind this test is
that:
the breadth of the discretion of the Prosecutor, and the fact of her statutory independence, A
imply a presumption that the prosecutorial functions under the Statute are exercised
regularly. This presumption may be rebutted by an appellant who can bring evidence to
establish that the discretion has in fact not been exercised in accordance with the Statute;
here, for example, in contravention of the principle of equality before the law [...]. This
would require evidence from which a clear inference can be drawn that the Prosecutor was
motivated in that case by a factor inconsistent with that principle. Because the principle is
one of equality ofpersons before the law, it involves a comparison with the legal treatment of
other persons who must be similarly situated for such a comparison to be a meaningful
one.3O
81. In the present case, the Defence adduced evidence to support its contention that the
Prosecutor's decision to prosecute Charles Taylor was improperly based on political motives
and interests of the U.S. Government. This evidence consists of comments made by
Prosecutor David Crane to the U.S. Congress, and his disclosure of the sealed Indictment to
the U.S. Government. However inappropriate Crane's actions may have been, in the view of
the Trial Chamber such actions do not constitute clear evidence of the intent of the
Prosecutor to discriminate on improper motives.
82. Given the failure of the Defence to establish that the Prosecution had a
discriminatory or improper motive to prosecute the Accused, it is not strictly necessary to
consider the additional question of whether there were similarly situated persons who were
M Celibiéi Appeals Judgement, para. 611.
299 Celibiéi Appeals Judgement, para. 610.
300 Celibiéi Appeals Judgement, para. 618; Akayesu Appeals Judgement, paras 93-97.

---- End of Page 39 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T / "! 18 May 2012

3% l32.
not prosecuted. Nevertheless, the Trial Chamber observes that in his statement to the U.S.
Congress, cited by the Defence, the Prosecutor referred to Charles Taylor as "a catalyst"
while characterizing Gaddafi and Compaoré as "compatriots" who backed Taylor. He
explained his decision not to indict Gaddafi and Compaoré in part on the basis of
"evidentiary issues".3O2 The Trial Chamber finds that the evidence in the record, and the
allegations made by the Prosecution against Charles Taylor, as well as the statements cited
by the Defence in support of its submission, do not establish that the Accused, Gaddafi and
Compaoré were similarly situated. The allegations against the Accused go well beyond the
scope of the allegations against the others, uniquely asserting that in addition to providing
support, the Accused exercised control over the leadership of those perpetrating the crimes
set forth in the Indictment.
83. For these reasons the Trial Chamber finds that neither of the two prongs of the test
for selective prosecution, set forth by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Celibiéi case and
adopted by the Trial Chamber, has been met. The Trial Chamber notes that the remedy
requested by the Defence, the dismissal of all charges against the Accused, would be in the
words of the ICTY Appeals Chamber an "entirely disproportionate response".3O3 In any
event, the Trial Chamber finds that the Accused has not been singled out for selective
prosecution.
Finding
84. The Trial Chamber finds that the Accused has not been singled out for selective
prosecution.
B. Evidence Outside of the Scope of the Indictment and/or Jurisdiction of the
SPE
85. On 24 September 2010, the Defence submitted a motion requesting that the Trial
Chamber exclude and/or limit the use to be made of Prosecution evidence falling outside of
the temporal or geographical scope of the Indictment and/or the jurisdiction of the court.3O4
30* Celibiéi Appeals Judgement, para. 618; Akayesu Appeals Judgement, paras 93-97.
302 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 12.
303 Celibiéi Appeals Judgement, para. 618.
304 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL—03-01-T-1086, Defence Motion to Exclude Evidence Falling Outside of the

---- End of Page 40 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T { $1 18 May 2012
/

3% I 3 3
The Trial Chamber held that the motion was premature at that time and that the said issues
would be more appropriately addressed by the parties in their final trial briefs and/or closing
arguments.3O3 The Defence raised this issue again in its Final Trial Brief, incorporating by
reference all arguments it had previously advanced in the motion.306
Timing of the Objections
86. The Prosecution submits that the Defence objections in relation to evidence outside
the scope of the Indictment and/or jurisdiction of the Court are not timely, as the Defence
did not object at the time that such evidence was adduced. It therefore submits that the
Defence has waived its right to make such obj ections.3O7
87. The Defence submits that it has objected previously to such evidence, including in its
Pre-Trial Brief which included a specific section urging "the Trial Chamber to be vigilant in
ensuring that there is no expansion of the territorial or temporal jurisdiction of the court via
the back door".3O8 However, it argues that the use of ex-temporal and ex-territorial evidence
was so widespread that it was impractical for the Defence to raise the objection every time it
arose.309 The Defence also argues that while it may itself have led such evidence during the
Defence case, the necessity for doing so was directly related to rebutting Prosecution
evidence. It therefore submits that, bearing in mind that the Defence has no burden of proof
and never has an obligation to put forth a case, whether or not the Defence has led such
evidence is immaterial and of no consequence to the relief it seeks vis-ei-vis Prosecution
evidence.330 I
88. Further, in its oral response, the Defence argues that the Prosecution's submission
that its objections are untimely is misplaced, as it raised these issues in its prior motion. The
Trial Chamber held that the motion was premature and that these issues should more
Scope of the Indictment and/or the Jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 24 September 2010.
3 03 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL—03—01—T—1101, Decision on Defence Motion to Exclude Evidence Falling
Outside the Scope of the Indictment and/or the Jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 6 October
2010 [Decision on the Evidence Falling Outside of the Indictment], p. 3.
306 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 29.
307 Prosecution Closing Arguments, Transcript 9 March 2011, pp. 49371—49372.
3 08 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 33, referring to Defence Pre-Trial Brief, paras 9-23.
309 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 33.
310 Defence Final Trial Brief. para. 45.

---- End of Page 41 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03»01—T / Tr E 18 May 2012 `E

3% t 31+.
appropriately be raised in the Defence's final trial brief} 11 The Defence therefore submits
that it did not waive its right to object, but was only following the court's directive.312
89. In its Pre-Trial Brief the Defence objected to the Prosecution's use of "alleged facts
re-datin the indictment eriod and alle ed conduct said to have been committed outside of
P E P E
the territory of Sierra Leone".313 In particular, the Defence objected to evidence of crimes
committed in Liberia and evidence which pre-dated the Indictment period,314 and argued that
the Trial Chamber could rely on such evidence only in relation to an offence which
continues into the mandate year, to provide background or context, or as "similar fact
evidence" pursuant to Rule 93.315 The Defence also objected to such evidence in its opening
statement.3 1 °
90. Moreover, at several times during the presentation of the evidence,317 during its
submissions on applications by the Prosecution for the admission of evidence pursuant to
Rule 92bis,318 and in its Rule 98 submission,31q the Defence did raise objections about the
311 Defence Closing Arguments, Transcript 11 March 201 1, p. 49614, referring to Decision on the Evidence
Falling Outside of the Indictment, p. 3.
312 Defence Closing Arguments, Transcript 1 1 March 201 1, p. 49614.
313 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-PT, Corrigendum to Rule 73bis Taylor Defence Pre-Trial Brief, 18
May 2007, paras 9-23 ("Defence Pre-Trial Brief"). ..
314 Defence Pre-Trial Brief, paras 10, 11-12.
315 Defence Pre-Trial Brief, paras 14-16.
316 Defence Opening Statement, Transcript 13 July 2009, p. 24306.
317 Transcript 22 January 2008, pp. 1829, 1843-1844, where the Defence objected to evidence about attacks
in Guinea and Liberia on the basis that this evidence was outside of the geographical and temporal scope of the
Indictment; Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8054, and Transcript 21 April 2008, p. 8077, where the Defence
objected to the admission of evidence from districts in Sierra Leone that were not pleaded in the Indictment and
indicated that this was a continuing objection; Transcript 7 May 2008, p. 9148, where the Defence objected to
the admission of evidence from districts in Sierra Leone that were not pleaded in the Indictment and indicated
that this was a continuing objection; Transcript 5 November 2008, pp. 19798-19799, where the Defence objected
to the admission of evidence of fighting in Liberia on the basis that this evidence was outside of the geographical
and temporal scope of the Indictment.
318 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-579, Public with Confidential Annex A, Defence Objection to
‘Prosecution Notice Under Rule 92bis for the Admission of Evidence relating to inter alia Kono District — TF 1-
218 & TF1-304", 9 September 2008, paras 4(a), 19; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-589, Public with
Confidential Annex A, Defence Objection to ‘Prosecution Notice Under Rule 92bis for the Admission of
Evidence related to inter alia Kono District’ and Other Ancillary Relief, 12 September 2008, paras 5(a), 20;
Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-597, Public with Confidential Annex A Defence Objection to ‘Prosecution
Notice Under 92bis for the Admission of Evidence related to inter alia Freetown and Western Area — TF 1 -023 &
TF1-029’ and Other Ancillary Relief, 17 September 2008, paras 5(a), 22; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-
598, Public with Confidential Annex A Defence Objection to ‘Prosecutor Notice under Rule 92bis for the
Admission of Evidence related to inter alia Kono District — TF1-195, TF1-197, TF1-198, TF1-206’ and Other
Ancillary Relief, 17 September 2008, paras 5(a), 21; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-626, Public with
Confidential Annex A, Defence Objection to ‘Prosecution Notice Under Rule 92bis for the Admission of
Evidence related to inter alia Freetown & Western Area — TF1-098, TF 1-104, TF1-227’ and Other Ancillary
Relief, 8 October 2008, paras 5(b), 20-21.

---- End of Page 42 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-O1-T j/ i 18 May 2012

A 3 8D g§
introduction of such evidence. The Defence also filed a motion prior to the close of the case
which raised the same objections that it has now addressed in its final submissions.32O
91. Therefore, while the Defence did not object every time evidence falling outside the
temporal or geographical scope of the Indictment and/or jurisdiction of the court was
introduced, it indicated at several points that its previous objections were continuing
obj ections.3 33 The Trial Chamber therefore finds that the Defence objected to this evidence
in a timely fashion, and dismisses the Prosecution's submissions to the contrary.
Submissions of the Parties
92. The Defence submits that the Prosecution has adduced a considerable amount of
evidence falling outside of the temporal and geographical scope of the Indictment. The
Defence objects that much of the ex-temporal and ex-teriitorial evidence adduced in the case
is irrelevant to the Indictment or falls outside the jurisdiction of the Special Court and should
be excluded from the Trial Chamber's consideration of the evidence in the case.322 The
Defence position is that there is so much evidence outside the scope of the Indictment that it
amounts to prejudice of such a nature that it far outweighs any probative value of such
evidence, and that therefore the admission of this evidence would contravene Rule 95 and
Amie 17.333
93. In particular, the Defence objects to certain specific categories of evidence: (i) any
evidence of a joint criminal enterprise falling outside of the temporal scope of the
Indictment;324 (ii) any evidence of atrocities in Liberia and elsewhere beyond Sierra Leone
falling outside the geographic and temporal scope of the Indictment.325
3 19 Transcript 6 April 2009, p. 24092, where the Defence objected to the receipt of radios from Charles
Taylor in 1991 to prove aiding and abetting as this occurred prior to the Indictment period; Transcript 6 April
2009, p. 24102, where the Defence objected to evidence about atrocities committed in Liberia.
320 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL—03—0l—T—1086, Defence Motion to Exclude Evidence Falling Outside of the
Scope of the Indictment and/or the Jurisdiction of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, 24 September 2010.
321 See, for example, Transcript 21 April 2008, p. 8077, and Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL—03—0l—T, Transcript
7 May 2008, p, 9148, where the Defence noted it was making a continuing objection to the admission of
evidence from districts in Sierra Leone that were not pleaded in the Indictment.
322 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 34, 36.
323 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 34, 37.
324 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 38-39.
325 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 40—41.

---- End of Page 43 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T M (114. 18 May 2012 y)
l

3 % a gra
94. As to category (i), the Defence argues that evidence that pre-dates the Indictment,
such as evidence relating to a common plan between the Accused and Foday Sankoh which
ori inated in the late 1980s, cannot be used to determine ilt.32°
g gu
95. As to category (ii), the Defence submits that such evidence has little relevance or
probative force other than to "blacken the Accused's character with the Trial Chamber",
which the Defence claims is not permitted pursuant to Rule 93, and violates Rule 95 and
Article 17.327 The Defence submits that the same holds true for the Accused's alleged role in
conflicts, arms-dealing and diamond-dealing throughout the African continent.328
96. The Defence specifically objects to the Prosecution's attempt to "push the frontiers
of Rule 93 evidence by suggesting that such evidence can found mens rea".329 The Defence
submits that evidence of a prior act of the Accused is not admissible for the purpose of
demonstrating a general propensity or disposition to commit the crimes charged, and is not
admissible to show that the accused is capable of committing the offence, or that on some
other occasion he had the intent to commit the offence.330 It submits that evidence of similar
conduct is only admissible where it is probative of some peculiar feature of the case or
where it is highly distinctive or unique such that it amounts to a signature or identifiable
pattern.33l
97. In its Final Trial Brief] the Prosecution submits that evidence falling outside the
tem oral and/or eo aphical sco e of the Court's 'urisdiction and/or the Indictment ma be
P g ST P J Y
admitted and relied upon by a Trial Chamber for multiple purposes, including:
(i) proving by inference the elements (in particular, criminal intent) of the criminal conduct
(i.e. elements of crimes and individual criminal responsibility) occurring during the temporal
jurisdiction of the court
(ii) establishing the contextual elements of Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute
326 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 38.
m Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 40.
P8 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 40.
329 Defence Response to the Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 96.
B0 Defence Response to the Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 97.
3 31 Defence Response to the Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 97.

---- End of Page 44 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T / T l 18 May 2012 Q

B21?-]»
(iii) demonstrating a deliberate or consistent pattern of conduct, which can be relied upon to
establish intent, specific offences, including a campaign of terror and the use of child
soldiers and modes of liability charged in an indictment including command responsibility
and/or
(iv) providing the context in which the crimes are said to have been committed.332
Findings e
98. In many instances during the trial proceedings, the Trial Chamber held that evidence
falling outside of the temporal and/or geographical scope of the Indictment and/or the
jurisdiction of the court, was admissible pursuant to Rule 89(C), as it was relevant to the
context and/or chczpeczu requirements of the alleged crimes, or as evidence of a consistent
pattern of conduct under Rule 93.333 The Trial Chamber reiterates its previous decisions
concerning the admissibility of this evidence. However, insofar as the Defence submissions
constitute a request for clarification of the permissible and impermissible uses that may be
made of such evidence, the Trial Chamber will consider these submissions in determining
the limits to be placed on the use of this evidence.
(a) Temporal Scope
99. The Trial Chamber may convict an accused only where all of the elements required
to establish his guilt are present during the temporal jurisdiction of the court.334 The ICTR
Appeals Chamber has held that in order for the accused to be held liable, it must be shown
that:
a) The crime with which the accused was charged was committed in [the temporal jurisdiction of the tribunal];
b) The acts and omissions of the accused establishing his responsibility under any of the modes of
responsibility referred to in Article 6(1) and 6(3) of the Statute occurred in [the temporal jurisdiction of the
tribunal], and at the time of such acts and omissions the accused had the requisite intent (mens rea) in order to
be convicted pursuant to the mode of liability in question.3 3 3
3 3 2 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 46-47.
333 See for example, Transcript 22 January 2008, p. 1830; Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8055; Transcript 21
April 2008, p. 8077; Transcript 7 May 2008, p. 9149; Transcript 5 November 2008, p. 19800.
334 See Prosecutor v. Nahimana, ICTR—99—52—A, Judgement, 28 November 2007 [Nahimana et al. Appeal
Judgement], para. 313.
3 3 3 Nahimamz Appeal Judgement, para. 313. The Appeals Chamber held that the Trial Chamber was wrong
insofar as it had convicted the accused on the basis of criminal conduct which took place before 1994, and was
. therefore outside the temporal jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. See para. 314.

---- End of Page 45 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T / Gl 18 May 2012 %
\

3 2 was
100. In the Prlié case, an ICTY Trial Chamber dealt specifically with this issue in relation
to evidence led with respect to a joint criminal enterprise and held that "only criminal
conduct, in the form of a joint criminal enterprise or any other form of responsibility alleged
in the Indictment, taking place during the alleged material period [of the Indictment] may
form the basis for the conviction of the accused".336
101. A Trial Chamber may, however, rely on evidence that falls outside of the temporal
scope of the Indictment and/or jurisdiction of the Tribunal in the following three
circumstances:
i. to clarify a given context;
ii. to establish by inference the elements, in particular the mens rea, of criminal
conduct occurring during the material period; or I
iii. to demonstrate a deliberate pattern of conduct.337
102. The Trial Chamber has dealt with evidence outside of the temporal scope of the
Indictment and/or jurisdiction of the court in accordance with such principles. The principles
applicable to establishing the elements of criminal conduct by inference, and evidence of a
consistent pattern of conduct are considered more specifically below.
(i) Establishing elements by inference
103. The ICTR Appeals Chamber has held that "evidence of a required element could
come from a time anterior to the mandate year, but what that evidence would prove was that,
at the point of time within the mandate year when the crime was allegedly committed, the
required element was present".338
336 Prosecutor v. Pr/ic, IT—04—74—T, Decision on Slobodan Praljak's Motion for Clarification of the Time
Frame of the Alleged Joint Criminal Enterprise, 15 January 2009 [Pr/ic Decision on Time Frame of Joint
Criminal Enterprise], p. 9.
337 Nahimana Appeal Judgement, para. 315; Pr/ic Decision on Time Frame of Joint Criminal Enterprise, p.
9.
338 Ngeze and Nahimana v. Prosecutor, ICTR—96—11—AR72 and ICTR—96—11—AR72, Decision on the
Interlocutory Appeals, 5 September 2000, p. 6, Separate Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, p. 5. See also Simba v.
Prosecutor, ICTR—01—76—AR72.2, Decision on Interlocutory Appeal Regarding Temporal Jurisdiction, 29 July
2004 [Simba Appeal Decision on Temporal Jurisdiction], footnote 5.

---- End of Page 46 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T % 18 May 2012 g
, \

3% B9
104. Even where conduct commences before the material period of the indictment and
continues during the indictment period, a conviction may be based only on that part of such
conduct which occurs during the material period.339 The Prosecution must therefore prove
beyond a reasonable doubt that such conduct continued into the Indictment period.
105. The Trial Chamber therefore emphasizes that it has not used evidence outside of the
temporal scope of the Indictment and/or jurisdiction of the court except insofar as inferences
can be drawn from such evidence about elements of the joint criminal enterprise and other
forms of liability which continue to exist during the Indictment period. The Prosecution
must therefore prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these elements continued into the
Indictment period.
(ii) Evidence of a consistent pattern of conduct — Rule 93
106. Rule 93 provides that:
Evidence of a consistent pattern of conduct relevant to serious violations of international humanitarian law
under the Statute may be admissible in the interests of justice.
107. The ICTR Appeals Chamber has established that evidence of a prior criminal act of
the accused is not admissible for the purpose of demonstrating a general propensity or
disposition to commit the crimes charged.34O Prior criminal offences by the accused — even
of precisely the same offence with which the accused is charged, are not admissible if the
only purpose for their introduction is to establish that the accused was capable of
committing the offence, is inclined to commit the offence, or on some prior occasion did
have the intention to commit the criminal offence.341 Evidence of similar conduct is only
admissible if "it is probative of some peculiar feature of the case" or where it is "highly
distinctive and unique such that it amounts to a signature or an identifiable pattern".342
339 Na/zimana Appeal Judgement, para. 317.
340 Prosecutor v. Bagosora et. al, ICTR-98-41-T, Decision on Admissibility of Proposed Testimony of
Witness DBY, 18 September 2003, para. 12 [Bagosora Decision on Witness DBY]; confirmed on appeal -
Prosecutor v. Bagosora, ICTR-98-41-AR93 & ICTR-98-41-AR93.2, Decision on Prosecutor's Interlocutory
Appeals Regarding Exclusion of Evidence, 19 December 2003 [Bagosora Appeal Decision on Exclusion of
Evidence], para. 14.
34* mz.
342 Bagosora Decision on Witness DBY, para. 14; Prosecutor v. Nshogoza, Decision on Prosecutor's Motion
to Admit Evidence of a Consistent Pattern of Conduct, ICTR-07-9 1 -T, 20 February 2009, para. 4.

---- End of Page 47 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T [ GLQ 18 May 2012 @

3 % 1 ¤e¤
108. The ICTR Appeals Chamber has also held that "even where pattern evidence is
relevant and deemed probative, the Trial Chamber may still decide to exclude the evidence
in the interests of justice when its admission could lead to unfairness in the trial proceedings,
such as when the prejudicial effect of the proposed evidence outweighs its probative
value".343
109. The Trial Chamber concurs with these principles and will follow this approach in
assessing evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 93.
(b) Geographic Scope
110. The Trial Chamber finds that the principles above are equally applicable to evidence
falling outside of the geographic scope of the Indictment and/or jurisdiction of the court. The
Trial Chamber will therefore consider evidence falling outside of the geographical
jurisdiction of the court only as it relates to the context or where it falls within the
parameters of Rule 93.
(i) Prejudice to the Accused as a Result of the Sheer Volume of Evidence Admitted
that Falls Outside of the Scope of the Indictment and/or Jurisdiction of the Court
111. The Trial Chamber considers that the sheer volume of evidence falling outside of the
scope of the Indictment and/or jurisdiction of the Special Court does not, of itself, amount to
prejudice which outweighs the probative value of such evidence. The Trial Chamber is
composed of professional judges who are capable of considering evidence for certain
permissible purposes, while excluding it from their consideration for impermissible purposes
that would prejudice the Accused. Further, the Defence has not clearly defined what
prejudice it has suffered. The Trial Chamber therefore finds that the admission of this
evidence and its use for the purposes identified above does not contravene Rule 95 and
Article 17.
343 Bagasora Appeal Decision, para. 13.

---- End of Page 48 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T {ISA 18 May 2()12

3%*114
C. Issues Relating to the Pleading in the Indictment
(a) Evidence relating to locations in Sierra Leone not pleaded in the Indictment
Submissions of the Parties
112. The Prosecution submits that as locations within a District are pleaded using the
inclusive language "various 1ocations" and "throughout", the Trial Chamber should consider
all relevant evidence adduced where the evidence falls within the district pleaded in the
Indictment,344 even if the specific location has not been pleaded. The Prosecution alleges, in
relation to locations not specifically pleaded in the Indictment, that "considering the superior
position of the Accused, the fact that personal commission is not charged, and the
widespread nature of the alleged crimes, the Accused was provided adequate notice",
referring to the Appeals Chamber Judgement in the case of Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallorz and
Gbao.345
1 13. The Defence objects to Prosecution evidence relating to crimes committed in
locations in Sierra Leone that were not pleaded in the Indictment,346 and requests the Trial
Chamber to exclude such evidence or to impose strict limits on the degree to which such
evidence may be taken into consideration.347 The Defence cites as authority for this position
the AFRC Trial Judgement, where the Trial Chamber held that while such evidence could be
used for other purposes, such evidence could not be used for a finding of guilt for those
crimes perpetrated in locations not charged in the Indictment.348
Findings
1 14. In Prosecutor v. Brima, Kumara and Kanu, the Trial Chamber held that:
The Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution has led a considerable amount of evidence
with respect to killings, sexual violence, physical violence, enslavement and pillage which
occurred in locations not charged in the indictment. While such evidence may support proof
of the existence of an armed conflict or a widespread or systematic attack on a civilian
population, no finding of guilt for those crimes may be made in respect of such locations
not mentioned in the indictment.
344 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 662.
345 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, footnote 1798.
346 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 31, 42-46.
347 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 46.
348 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 46, referring to Prosecutor v. Brima, Kumara and Kcmu, SCSL-04-16-T,
Judgement (TC), 20 June 2007 [AFRC Trial Judgement], para. 37.

---- End of Page 49 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T f 5,% 18 May 2012 @

3% M2.
[...]
Moreover, the jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals makes it clear that an
accused is entitled to know the case against him and is entitled to assume that any list of
alleged acts contained in an indictment is exhaustive, regardless of the inclusion of words
such as "including", which may imply that other unidentified crimes in other locations are
being charged as well.
In light of the above, the Trial Chamber will not make any finding on crimes perpetrated in
locations not specifically pleaded in the Indictment. Such evidence will only be considered
for proof of the chapeau requirements of Articles 2, 3 and 4 where appropriate, that is the
widespread or systematic nature of the crimes and an armed conflict.34°
This approach was upheld by the Appeals Chamber.35O
115. In the RUF Appeal Judgement, the Appeals Chamber held that locations must be
pleaded with specificity if the Accused is charged with having "personally committed" such
crimes.35l The Trial Chamber is of the view that whether or not the Accused is charged with s
having personally committed the alleged crimes, or is charged under another mode of
liability, he is nevertheless entitled to know the case against him and is entitled to assume
that any list of alleged acts contained in an indictment is exhaustive, regardless of the use of
words such as "including", which may imply that other unidentified crimes in other
locations are being charged as well.352
116. However, consistent with the AFRC Trial Judgement, evidence of crimes committed
at locations not specifically pleaded in the Indictment will be considered in relation to proof
of the chapeau requirements of Articles 2, 3 and 4 where appropriate, i.e. to prove the
widespread or systematic nature of the crimes or the existence of an armed conflict.353 Such
evidence may also be used pursuant to Rule 93 as proofof a consistent pattern of conduct.354
349 AFRC Trial Judgement, paras 37-38 (footnotes omitted).
350 Prosecutor v. Brima, Kumara and Kanu, SCSL-04-16-A, Judgement (AC), 22 February 2008 [AFRC
Appeal Judgement], para, 64
W Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallort and Gbao, SCSL-04-15-A-1321, Judgement (AC), 26 October 2009 [RUF
Appeal Judgement], para. 832.
352 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 37, referring to Prosecutor v. Brdjanin, IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1
September 2004 [Brdjanin Trial Judgement], para. 397; Prosecutor v. Brdanirt, IT-99-36-T, Decision on Motion
for Acquittal Pursuant to Rule 98bis, 28 November 2003 [Brdjanin Decision on Motion for Acquittal], para. 88,
referring to Prosecutor v. Stakié, IT-97-24-T, Judgement (TC), 31 July 2003 [Sta/tic Trial Judgement], para. 772.
Trial Chamber I in the AFRC case came to a similar finding, see Prosecutor v. Brima, Kumara and Kanu, SCSL-
04-16-PT-046, Decision and Order on Defence Preliminary Motion on Defects in the Form of the Indictment
(TC), l April 2004 [Kamara Decision on Form of Indictment], para. 42.
D3 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 38. 4
354 See Preliminary Issues: Evidence Outside the Scope of the Indictment.

---- End of Page 50 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Z F 18 May 2012 `%

Bam-3
117. The Trial Chamber notes that whereas the Prosecution has pleaded specific locations
in Freetown and the Western Area for the crimes of Terrorizing the Civilian Population,
Unlawful Killings, and Physical Violence, it did not do so with respect to the crimes of
Sexual Violence, Abductions and Forced Labour, and Pillage. With respect to districts, the
r Trial Chamber has not considered crimes that took place in locations not specifically cited in
the lndictment, with the exception of continuing crimes. However, and although the
Prosecution has inconsistently pleaded in this respect for crimes in Freetown and the
Western Area, because Freetown and the Western Area is not a district, the Trial Chamber
finds that the pleading of the location of Freetown and the Western area without specific
locations is sufficient to provide adequate notice to the Accused for the crimes of Sexual
Violence, Abductions and Forced Labour, and Pillage.
118. Further, the Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution has not been consistent with
respect to its pleading of offences of a continuous nature. For example, with respect to the
crimes of sexual slavery and the enlistment, conscription and use of child soldiers, the
Prosecution has not pleaded any locations. However, with respect to enslavement, which is
also an offence of a continuous nature, the Prosecution has specified locations in Kenema
and Kono Districts but not in the districts of Kailahun or Freetown and the Western Area.
119. However, notwithstanding this inconsistency, the Trial Chamber, in accordance with
the AFRC Trial Judgement, considers that the prolonged nature of these crimes, especially
in the context of the Sierra Leone conflict where the perpetrators were often on the move
between villages and districts over a significant period of time, may make pleading
particular locations sometimes impracticable. Therefore, while it is the Prosecution's duty to
provide any material facts on the alleged crimes within its possession so as to enable the
Accused to prepare a defence,355 nevertheless in the present case a significant amount of
evidence has been adduced in respect of each of these crimes over the course of a lengthy
trial. Moreover, the Defence has not specifically objected to the lack of specificity of
locations relating to the crimes of sexual slavery, the enlistment, conscription and use of
child soldiers or enslavement in Counts 5, 9 and 10. Accordingly, in the interests of justice,
the Trial Chamber will treat the pleading of these counts in the Indictment as permissib1e.356
355 See AFRC Trial Judgement, paras 39-40.
356 See AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 41.

---- End of Page 51 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03-01—T [ gu 18 May 2012

?>%¤ w+
(b) Evidence relating to crimes not specifically pleaded in the Indictment
Submissions of the Parties j
120. In relation to evidence of criminal acts not specifically pleaded in the Indictment, the
Prosecution submits that the Trial Chamber "should also consider for guilt of the Accused
all relevant evidence adduced where the evidence falls within the District and the
approximate time frames specified by the Indictment".357
121. In support of this proposition the Prosecution submits that the Indictment uses
inclusive language in Count 6, namely "sexual violence [...] including" indicating that all
forms of sexual violence constituting ‘outrages against personal dignity’ including evidence
of sexual violence against male victims358 should be considered for guilt under Count 6 not
just evidence of rape and sexual slavery.359 Similarly, as Counts 7 and 8 refer to "physical
violence [...] including", it submits that the Trial Chamber should consider all forms of
physical violence constituting "cruel treatment" under Count 7 or "inhumane treatment"
under Count 8 for guilt of the Accused under these counts, and not just evidence of
mutilations and/or beatings.3°O
122. The Prosecution argues that "an additional ground in support of the above approach
to the evidence which can be taken into consideration for guilt of the Accused under Counts
6 to 8 is that the Accused has been provided with timely, clear and consistent notice of the
material facts underpinning the charges by the Original Indictment, First Amended
Indictment, Indictment, Case Summary, Pre-Trial Brief] opening statement and/or witness
statements".3°l
123. The Defence has not made any specific submissions on this issue.
Deliberations
124. The particulars pleaded in relation to Count 6 of the Indictment ("Outrages upon
Personal Dignity") refer to "widespread acts of sexual violence against civilian women and
357 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 662.
358 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 665.
359 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 663.
360 rm.
M Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 664-665.

---- End of Page 52 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T f Gia 18 May 2012

Eva:
girls, including" rape, abductions and sexual slavery, but do not allege any other forms of
sexual violence nor sexual violence against male victims.362 The particulars of Counts 7 and
8 ("Physical Violence") allege only beatings and mutilations, but do not refer to any other
forms of physical violence.363
125. Hence the Indictment does not provide the Accused with any notice that he is
charged with any form of sexual violence other than rape, abduction or sexual slavery of
girls and women under Count 6, or that he is charged with physical violence constituting
cruel treatment other than beatings and mutilation under Counts 7 and 8.
126. The Prosecution is, in effect, submitting that the Trial Chamber should consider
evidence of criminal acts not specihcally pleaded in the Indictment. Such submission comes
late in the proceedings without prior notice to the Defence. Charges against an accused and
the material facts supporting those charges must be pleaded with sufficient precision in an
indictment so as to provide notice to the accused.3°4 Moreover, an accused is entitled to
know the case against him and to assume that any list of alleged acts contained in an
indictment is exhaustive, regardless of the use of words such as "including".365 Therefore an
indictment which fails to satisfy these requirements is, to that extent, clearly defective.
127. However, a defective indictment may be said to be cured if the accused has
nevertheless been given sufHcient notice of the case he has to answer. The Trial Chamber
has previously held that:
If the indictment is found defective because it fails to plead material facts or does not plead
them with sufficient specificity, a Trial Chamber must consider whether the accused was
nonetheless accorded a fair trial. Where an accused has received timely, clear, and
consistent information iiom the Prosecution detailing the factual basis underpinning the
charge, the defects in the indictment are considered to be cured and a conviction may be
362 Second Amended Indictment, paras 14-17.
363 Second Amended Indictment, paras 19-21.
364 Seromba v. Prosecutor, ICTR-2001-66-A, Judgement (AC), 12 March 2008 [Seromba Appeal
Judgement], paras 27, 100; Simba v. Prosecutor, ICTR-01-76-A, Judgement (AC), 27 November 2007 [Simba
Appeal Judgement], para. 63; Nluhimana v. Prosecutor. ICTR-95-1B-A, Judgement (AC), 21 May 2007
[Muhimana Appeal Judgement], paras 76, 167. 195; Gacumbitsi v. Prosecutor, ICTR-01-64-A, Judgement (AC),
7 July 2006 [Gacumbitsi Appeal Judgement], para. 49; Ndindabahizi v. Prosecutor, ICTR-01-71-A, Judgement
(AC), 16 January 2007 [Ndindabahizi Appeal Judgement], para. 16.
365 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 37, referring to Prosecutor v. Brdjanin, IT-99-36-T, Judgement (TC), 1
September 2004 [Brdanin Trial Judgement], para. 397; Prosecutor v. Brdanin, Decision on Motion for Acquittal,
para. 88, referring to Sta/cié Trial Judgement, para. 772. Trial Chamber I in the AFRC case came to a similar
finding, see Kanu Decision on Form of Indictment, para. 17; Kamara Decision on Form of Indictment, para. 42.

---- End of Page 53 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T // GIA 18 May 2012

Bwuk
entered. If insufficient notice has violated the accused's right to a fair trial, no conviction
may result.366
128. In the present case, the only document cited by the Prosecution that provides notice
that sexual violence was alleged to have been committed against men is the Original
Indictment667 which alleged that attacks against civilians included sexual violence against
men.666 This allegation was subsequently deleted from the general charges section of the
First and Second Amended Indictments. It was therefore reasonable for the Accused to
conclude that the Prosecution no longer intended to proceed with this particular charge.
129. The Prosecution has failed to point to any references in the charging documents669
capable of providing timely, clear and consistent notice to the Accused of allegations of any
forms of sexual violence other than rape and sexual slavery, or to physical violence
constituting cruel treatment other than beatings and mutilation.676
130. In relation to the Prosecution's submission that such notice was provided by the
disclosure of witness statements, the Trial Chamber notes that while witness statements
may, in some cases, be found to put an accused on notice of a charge and therefore cure a
defective indictment,} 71 mere service of witness statements by the Prosecution in discharge
of its disclosure obligations does not always suffice to inform an accused of material facts
that the Prosecution intends to prove at trial.672 Witness statements/sumrnaries will only put
an accused on notice if the allegations provide specific references to the relevant counts or
366 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 47, citing Prosecutor v. Kvocka, Kos, Radic, Zigic and Prcac, IT-98-30/ 1-
A, Judgement (AC), 28 February 2005 [Kvoéka et al. Appeal Judgement], para. 33, Prosecutor v. Kupreskic,
Kupreskic, Kupreskic, Josipovic and Santic, [T-95-16-A, Judgement (AC), 23 October 2001 [Kupreskic Appeal
Judgement], para. 1 14, Muhimana Appeal Judgement, para. 217 quoting Gacumbtsi Appeal Judgement, para. 49;
Prosecutor v. Ntakirutimana and Ntakirutimana, ICTR-96-10-A and ICTR-96-17-A, Judgement (AC), 13
December 2004 [Ntakirutimana Appeal Judgement], para. 27; Prosecutor v. Ntagerura, Bagambiki and
Imanishimwe, ICTR-99-46-A, Judgement (AC), 7 July 2006 [Ntagerura et al. Appeal Judgement], paras 28, 65.
See also Prosecutor v. F ofana and Kondewa, SCSL-04-14-A-829, Judgement (AC), 28 May 2008, [CDF Appeal
Judgement], para. 443.
367 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-I, Indictment, 7 March 2003 [Original Indictment], para. 30.
366 Original lndictment, para. 30, which alleges "[t]he attacks included unlawful killings, physical and sexual
violence against civilian men, women and children". However, the particulars in relation to Counts 4-6 do not
include any reference to sexual violence committed against men.
666 Original Indictment; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-I-075, Amended Indictment and Case Summary
accompanying the Amended Indictment, 17 March 2006 [First Amended Indictment], Prosecutor v. Taylor,
SCSL-03-01-T-327, Prosecution Notification of Filing of Amended Case Summary, 3 August 2007 [Case
Summary]; Pre-Trial Brief; Opening Statement, Transcript 6 June 2007; and/or witness statements.
376 See Prosecution Final Trial Brief, footnote 1807.
671 RUF Appeal Judgement, para. 126.
372 Prosecutor v. Naletilié and Martinovic, IT-98-34-A, Judgement (AC), 3 May 2006 [Naletilic Appeal
Judgement], para. 27.

---- End of Page 54 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T if (h. 18 May 2012

38 1%:1*
paragraphs of the indictment to which they relate,373 and will generally Only be found to cure
a defect in the indictment when considered in conjunction with other materials (e. g. a pre-
trial brief) which provide clear and consistent notice to the accused.374
131. In this case, the claim by the Prosecution that, notwithstanding, its failure to specify
these additional criminal acts in the Indictment, the Accused has been given timely clear and
consistent notice by "witness statements" has not been supported by reference to any
portions of these witness statements capable of providing such notice. Moreover, as witness
statements were Only disclosed to the Defence, not to the Trial Chamber, the Trial Chamber
is not in a position to consider whether they provide the Defence with timely, clear and
consistent notice.
Findings
132. In asmuch as the Prosecution seeks to prove the guilt of the Accused for criminal
acts not specifically pleaded in the Indictment, the Trial Chamber finds that the Indictment is
defective in that it fails to plead the material facts of those criminal acts. Moreover, such
defect cannot be said to be cured, since the Accused has not been provided with timely, clear
and consistent notice that he is charged with any such criminal acts.
133. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber holds that granting the Prosecution's submission to
consider evidence of all f0nns of sexual vi0lence, including sexual vi0lence against men
under C0unt 6, and all f0nns of physical vi0lence constituting "cruel treatment" under
C0unts 7 or 8, would be unfair and prejudicial to the Accused and would be tantamount to
allowing the Prosecution to amend the Indictment without specifically seeking leave to do s0
under Rule 50.375
134. The Trial Chamber therefore will not consider evidence of sexual vi0lence other than
rape and sexual slavery as charged in the Indictment under C0unt 6. Furthennore, the Trial
Chamber will not consider evidence of physical vi0lence constituting cruel treatment other
373 Naletilié Appeal Judgement, para. 27; Muvunyi v. Prosecutor, ICTR-00-55A-A, Judgement (AC), 29
August 2008 [Muvunyi Appeal Judgement], para. 98.
374 Ntakirutimamz Appeal Judgement, para. 48.
375 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 418. See a1s0 Mtzvunyi Appeal Judgement, para. 28, and AFRC Trial
Judgement, where the Trial Chamber held at paragraph 80 that "the Prosecution cannot be permitted to mould
the case against the Accused as the trial progresses".

---- End of Page 55 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T / (DA 18 May 2012 %
x

3% I 4%
than evidence of mutilations and/or beatings as charged in the Indictment under Counts 7
and 8. ·
(c) Timeframes not pleaded precisely in the Indictment
Submissions of the Parties
135. The Prosecution submits that since timeframes in the Indictment are pleaded using
the inclusive language "between about [...] and about", the Trial Chamber should consider
all relevant evidence adduced where the evidence falls within the approximate timeframes
specified by the Indictment.376 The Prosecution does not specify how proximate to the
timeframes pleaded the evidence must be in order for the Trial Chamber to consider it.
136. The Defence has not specifically responded to this submission, beyond reiterating
that there must be limits to the use that the Trial Chamber may make of evidence falling
outside of the scope of the Indictment.377
Findings
137. The Appeals Chamber of the ICTR has held that "a broad date range does not, in and
of itself invalidate a pleading"378 and Trial Chambers at the ICTR and ICTY have held that
while specificity is preferable, if a precise date cannot be specified, a "reasonable range of
dates" may be provided.379 Trial Chamber I has also held that timeframes pleaded in the
RUF Indictment, which are similar to those pleaded in the Indictment in the instant case,
provided the Accused with sufficient information for him to understand the nature of the
charges and to prepare his defence.380 The Trial Chamber therefore finds that given the
376 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 662.
377 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 3l.
378 Muvunyi Appeal Judgement, paras 58-59. See also RUF Trial Judgement, para. 426.
379 Prosecutor v. Ntawukulilyayo, ICTR-05-82-PT, Decision on Defence Preliminary Motion Alleging
Defects in the Form of the Indictment, 28 April 2009 [Ntawukulilyayo Decision on the Form of the Indictment],
para. 15; Prosecutor v. Niseyimana and Hategekimana, ICTR-00-55-I, 25 September 2007, Decision on the
Prosecution's Application for Severance and Leave to Amend the Indictment Against Idelphonse Hategekimana
[Niseyimuna Decision on Leave to Amend the Indictment], para. 33; Prosecutor v. Nchamihigo, ICTR-200l-63-
I, Decision on Defence Motion on Defects in the Form of the Indictment, 27 September 2006 [Nc/uzmihigo
Decision on the Form of the Indictment], para. l7; Prosecutor v. Brayanin, IT-99-36-PT, Decision on Objections
By Momir Talié to the Form of Amended Indictment (TC), 20 February 2001 [Brojanin Decision on the Form of
the Indictment], para. 22.
330 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 426.

---- End of Page 56 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-0l-T / FP 18 May 2012
L.

2>~z¤ Lee;
nature of the case, the timeframes in the Indictment provide the Accused with sufhcient
information for him to understand the nature of the charges and to prepare his defence.
D. Prejudicial Delay in the Trial Chamber's Ruling on the Defence's
Challenge to the Pleading of the Joint Criminal Enterprise as a Mode of Liability
Background
138. In a motion Hled on 14 December 2007, the Defence challenged the sufhciency of
the pleading of joint criminal enterprise ("JCE") in the Indictment on several grounds, the
most signihcant of which was the legal and factual ambiguities surrounding the common
purpose of the alleged J CE.3 81 The Trial Chamber ruled orally on this matter on 19 February
2009,382 and issued a written decision on 27 February 2009.383 The Trial Chamber by
majority, Justice Lussick dissenting, held that paragraphs 5, 9, 14, 22, 23, 28, 33 and 34 of
the Indictment, when taken together "fulHl the requirements for pleading J CE and serve to
put the Defence on notice that the Prosecution intended to charge the Accused with having
participated in a [JCE]".3g4
139. The Trial Chamber further found that "a campaign to terrorize the civilian population
of the Republic of Sierra Leone" as alleged in paragraph 5 (when read in conjunction with
paragraph 33) was the "common purpose" of the alleged JCE and the crimes charged in
counts 2 through 11 were part of the "campaign of terror" or were a reasonably foreseeable
consequence thereof.385 Justice Lussick dissented, holding that "the Accused should not be
381 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-378, Public Urgent Defence Motion regarding a Fatal Defect in the
Prosecution's Second Amended Indictment relating to the Pleading of JCE, 14 December 2007 [Taylor Defence
Motion on JCE]. See also Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-388, Public Defence Reply to ‘Prosecution
Response to Urgent Defence Motion regarding a Fatal Defect in the Prosecution's Second Amended Indictment
relating to the Pleading of JCE,’ 14 January 2008; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-446, Consequential
Submission in Support of Urgent Defence Motion regarding a Fatal Defect in the Prosecution's Second
Amended Indictment relating to the Pleading of JCE, 31 March 2008; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-754,
Defence Application for Leave to Appeal the Decision on Urgent Defence Motion regarding a Fatal Defect in the
Prosecution's Second Amended Indictment relating to the Pleading of JCE, 2 March 2009; Prosecutor v. Taylor,
SCSL-03-01-T-767, Defence Notice of Appeal and Submissions regarding the Majority Decision concerning the
Pleading of JCE in the Second Amended Indictment, 26 March 2009; and Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-0l-T-
769, Corrigendum to Defence Notice of Appeal and Submissions regarding the Majority Decision concerning the
Pleading of JCE in the Second Amended Indictment, 30 March 2009.
3*2 Transcript 19 rppmary 2009, pp. 24052-24053.
383 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-752. Decision on Urgent Defence Motion regarding a Fatal Defect
in the Prosecution's Second Amended Indictment relating to the Pleading of JCE, 27 February 2009 [Taylor
Trial Chamber Decision on JCE].
334 Taylor Trial Chamber Decision on JCE, para. 70.
385 Taylor Trial Chamber Decision on JCE, para. 71.

---- End of Page 57 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T ON 18 May 2012

3@S¤
required to undergo the brain-twisting exercise of reading together paragraphs 5, 9, 14, 22,
23, 28, 33 and 34 of the Indictment in order to fathom what facts are most likely to form the
basis of his alleged joint criminal enterprise liability".386
140. On 1 May 2009, the Appeals Chamber upheld the Trial Chamber Decision on
JCE 387
Submissions of the Parties
141. The Defence alleges that the amount of time taken by the Trial Chamber to render a
decision on the Defence Motion on JCE was inordinate and unreasonable and resulted in
irremediable prejudice to the Accused's fair trial rights.388
142. The Defence notes that the Trial Chamber Decision on JCE in this case was only
rendered on the day that the Prosecution closed its case, and submits that the jurisprudence
indicates a clear preference for the resolution of any ambiguity in an Indictment as soon as it
emerges, and in any event, pre-tria1.389 It submits that there are several forms of prejudice
that resulted from this unreasonable delay, namely: (i) the Accused could not conduct
meaningful pre-trial investigation into the alleged common purpose and the nature of the
Accused's participation in it, (ii) effective cross-examination of Prosecution witnesses
regarding the common purpose of the J CE and the Accused's participation in it was severely
undermined and hindered by the unresolved legal ambiguities surrounding the Indictment
and (iii) preparation for the Defence case during the currency of the Prosecution's case was
fractured and impossible to progress due to uncertainty regarding which J CE allegations to
defend and (iv) the very fact of a Majority opinion on the J CE Motion serves to confirm that
reasonable minds, including those of the judges, differed in their understanding of what the
common purpose of the alleged J CE was.39O I
386 Trial Chamber Decision on JCE — Dissenting Opinion of Justice Richard Lussick, 27 February 2009,
para. 15; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-761, Corrigendum to Decision on Public Defence Motion
Regarding a Fatal Defect in the Prosecution's Second Amended Indictment Relating to the Pleading of JCE —
Dissenting Opinion of Justice Richard Lussick.
387 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-775, Decision on Defence Notice of Appeal and Submissions
regarding the Majority Decision concerning the Pleading of JCE in the Second Amended Indictment, 1 May
2009 [Taylor Appeal Chamber Decision on JCE], paras 21-23.
388 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 52; Defence Closing Arguments, Transcript 11 March 2011, pp. 49578-
49580.
W Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 54.
390 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 55. j

---- End of Page 58 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—O1—T GIA 18 May 2012

ya os t
143. The Defence therefore requests that the Trial Chamber remedy this prejudice by
exercising its discretion, in the interests of justice, in declining to consider JCE as a mode of
criminal responsibility against the Accused.39l
144. The Prosecution submits that the Defence is simply revisiting issues already decided
in the J CE Trial and Appeal Decisions. It alleges that the Defence submissions in relation to
the I CE "do not make sense when the decision of both the Trial Chamber and the Appeal
Chamber was that the indictment, the long—existing indictment, correctly pled a joint
criminal enterprise in which the means used to obtain the objectives was a crime within the
statute and jurisdiction of the Court and that is the crime of terrorism".392 The Prosecution
therefore takes the position that as the Indictment put the Accused on notice of the common
purpose of the ICE, the Defence carmot complain that it was prejudiced by the late ICE
Decision.393
Findings
145. In relation to the time it took to render the ICE Trial Chamber Decision, the Trial
Chamber notes that the JCE Motion was filed by the Defence on 14 December 2007,
pending the resolution of the Appeal in the AFRC Case. AHer the delivery of the AFRC
Appeal Judgement on 22 February 2008, the Trial Chamber invited both parties to file
consequential pleadings, taking into consideration the Appeals Chamber's findings.394 These
consequential submissions were Hled by the parties on the 31 March 2008,395 10 April
20083% and 15 April 2008,397 respectively. The Trial Chamber ruled orally on this matter on
19 February 2009,398 and issued the I CE Trial Chamber Decision on 27 February 2009.
W Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 59, 71.
392 Prosecution Oral Response, Transcript 9 March 2011, p. 49377.
303 Prosecution Oral Response, Transcript 9 March 201 1, pp. 49377—49378.
394 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-434, Scheduling Order in Relation to the Urgent Defence Motion
A Regarding a Fatal Defect in the Prosecution's Second Amended Indictment Relating to the Pleading of the J CE,
6 March 2008.
305 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T—446, Consequential Submission in Support of Urgent Defence
Motion Regarding a Fatal Defect in the Prosecution's Second Amended Indictment Relating to the Pleading of
JCE, 31 March 2008.
3% Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-463, Prosecution Response to the Defence's Consequential
Submissions Regarding the Pleading of JCE, 10 April 2008.
W Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T—473, Defence Reply to the Prosecution Response to the Defence's
Consequential Submission Regarding the Pleading of JCE, 15 April 2008.
398 Transcript 19 February 2009, pp. 24052-24053.

---- End of Page 59 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—O3—O1-T GQ 18 May 2012

3% I 5 1
146. The Trial Chamber found in the ICE Trial Decision that the Indictment provided the
Accused with sufficient notice of the common purpose of the ICE. The Trial Chamber
therefore did not need to consider whether subsequent disclosure by the Prosecution
provided "timely, clear and consistent" information regarding the common purpose of the
ICE.
147. Consequently, the Accused was on notice from 29 May 2007, when the Second
Amended Indictment was filed, of the common purpose of the ICE. As the Trial Chamber
found that the pleading was not defective (a finding that was upheld by the Appeals
Chamber), the Defence therefore did not suffer any prejudice resulting from the fact that the
ICE Decision was rendered only at the close of the Prosecution case. The Trial Chamber
therefore finds that the Defence has not established that it was irremediably prejudiced by
the delay in rendering the ICE Trial Decision, nor that the Accused was denied a fair trial as
a consequence of this delay.
E. Discretionary Payments and Other Inducements to Witnesses by the
Prosecution
148. The Defence also raises the issue of discretionary payments and other inducements to
witness by the Prosecution, submitting that this constitutes a prosecutorial abuse of process
and has deprived the Accused of a fair trial.399 The Trial Chamber has dealt with these
objections in Section IV(b), "Forms of Evidence under Review".
F. Suppression of Evidence
149. The Prosecution submits that by virtue of the resolution initiating the SCSL on 14
August 2000, the report of the Panel of Experts four months later, finding "clear and
convincing evidence" of Taylor's support for the RUF, the signing of the Agreement
between the Government of Sierra Leone and the UN creating the SCSL on 16 I anuary 2001
and the first seven indictments issued on March 2003 of former AFRC and RUF leaders
refening to Taylor's involvement in a "common purpose", the Accused became aware that
399 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 23-26.

---- End of Page 60 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T @26 18 May 2012

3 % I5 3
he would probably face trial for crimes in Sierra Leone.4OO Accordingly, he ordered the
arrest, torture or execution of anyone who might "betray" him.
150. The Prosecution alleges that the Accused arrested joumalist Sorious Samura and
others in August 2000 and threatened them with death, which led to their promise to
discontinue their investigative work on accusations that the Accused was involved in
diamond-smuggling, gun-running and support to the RUF.40l The Prosecution also alleges
that the Accused arrested joumalist Hassan Bility seven times between 1997 and 2002,
tortured him and threatened him with death, following his disclosures of information
pertaining to Liberian support for the RUF.4O2 The Defence submits that these arrests had
nothing to do with information disclosures.403
151. The Prosecution further alleges that the Accused ordered the killing of Denis Mingo
(a.k.a. Superman), Sam Bockarie, Johnny Paul Koroma, and Daniel Tamba (a.k.a.
Jungle).404 I
152. Although these allegations fall outside the scope of the Indictment, the Prosecution
argued that they were efforts by the Accused to suppress evidence of his role and that they
are relevant to his consciousness of guilt.4O5
153. The Defence does not make submissions with respect to the alleged killing of Denis
Mingo, Sam Bockarie, Johnny Paul Koroma and Daniel Tamba. However, the Defence
generally submits that the Prosecution has adduced a considerable amount of evidence that
falls outside the temporal and geographical scope of the Indictment. The Defence had
objected previously to such evidence, maintaining that the use of ex-temporal and ex-
territorial evidence by the Prosecution was so widespread that it proved impractical for the
Defence to raise the same objection at every tum.4O6 Furthermore, the Defence submits that
much of that evidence is irrelevant to the Indictment, contrary to the interests of justice and,
in any event, adversely prejudicial to the Accused such that it contravenes both Rule 95 and
400 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 1175-1176.
ml Prosecution Final Trial Brief] para. 1186.
102 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para 1187,
403 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1428.
MH Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 1176.
105 Prosecution Closing Arguments, Transcript 9 March 2011, pp. 49372-49373.
406 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 33

---- End of Page 61 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03-01-T GMU 18 May 2012 E

3 sa i $*4
Article 17. Accordingly, such evidence should be excluded from the Trial Chamber's
deliberations. The Defence submits that there is so much evidence outside the scope of the
Indictment, it amounts to prejudice of such a nature which far outweighs any probative value
to such evidence. ln that sense, it contravenes both Rule 95 and Article 17 and should
consequently be excluded.4O7
154. The Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution led substantial evidence from a number
of witnesses to support its allegation that Denis Mingo, Sam Bockarie, Johnny Paul Koroma
and Daniel Tamba were killed on the orders of Taylor. TF1-516, TF1-371, TFl-276, Joseph
Marzah, Sam Kolleh, John Vincent and Issa Sesay all gave testimony relevant to the killing
of Denis Mingo in 2001 in a roadside ambush allegedly orchestrated by Benjamin Yeaten on
the order of the Accused. TF1-585, TF1-388, TF1-367, TF1-561, TF1-375, TF1-579, Sam
Kolleh and DCT-292 all gave testimony relevant to the killing of Sam Bockarie in May
2003, allegedly by Benjamin Yeaten on the order of the Accused. TF1-375, TF1-399, and
TF1-516 gave testimony relevant to the killing of Johnny Paul Koroma, allegedly on order
of the Accused. TF1-399, TF1-388, TF1-375, Joseph Marzah, DCT-215, and DCT-008 gave
testimony relevant to the killing of Daniel Tamba, allegedly on order of the Accused. The
Accused denied having a role in these killings.
155. To consider this evidence would, in the view of the Trial Chamber, be extremely
prejudicial to the Accused. The Prosecution argues that the crimes are relevant to his
"consciousness of guilt".4O8 However, the Accused has not been charged or tried for these
crimes. And notwithstanding all the evidence that has been introduced, the Accused is not on J
trial for these crimes in this Court. For this reason it would be inappropriate for the Trial
Chamber to draw conclusions from the evidence on the "consciousness of guilt" of the
Accused, as suggested by the Prosecution.
407 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 34-36.
408 Prosecution Closing Arguments, Transcript 9 March 2011, pp. 49372—49373.

---- End of Page 62 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T /6/ dri} 18 May 2012

2 1,1 SS
IV. IV. EVALUATION OF EVIDENCE
A. Law Applicable to the Assessment of Evidence
156. The Trial Chamber has assessed the probative value and weight of the evidence in
this case in accordance with the Statute and the Rules.
157. Rule 89 provides that:
(A) The rules of evidence set forth in this Section shall govern the proceedings before the Chambers. The
Chambers shall not be bound by national rules of evidence.
(B) In cases not otherwise provided for in this Section, a Chamber shall apply rules of evidence which
will best favour a fair determination of the matter before it and are consonant with the spirit of the Statute and
the general principles of law;
(C) A Chamber may admit any relevant evidence.
1. Burden and Standard of Proof
158. Article 17(3) of the Statute enshrines the presumption of imiocence, i.e. that an
accused shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty.4O9 This presumption places on the
Prosecution the burden of establishing the guilt of the Accused, a burden which remains on
the Prosecution throughout the trial.
159. In respect of each count, the standard to be met for a conviction to be entered is that
of proof beyond reasonable doubt. Rule 87(A) of the Rules provides, in its relevant part: "A
finding of guilt may be reached only when a majority of the Trial Chamber is satisfied that
guilt has been proved beyond reasonable doubt". Accordingly, in respect of each count, the
Trial Chamber has determined whether it is satisfied, on the basis of the whole of the ·
evidence, that every element of that crime and the criminal responsibility of the Accused for
it have been established beyond reasonable doubt. In making that determination, the Trial
Chamber has been careful to consider whether more than one inference was reasonably open
from the facts and, if so, whether there was an inference inconsistent with the guilt of the
409 This provision is in accordance with all major human rights instruments, see International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights, Article 14(2); African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article
7(1)(b). 1

---- End of Page 63 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL»O3—O1—T / 18 May 2012 : E

2glS b
Accused. lf so, the onus and the standard of proof require that an acquittal be entered in
respect of that count.4l0
2. Admission of Evidence
160. Rule 89(C) of the Rules states the general principle of admissibility that a Trial
Chamber "may admit any relevant evidence".4H The Appeals Chamber has made it clear
that this provision favours the admission of all relevant evidence, the probative value and
weight of which are only to be assessed at the end of the trial and in the context of the entire
record.4l2
B. Forms of Evidence Under Review
161. For the purposes of the Judgement, ‘evidence’ has been taken to mean the
information which has been put before the Trial Chamber in order to prove the facts at issue.
162. Evidence was admitted in the following forms: (i) oral evidence, (ii) documentary
evidence, including such evidence provided in lieu of oral testimony pursuant to Rule 92bis,
and evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 92quater, (iii) testimony of expert witnesses, (iv)
facts of which judicial notice was taken and (v) facts agreed upon by the Parties.
l. Witness Testimony
163. The Trial Chamber heard the viva voce testimony of a total of 115 witnesses: 94
called by the Prosecution and 21 called by the Defence (including the Accused).
164. ln accordance with Rule 90(B), witnesses gave evidence under a solemn declaration
or oath, and were cross-examined and re-examined in accordance with Rule 85(B).
165. When evaluating the credibility of witnesses who gave evidence viva voce, the Trial
Chamber has taken into account a variety of factors, including their demeanour, conduct and
410 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 98. See Prosecutor v. Delalié, Mucié, Delié and Landfo, IT-96-21-A,
Judgement (AC), 20 February 200 l [Celebiéi Appeal Judgement], para. 458.
in Rule 89(C) is thus different from its counterpart in the ICTY Rules, which provides that "[a] Chamber
may admit any relevant evidence which it deems to have probative value" (emphasis added).
412 Prosecutor v. Fofana, SCSL-04-14-AR65, Fofana — Appeal Against Decision Refusing Bail, ll March
2005 [Fofana Appeal Decision Refusing Bail], para. 26; AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 99; RUF Trial Judgement,
para. 474.

---- End of Page 64 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T / &N` l8 May 2012

32 isa-
character (where possible),M3 their knowledge of the facts to which they testihed, their
proximity to the events described, the plausibility and clarity of their testimony, their
impartiality, the lapse of time between the events and the testimony, their possible
involvement in the events and the risk of self-incrimination, inconsistencies in their
testimony and their ability to explain such inconsistencies, any motivations to lie, and their
relationship with the Accused.M4
166. ln some instances, only one witness gave evidence on a material fact. As a matter of
law, the testimony of a single witness on a material fact does not require corroboration,M5
and the Trial Chamber ma rel on "a limited number of witnesses or even a sin le witness
Y Y S
provided it took into consideration all of the evidence on the record".M6 Nevertheless, the
Trial Chamber has examined the evidence of a single witness with particular care before
attaching any weight to it.M7
167. The Trial Chamber may accept or reject the evidence of a witness in whole or in part,
and may find a witness to be credible and reliable about certain aspects of his or her
testimony and not credible or reliable with respect to others.M8
(a) Hearsay Evidence
168. ln addition to evidence of facts within the testifying witness's own knowledge, the
Trial Chamber has also admitted hearsay evidence. Under Rule 89(C) of the Rules, the Trial
Chamber has a broad discretion to admit relevant hearsay evidence.M9 However, before
determining whether to rely on hearsay evidence, the Trial Chamber has examined such
M3 Prosecutor v. Blugojevié and Jokié, 1T-02-60-T, Judgement (TC), 17 January 2005 [Blugojevié Trial
Judgement], para. 23.
M4 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 108; Nahimanu et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 194; Prosecutor v. Halilovié,
IT-01-48-T, Judgement (TC), 16 November 2005 [Halilovié Trial Judgement], para. 17.
M5 Prosecutor v. Tudié, 1T-94-1-A. Judgement (AC), 15 July 1999 [Tadié Appeal Judgement], para. 65;
Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, 1T-95-14/1-A, Judgement (AC), 24 March 2000 [Aleksovski Appeal Judgement],
para. 62; Kupreskié et ul. Appeal Judgement, para. 33.
M6 AFRC Appeal Judgement. para. 147; Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, SCSL-04-15-T-1234,
Judgement (TC), 2 March 2009 [RUF Trial Judgement], para. 501.
M7 Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, IT-03-66-T, Judgement (TC), 30 November 2005 [Limaj Trial
Judgement], para. 21; Brdanin Trial Judgement, para. 27.
M8 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 488, citing Kupreskié et al. Appeal Judgement. para. 333.
M9 See Prosecutor v. Brima, Kumara, Kanu, SCSL-04-16-T, Decision on Joint Defence Motion to Exclude
all Evidence from Witness TF1-277 Pursuant to Rule 89(C) and/or Rule 95, 24 May 2005 [Kumara Decision on
Motion to Exclude Evidence], para. 24. See also Blugojevié and Jo/tic Trial Judgement, para. 21; Prosecutor v.
Aleksovski, IT-95-14/1-AR73, Decision on Prosecutor's Appeal on Admissibility of Evidence, 16 February 1999
[Aleksovski Appeal Decision on Admissibility of Evidence], para. 14.

---- End of Page 65 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / 18 May 2012 %

38 s S 8
evidence with caution, as the weight and probative value to be afforded to such evidence
will usually be less than that accorded to the evidence of a witness who has given the
evidence under oath or solemn declaration and who has been tested in cross-examination.424)
ln so doing, the Trial Chamber has taken into account whether the hearsay evidence is
voluntary, truthful, and trustworthy, and has considered both its context and the
circumstances under which it arose.424
169. Factors that the Trial Chamber has taken into account in assessing the probative
value of hearsay evidence include whether the hearsay is first-hand or removed,422 whether
the hearsay emanates from identified or unidentified/anonymous sources,424 the opportunity
to cross-examine the person who made the statement,424 whether the hearsay statement is
. corroborated,425 the potential for errors of perception and the circumstantial guarantees of
trustworthiness surrounding the statement.426
(b) Circumstantial Evidence
170. ln some instances, the Trial Chamber relied upon circumstantial evidence, i.e.,
evidence surrounding an event from which a fact at issue may be reasonably inferred,427 in
order to detemiine whether or not a certain conclusion could be drawn. While individual
pieces of evidence standing alone may well be insufficient to establish a fact, their
420 Prosecutor v. Fofczncz, SCSL-04-14-AR73, Fofana A Decision on Appeal Against "Decision on
Prosecution's Motion for Judicial Notice and Admission of Evidence" [Fofana Appeal Decision on
Prosecution's Motion for Judicial Notice and Admission of Evidence], Separate Opinion of Justice Robertson,
16 May 2005, para. 6. See also RUF Appeal Judgement, para. 518; RUF Trial Judgement, paras 495-496;
[Krnojelac Trial Judgement], para. 70; Aleksovski Appeal Decision on Admissibility of Evidence, para. 15.
424 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 495, citing Krnojeluc Trial Judgement, para. 70; Aleksovsld Appeal Decision
on Admissibility of Evidence, para. 15. See also Prosecutor v. Delic, IT-04-83-T, Judgement (TC), 15
September 2008 [Delic Trial Judgement], para. 27; Prosecutor v. Tczdic, Case No. IT-94-1-T, Decision on
Defence Motion on Hearsay, 5 August 1996 [Tadic Decision on Hearsay], para. 16.
422 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 496; Aleksovski Appeal Decision on Admissibility of Evidence, para. 15;
Prosecutor v. Kalimanzira, ICTR-05-88-A, Judgement (AC), 20 October 2010 [Kulimanzira Appeal
Judgement], para. 78.
424 Prosecutor v. Rulcundo, ICTR-2001-70-T, Judgement (TC), 27 February 2009 [Rukundo Trial
Judgement], para. 89; Prosecutor v. Lubanga, ICC-01/04-01/06-803-tEN, Decision on Confirmation of Charges,
30 September 2008, para. 140; Prosecutor v. Rukundo, ICTR-2001-70-A, Judgement (AC), 20 October 2010
[Rukundo Appeal Judgement], paras 194, 196.
424 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 496; Aleltzsovski Appeal Decision on Admissibility of Evidence, para. 15.
425 CDF Appeal Judgement, para. 199.
426 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 496; De/ic Trial Judgement, para. 27.
427 Brdanin Trial Judgement, para. 35; Blugojevic Trial Judgement, para. 21,

---- End of Page 66 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T /6/ Tim 18 May 2012
/

3%: Sq
cumulative effect may be revealing and decisive.428 Therefore, it is "no derogation of
evidence to say that it is circumstantial".429
l7l. When considering whether to rely on circumstantial evidence in proof of a fact in
issue, the Trial Chamber has considered whether the only reasonable inference to be drawn
from such evidence leads to proof of the guilt of the Accused.430 When such evidence is
capable of any other reasonable inference it is not reliable for the purposes of convicting an
accusedfm
(c) Discrepancies Between the Evidence of Various Witnesses, or Between the Evidence of
a Particular Witness and a Previous Statement
172. lt is the responsibility of the Trial Chamber to resolve any inconsistencies that may
arise within and/or amongst witnesses’ testimonies. In doing so, the Trial Chamber has
1 discretion to evaluate any inconsistencies, to consider whether the evidence taken as a whole
is reliable and credible and to accept or reject the ‘fundamental features’ of the evidence.432
ln this context, the Trial Chamber endorses the statement of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in
Kapreskié that:
[tlhe presence of inconsistencies in the evidence does not, perse, require a reasonable Trial
Chamber to reject it as being unreliable. Similarly, factors such as the passage of time
between the events and the testimony of the witness, the possible influence of third persons,
discrepancies, orthe existence of stressful conditions at the time the events took place do
not automatically exclude the Trial Chamber from relying on the evidence.433
173. A number of witnesses gave evidence of horrific events in which they personally
suffered the amputation of one or both arms, or were raped, or witnessed atrocities inflicted
upon members of their families. Recounting this evidence in court evoked strong emotional
reactions in some of these witnesses. As a result, the Trial Chamber took the view that there
may have been memories which prevented the witnesses from giving a full account of their
428 Celibici Appeal Judgement, para. 458.
429 Prosecutor v. Oric, IT-03-68-T, Order Concerning Guidelines on Evidence and the Conduct of Parties
During Trial Proceedings, 21 October 2004 [Oric Order on Evidence}, p. 7, referring to Taylor, Weaver and
Donovan (1928) 21 Cr. App. R. 20, 21, per Lord Hewart C.J.
430 CDF Appeal Judgement, para. 200; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 499. See also Ntagerura et al. Appeal
Judgement, para. 306; Karera v. Prosecutor, ICTR-01-74-A, Judgement, 2 February 2009 [Karera Appeal
J udgement}, para. 34.
43 1 CDF Appeal Judgement, para. 200. See also RUF Trial Judgement, para. 499; Karera Appeal Judgement,
para. 34.
432 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 1 10. See also Kapreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 31.
433 Kupreskic Appeal Judgement, para. 31. See also AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 1 10.

---- End of Page 67 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012

3% tbo
experiences to the Court, or which prevented them from articulating in detail what they had
endured.434 The Trial Chamber also took into consideration the possibility that any
observations made by the witnesses at the relevant time may have been affected by terror or
stress.435 While these circumstances do not necessarily mean that such evidence is not
reliable, the Trial Chamber has weighed it with particular scmtiny.436
174. During the trial, both the Prosecution and the Defence made use of pre—trial
statements from witnesses — and sometimes of interview notes — for the purpose of cross-
examination. ln many instances both parties alleged inconsistencies and contradictions
between the pre—trial statements of witnesses and their evidence at trial. The Trial Chamber
accepts that the information given in such a statement will not always be identical to the
witness's oral evidence. This may be because the witness was asked questions at trial not
previously asked, or may in his or her testimony remember details previously forgotten.437
The Trial Chamber has also taken into account that the lapse of time since the events in the
Indictment occurred may have affected the accuracy and reliability of the memories of
witnesses. Another factor considered by the Trial Chamber was that interviews with
witnesses were usually conducted in one of the local languages of Sierra Leone or Liberia,
whereas the resulting witness statements used in court were a summarised English
translation of the original statement or interview notes.
175. Thus, in general, the Trial Chamber has not treated minor discrepancies between the
evidence of various witnesses, or between the evidence of a particular witness and a
statement previously made by that witness, as discrediting their evidence where the essence
of the incident had nevertheless been recounted in acceptable detail.438 However, it has
considered the impact of such inconsistencies on the credibility of each witness on a case-
by—case basis.
176. Where there are material inconsistencies in the evidence of a witness, the Trial
Chamber has assessed any explanations provided by the witness for such discrepancies and
considered the extent to which such inconsistencies have a bearing on the witness’ evidence
434 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 111. See also Celebiéi Appeal Judgement, para. 496.
435 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 111.. See also Limaj Trial Judgement, para. 15.
446 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 111.
437 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 112. See also Brdanin Trial Judgement, para. 26.
438 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 113. See also Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 69.

---- End of Page 68 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-O3-O1-T / 18 May 2012

3% lbl
as a whole. The Trial Chamber has the discretion to determine whether, in light of
significant inconsistencies, it will reject the witness's evidence in its entirety, or accept
certain parts of the witness’ evidence.439 However, where there are material inconsistencies
within the witness's testimony, the Trial Chamber has generally only accepted those parts of
the witness's testimony which are corroborated.44O
177. When there are discrepancies between the accounts of two witnesses, it is for the
Trial Chamber to determine whether these discrepancies discredit a witness's testimony.44l
When faced with competing versions of events, it is the prerogative of the Trial Chamber to
determine which one is more credible.442
(d) Names of Locations
178. The Trial Chamber reiterates that names of locations mentioned by witnesses which
are similar, but not identical, may refer to the same location. lt would not be appropriate to
strike out the names of such locations given that a variety of languages and dialects are
spoken in Sierra Leone and that some witnesses are illiterate. Thus names of locations
mentioned by witnesses which are similar but not identical to names of locations that appear
in the lndictment may refer to the same location.443
(e) Time Frames
179. Various witnesses testified about events occurring during broad time periods, such as
"the rainy season", "the dry season", or "the mango season". Where reliable evidence has
been adduced about the dates of a particular season such as the rainy season or the mango
season in a particular district, the Trial Chamber has considered this evidence in determining
the timing of certain events that occurred during that season.
439 See e. g. AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 362; AFRC Appeal Judgement, para. 121.
440 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 490.
Ml AFRC Appeal Judgement, para. 121.
442 AFRC Appeal Judgement, para. 121. See also Rutaganda v. Prosecutor, lCTR-96-3-A, Judgement (AC),
26 May 2003 [Rutaganda Appeal Judgement], para. 29.
443 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SC SL-03-01-T, Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24202.

---- End of Page 69 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T % GM 18 May 2012

3% 1 eo.
(f) Testimony of the Accused in his own Defence
180. There is no burden on an accused to prove his innocence. Article 17(4)(g) of the
Statute provides that no accused shall be compelled to testify against himself or confess
guilt.
181. The Accused elected to testify in his own defence. In accordance with Rule 85(C) of
the Rules, he gave his evidence under oath and thereafter called other witnesses in his
defence. By electing to testify and to call witnesses in his Defence, the Accused did not
thereby assume the burden of proving his innocence. Rather, the Trial Chamber has to
determine whether the Prosecution evidence should be accepted as establishing beyond
reasonable doubt the facts alleged, notwithstanding the evidence of the Accused and that of
the other Defence witnesses.444
(g) Accomplice Evidence
182. The Trial Chamber has heard considerable testimony from "insider witnesses" — that
is, persons who were former members of the RUF, NPFL, Liberian government or close
associates of the Accused. The Appeals Chamber has held that there is no requirement that
in order to qualify as an accomplice, a witness must have been charged with a specific
offence.445
183. In assessing the reliability of accomplice evidence, the main consideration for the
Trial Chamber is whether or not the accomplice has an ulterior motive to testify as he did.
The Trial Chamber has generally looked for corroboration in such circumstances, but it
notes that it may convict on the basis of the evidence of a single witness, even an
accomplice, provided such evidence has been viewed with caution.446
444 Prosecutor v. Vasihevié, IT-98-32-T, Judgement, 29 November 2002 ["Vasi[jevié Trial Judgement"],
para. 13; Limaj Trial Jugement, para. 22. See also AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 117.
445 AFRC Appeal Judgement, para. 127; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 497.
M6 AFRC Appeal Judgement, paras 128-129; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 498. See also Prosecutor v.
Nchamihigo, ICTR-2001-63-A, Judgement (AC), 18 March 2010 [Nchamilzigo Appeal Judgement], para. 48;
Muvurzyi Appeal Judgement, para. 128.

---- End of Page 70 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / T 18 May 2012

3*3163
(h) Alleged ‘lncentives’ for Witnesses
184. The Defence alleges that the evidence of some of the Prosecution witnesses is
suspect because they allegedly received incentives to testify against the Accused, such as
financial incentives or the promise of relocation to another country.447
185. The Defence submits that the Prosecution's Witness Management Unit ("WMU")
made large payments on a systematic basis to Prosecution witnesses, and that this taints the
overall credibility of Prosecution evidence and amounts to an abuse of the Prosecution's
discretion pursuant to Rule 39(ii).448
186. ln particular, the Defence argues that such payments are contrary to the letter and/or
spirit of Rule 39(ii), in that some were impermissible under this Rule, while those that were
permissible were demonstrably exorbitant and irregular, that such payments were
duplicative and supplemental to payments made by the Witness and Victims Unit (WVS),
that these payments occurred both pre-trial and during the life of 'the trial, and were
deliberate and designed to influence the cooperation and evidence of potential witnesses,
witnesses, suspects or sources and to otherwise interfere with the administration of
justice.449 The Defence also submits that the amounts of money provided to witnesses by the
Prosecution must be viewed "in the light of the realities of life in Sierra Leone", where such
sums could have a significant effect on the lives of witnesses.450
187. The Defence submits that at a minimum, an adverse inference (if not presumption)
should be drawn vis-d—vis the reliability and credibility of Prosecution evidence in those
instances where the payments/inducements to particular witnesses are objectively
im Defence Final Trial Briefi paras 23-26, 1396.
448 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 23-26. The Defence also notes at paragraph 25 that it incorporates by
reference the submissions it made in Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-1089, Public with Confidential
Annexes A-J and Public Annexes K-O Defence Motion Requesting an Investigation into Contempt of the Court
by the Office of the Prosecution and its Investigators, 24 September 2010 [Contempt Motion]; Prosecutor v.
Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T1 142, Public with Annexes A-H and Confidential Annexes I-J Defence Motion to Recall
Four Prosecution Witnesses and to Hear Evidence from the Chief of WVS Regarding Relocation of Prosecution
Witnesses, 17 December 2010 [Motion to Recall].
449 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 24. See also Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1396; Defence Closing
Arguments, Transcript 11 March 2011, p. 49620, where the Defence listed witnesses whom it submits were
provided with overlapping payments by the WVS and WMU.
450 Prosecutor v. Taylor, Defence Closing Arguments, Transcript 10 March 2011, p. 49478; Defence Final
Trial Brief, para. 1396. »

---- End of Page 71 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T X GRM 18 May 2012

3%.1bL+
unreasonable and/or excessive.454 ln appropriate instances of egregious and unmitigated
abuse of discretionary payments/inducements by the Prosecution, the Court should exclude
the evidence of the applicable witnesses in their entirety.452 The Defence submits that as a
clear and regrettable case of prosecutorial abuse of process has been made out, the Accused
has been deprived of a fair trial.453
188. The Defence also submits that relocation or the promise or offer of relocation may
have had an impact on the credibility of certain witnesses’ testimony.454
189. The Prosecution does not specifically address these allegations in its submissions. lt
does, however, indicate that the Defence had ample opportunity to test insider/accomplice
evidence via full cross-examination, assisted by the disclosure of WVS and OTP
disbursements.455
(i) Financial Incentives
190. With regard to alleged ‘financial incentives’, the costs of allowances necessarily and
reasonably incurred by witnesses as a result of testifying before a Chamber are met by the
Special Court in accordance with the ‘"Practice Direction on Allowances for Witnesses and
Expert Witnesses", issued by the Registrar on 16 July 2004. The Practice Direction provides
for a wide range of allowances to be paid to witnesses testifying before the Special Court.
These include an attendance allowance as compensation for eamings and time lost as a result
of testifying, accommodation, meals, transport, medical treatment, childcare and other
allowances. No distinction is made between witnesses for the Prosecution and Defence.
191. The Practice Direction requires the Special Court's Witnesses and Victims Section
("WVS") to provide records of payments to the Special Court's Finance Section, and vice
vcrsa.456 ln the present case, records of disbursements to Prosecution witnesses were
disclosed to the Defence pursuant to Rule 68 of the Rules, and disbursement forms
454 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 25.
452 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 25. See also Prosecutor v. T oylor, Transcript 10 March 201 1, p. 49476.
453 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 26.
454 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 24, Motion to Recall, paras 1, 18.
455 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 42.
456 Practice Direction on Allowances for Witnesses and Expert Witnesses, Article 2(D).

---- End of Page 72 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T { Gm 18 May 2012

3 s 1 ep S
concerning witnesses for both parties have been admitted into evidence,457 and used to cross-
examine witnesses.458
192. In addition, in some cases, the Prosecution also made payments to and/or conferred
benefits upon witnesses outside of the WVS framework via its Witness Management Unit
("WMU"). Information about these payments has also been disclosed to the Defence,
admitted into evidence,459 and used to cross-examine Prosecution witnesses,46O
193, Rule 39(ii) provides that the Prosecutor may:
Take all measures deemed necessary for the purpose of the investigation, including the
taking of any special measures to provide for the safety, the support and the assistance of
potential witnesses and sources.
194, The Trial Chamber has previously held that the issue of whether there has been any
abuse of the Prosecution's discretion under Rule 39(ii) "in that the payments might not have
been necessary for the safety, support or assistance" of witnesses would be "considered at
the stage of final deliberations, taking into account the evidence adduced and the cross-
examination of the witness in question",46l
457 See, eng., Exhibit P-048, "A11 Disbursements for Witness TFl-276"; Exhibit P-120, "A1l Disbursements
for Witness TFl-561"; Exhibit P-200, "A11 Disbursements for Witness TF1-304"; Exhibit D-064, "Al1
Disbursements for Witness TF 1 -197"; Exhibit D-069, "A11 Disbursements for Witness TF1-034"; Exhibit D-071,
"Al1 Disbursements for Witness TFl-023"; Exhibit P-501, "Report from WVS"; Exhibit P-517, "Inter-office
Memo WVS dated 22 March 2010, Expenses Incurred on DCT-146, Dated 22 March 2010"; Exhibit P-554,
"Record of Expenses incurred on DCT-190 Dated 04 June-20l0".
454 See, c.g., Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 9 January 2008, pp. 780-782; Vannuyan Sherif, Transcript 14
January 2008, pp. 1162-1169; Dennis Koker, Transcript 16 January 2008, pp. 1389-1398; Karmoh Kanneh,
Transcript 4 May 2008, pp. 9763-9771; Charles Ngebeh, Transcript 12 April 2010, pp. 38726-38733; DCT-190,
Transcript 28 June 2010, pp. 43437-43443.
454 See Exhibit P-048, "A11 Disbursements for Witness TF1-276"; Exhibit P-120, "A11 Disbursements for
Witness TFl-561"; Exhibit P-200, "A11 Disbursements for Witness TF1-304"; Exhibit D-075, "Schedu1e of
Interviews and Payments for TFl-579"; Exhibit D-064, "A11 Disbursements for Witness TFl-l97"; Exhibit D-
069, "A11 Disbursements for Witness TF1-034"; Exhibit D-071, "Al1 Disbursements for Witness TFl-023";
Exhibit D-073, "A11 Disbursements for Witness SCSL P0298"; Exhibit D-479, "Index of Disbursements for
Witness DCT-032".
464 See, ag., Abu Keita, Transcript 24 January 2008, pp. 2154-2155; Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February
2008, pp. 3396-3402; Suwandi Camara, Transcript 13 February 2008, pp. 3766-3808; Foday Lansana, Transcript
26 February 2008, pp. 4754-61; Isaac Mongor, Transcript 7 April 2008, pp. 6702-6711; Dauda Aruna Fornie,
Transcript 1 1 December 2008, p. 22251.
46l Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-1 1 18, Decision on Public with Confidential Annexes A-J and Public
Annexes K-O Defence Motion Requesting an Investigation into Contempt of Court by the Office of the
Prosecutor and its Investigators, 12 November 2010, para. 40. See also Prosecutor v. Karemera et al., ICTR-98-
44-T, Decision on Joseph Nzirorera's Motion to Dismiss for Abuse of Process: Payments to Prosecution
Witnesses and "Requete de Mathieu Ngirumpatse en Retrait de L’Acte D’Accusation", 27 October 2008
[Karemera Decision on Abuse of Process].

---- End of Page 73 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03-01-T JM 18 May 2012

33 z be
195. In assessing witness credibility, the Trial Chamber has therefore taken into account
information about witness payments made both by the WVS and by the Prosecution, and has
considered any cross-examination of the witness in relation to these payments. In particular,
the Trial Chamber has considered, on a case by case basis whether the benehts conferred
upon and/or payments made to witnesses went beyond that "which is reasonably required for
the management of a witness".462 In assessing whether such a payment is "reasonab1y
required", the Trial Chamber has also taken into account the cost of living in West Africa
and the station in life of the witness receiving the payment.
(j) Relocation
196. Article 16(4) of the Statute and Rule 34 of the Rules mandate WVS to provide short
and long-term protection and support to witnesses and victims who appear before the
Special Court. Accordingly, WVS may relocate witnesses to another country pursuant to its
responsibility to provide appropriate protection for witnesses and victims who are at risk on
account of their testimony. The Registrar has indicated that "re1ocation is a last resort" and is
"on1y provided to those witnesses who are considered most at risk on account of their
testimonies"./163 Further, the Registrar has indicated that whenever relocation is warranted it
is "resorted to only after the witness has testihed and on the basis of threat assessments".464
197. In the present case, the Defence cross-examined several Prosecution witnesses about
relocation or promises/offers of relocation.465 In its assessment of the credibility of such
witnesses, the Trial Chamber has taken in consideration evidence that witnesses have been
promised relocation or have in fact been relocated, the effect that such promises may have
462 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-1084, Decision on Defence Motion for Disclosure of Statement and
Prosecution Payments made to DCT—097, 23 September 2010 [Taylor Decision on Payments to DCT-097], para.
21; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-1104, Decision on Public with Confidential Annexes A»—D Defence
Motion for Disclosure of Exculpatory Information Relating to DCT-032, 20 October 2010 [Taylor Decision on
Exculpatory Information], para. 30, citing Prosecutor v. Karemera, Ngirumpatse, Nzirorera, ICTR-98-44-PT,
Decision on Defence Motion for Full Disclosure of Payments to Witnesses and to Exclude Testimony from Paid
Witnesses, 23 August 2005 [Karemera Decision on Disclosure of Payments], para. 6.
463 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-1153, Submissions of the Registrar Pursuant to Rule 33(B)
Regarding the Defence Motion to Recall Four Prosecution Witnesses and to Hear Evidence from the Chief of
WVS Regarding Relocation of Prosecution Witnesses, 11 January 2011 [Registrar's Submission on Motion to
Recall], para. 11.
464 Ibid., para. 12.
465 See, e.g., TF1-375, Transcript 27 August 2008, p. 14706; TF1-579, Transcript 26 November 2008, pp.
21244-21246; Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 11 December 2008, pp. 22242, 22249; Alex Tamba Teh,
Transcript 9 January 2008, p. 782; TF1-362, Transcript 3 March 2008, p. 5079 (CS); TF1-590, Transcript 16
June 2008, p. 11906.

---- End of Page 74 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T J mw 18 May 2012 %

3% 1151-
had on their testimony, the opportunity that the Defence had to cross-examine the witnesses
about such offers, and any cross—examination in relation to these issues, on a case by case
basis.
(k) Other incentives
198. In assessing witness credibility, the Trial Chamber has also taken into account other
incentives that may have been offered to witnesses, including indemnity letters provided to
witnesses by the Prosecution,466 and offers to release witnesses from prison.467
2. Documentary Evidence
(a) Intr0duction
199. In the course of the trial, the Trial Chamber admitted a total of 1522 exhibits: 782
were tendered by the Prosecution, and 740 by the Defence.
200. D0cuments were admitted through witnesses who testified during the trial, pursuant
to Rule 89(C) provided the d0cument was relevant and sufficient foundation was laid for the
document to be used and/or admitted through the witness.468 Documents were also admitted
into evidence in lieu of 0ral testimony pursuant to Rules 92bis and 92quater.
201. In this case, the Trial Chamber admitted the prior trial transcripts and related exhibits
0f twenty—two witnesses, and the statements of six witnesses, into evidence pursuant to Rule
92bis provided the Prosecution make the said witnesses available for cross-examination by
the Defence.469 The Trial Chamber also admitted a statement of one Defence witness into
466 See e.g. Defence Closing Arguments, Transcript 10 March 2011, p. 49481; Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31
March 2007, p. 6240; Transcript 7 April 2008, pp. 6718-6719, 6739, 6743; Moses Blah, Transcript 19 May
2008, pp. 10114-10115, Exhibit P-119, "Memo from James Johnson, Acting Prosecutor, SCSL to Moses Blah,
30 October 2006".
467 See eg. Foday Lansana, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 4612-4614; TF1-375, Transcript 22 August
2008,p. 14340.
468 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T, Transcript 21 August 2008, p. 14253; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-
03-01-AR73, Decision on "Prosecution Notice of Appeal and Submissions Concerning the Decision Regarding
the Tender of Document.s", 6 February 2009 [Taylor Decision on the Tender of Documents], paras 40-42.
469 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-556, Decision on Prosecution Notice under Rule 92bis for the
Admission of Evidence Related to Inter Alia Kenema District and on Prosecution Notice Under Rule 92bis for
the Admission of the Prior Testimony of TF1-036 into Evidence, 15 July 2008; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-
01-T-623, Decision on Prosecution Notice Under Rule 92bis for Admission of Evidence related to Inter Alia
Kono District, 8 October 2008; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-0 1-T -633, Decision on Prosecution Notice Under
Rule 92bis for the Admission of Evidence Related to Inter Alia Kono District- TF 1-218 and TF1-304, 14
October 2008; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-634, Decision on Public with Confidential Annexes A to G

---- End of Page 75 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T % 18 May 2012

3%: as
evidence pursuant to Rule 92bis.°’7O ln addition, the Trial Chamber admitted several other
categories of documents pursuant to Rule 92bis, tendered by both the Prosecution,°’7l and the
Defence.472 The Trial Chamber admitted the prior trial transcripts and related exhibits of two
deceased witnesses pursuant to Rule 92 quater.473
202. It is important to emphasise that the admission of a document into evidence in the
course of the trial has no bearing on the weight, if any, subsequently attached to it by the
Trial Chamber. The Trial Chamber has assessed the weight and reliability of documentary
evidence in the light of all the evidence in the case.
Prosecution Notice under Rule 92bis For the Admission of Evidence Related to Inter Alia Kono District-TF1-
195, TF1-197, TF1-198 and TF1-206, 15 October 2008; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-635, Decision on
Public with Confidential Annexes A to C Prosecution Notice Under Rule 92bis for the Admission of Evidence
Related to Inter Alia Freetown and the Westem Area- TF1-023 and TF1-029, 16 October 2008; Prosecutor v.
Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-642, Decision on Public with Confidential Annexes B to G Prosecution Notice Under
Rule 92bis for the Admission of Evidence Related to Inter Alia Freetown and Westem Area- TF1-024, TF1-081
and TF1-084, 20 October 2008; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-644, Decision on Public with Confidential
Annexes A to D and F to G Prosecution Notice under Rule 92bis For the Admission of Evidence Related to Inter
Alia Freetown and Westem Area- TF1-098, TF1-104 and TF1-227, 21 October 2008.
470 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-981, Defence Filing of Chief Jalloh Loon Pursuant to Rule 92bis
and the Trial Chamber's Order of 11 June 2010, 15 June 2010.
47] These included: (i) Liberia Search documents (Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-736, Decision on
Prosecution Motion for Admission of Liberia Search Documents, 18 February 2009); (ii) extracts of the Report
of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission for Sierra Leone (Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-737,
Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Extracts of the Report of the Truth and Reconciliation
Commission of Sierra Leone, 19 February 2009); (iii) documents of United Nations and United Nations Bodies
(Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-739, Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Documents of the
United Nations and United Nations Bodies, 20 February 2009); (iv) documents of certain non governmental
organizations and Associated Press releases (Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-742, Decision on Prosecution
Motion for Admission of Certain Non-Govemmental Organizations and Associated Press Releases, 23 February
2009); (v) BBC Radio Broadcasts (Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-745, Decision on Prosecution Motion
for Admission of BBC Radio Broadcasts, 25 February 2009); (vi) documents seized from Foday Sankoh's house
(Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-747, Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Documents Seized
from Foday Sankoh's House, 26 February 2009); (vii) documents seized from RUF Kono Office, Kono district
(Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-749, Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Documents Seized
from RUF Kono Office, Kono District, 27 February 2009); (viii) newspaper articles obtained from the Catholic
Justice and Peace Commission Archive in Monrovia, Liberia (Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-750,
Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Newspaper Articles Obtained from the Catholic Justice and
Peace Commission Archive in Monrovia, Liberia, 27 February 2009); (ix) Security Council Resolution 1315
(2000) pursuant to Rule 92bis (Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-744, Decision on Prosecution Motion for
Admission of Document Pursuant to Rule 89 (C) and 92bis, 25 February 2009).
472 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-1064, Decision on Public with Annexes A and B Defence Motion
for Admission of Documents Pursuant to Rule 92bis, 27 August 2010; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-
1079, Decision on Public with Annexes A-J and Confidential Annexes K-L Defence Motion for Admission of
Documents Pursuant to Rule 92bis — Special Task Force, 17 September 2010 [Taylor 92bis Decision on Special
Task Force]; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-1082, Decision on Public with Annexes A-D Defence Motion
for Admission of Documents Pursuant to Rule 92bis — Contemporaneous Documentation, 22 September 2010;
Transcript 12 November 2010, pp, 49112-49115.
473 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-720, Decision on Public with Confidential Annexes C to E
Prosecution Motion for Admission of the Prior Trial Transcripts of Witnesses TF1—021 and TF1—083 Pursuant to
Rule 92quater, 5 February 2009.

---- End of Page 76 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T »/ dm 18 May 2012

381 60]
(b) Documents Used in Cross—Examination by the Prosecution.
203. During the Defence case, the Prosecution tendered several documents that it had put
to the Accused and other Defence witnesses during cross—examination. The Trial Chamber
held that fresh evidence impeaching the credibility of the Accused or other Defence
witnesses may in the Trial Cha;mber's discretion be admitted on a case by case basis but that
documents containing fresh evidence that is probative of guilt would not be admitted into
evidence unless the Prosecution can establish "exceptional circumstances".474 The Trial
Chamber admitted several documents, or parts of documents, used by the Prosecution during
cross—exa;mination.475 As the Prosecution sought to tender these documents solely for the
purpose of impeaching the credibility of the Accused or other witnesses, the Trial Chamber
has relied on these documents, or parts thereof, only for that purpose.476
(c) Objections to specihc categories of documents
204. Many documents tendered by the Prosecution have been contested by the Defence
and vice versa. The Trial Chamber admitted the documents into evidence on the basis of
relevance, leaving their reliability and probative value to be assessed at the end of the trial.
The individual objections raised by the parties are discussed below.
(i) Chain of Custody
474 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL—03—01—T—865, Decision on Prosecution Motion in Relation to the Applicable
Legal Standards Governing the Use and Admission of Documents by the Prosecution During Cross-
Examination, 30 November 2009, para. 27 and p. 13 (Disposition); Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL—03—01—T,
Decision on Public with Annexes A and B Defence Motion for Admission into Evidence of 301 Documents and
Photographs Marked for Identification During the Cross—Examination of the Accused and on Prosecution List of
Documents Marked for Identification During the Testimony of Charles Taylor Sought to be Admitted into
Evidence, 18 March 2010 [Admission of Documents Decision]. See also Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL—03—01—T,
Trial Transcript 13 August 2010, pp. 46255—46266, where this test was applied in relation to a custodial
statement that the Prosecution attempted to tender during the cross—examination of Issa Sesay,
475 Admission of Documents Decision, p. 14 (Disposition) and Annex, pp. 33-53.
446 See Prosecutor v. Prlié, IT—04—74—AR73.14, Decision on the Interlocutory Appeal Against the Trial
Chamber's Decision on Presentation of Documents by the Prosecution in Cross—Examination of Defence
Witnesses, 26 February 2009, para. 29, where the Appeals Chamber held that a Trial Chamber "has the
discretion to limit the purpose for which an admitted piece of evidence is used". See also Prosecutor v.
Karemera, ICTR—98—44—T, Decision on Admission of Documents Used in Cross—Examination of Edouard
Karemera and Witness 6, 11 November 2009 [Karemera Decision on Admission of Documents During Cross-
Examination], para. 5 (where the Trial Chamber held "when seeking to assess the potential prejudice suffered by
the Accused as a result of the admission of fresh evidence, the Trial Chamber must have particular regard for the
purpose for which the admission of this evidence is sought [...]" and that the Trial Chamber must consider
various measures to address any prejudice to the Accused, "including limiting the purpose for which the
evidence is admitted"). See also Prosecutor v. Delic, IT—O4—83—AR73.l, Decision on Rasim Delié's lnterlocutory
Appeal against Trial Chamber's Oral Decisions on Admission of Exhibits 1316 and 1317, 15 April 2008, paras
22-23.

---- End of Page 77 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—O3—O1—T / <]\_[g 18 May 2012

3 % 4 it o
205. Both parties have raised issues with respect to the chain of custody of several
documents. In many cases, the chain of custody is unknown or incomplete.477 The Trial
Chamber, however, notes that due to the difHculties in investigations during conflict and
post—conflict situations, "a perfect chain of custody is not a sine qua non requirement for
admissibility" and that "gaps in the chain of custody are not fatal, provided that the evidence
as a whole demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the piece of evidence concemed is
what is says it is".478 Thus, while the Trial Chamber has admitted these documents as
relevant, the lack of or an incomplete chain of custody is a factor that has been taken into
account in assessing the weight to be given to such documents on a case by case basis.
(ii) Authenticity
206. The Trial Chamber recalls that where objections were made regarding the
authenticity of certain documents, the Trial Chamber admitted the documents on the basis
that that any considerations relating to the authenticity of documents went to weight, rather
than admissibility.479 In many cases, the Prosecution and/or Defence were either not able to
prove authorship, or the authorship of the document is in dispute. In a few cases, it was
alleged that the documents had been forged.480 No experts testified regarding handwriting or
signatures, although these were disputed in the case of several documents.48l
*77 See, e. g., Exhibit P-028, "Operation Order 20 January 2001"; Exhibit P-065, "RUF Letter from Foday
Sankoh to Charles Taylor, 5 May 1992"; Exhibit D-008, "Unof`ficial Translation - Verbatim Report on a
Recorded Discussion between CPL. Foday Sankoh and his Cohorts on his Return from Detention"; Exhibit D-
084, "RUF, Sierra Leone, Defence Headquarters, Salute Report, from Brigadier Issa H. Sesay Battlefield
Commander RUF/SL, to the Leader of the Revolution, 27 September 1999"; Exhibit D-085, "RUF - Sierra
Leone (People's Army of Sierra Leone) Ops. Segbwema, Brief Comprehensive Report From Major Francis M.
Musa District I.D.U. Commander Kailahun, TO CPL Foday Sankoh RUF/ SL, 31 August 1999". See also Tariq
Malik, Transcript 20 January 2009, p. 23101.
478 Orié Trial Judgement, para. 27.
479 See, eg., Transcript 8 January 2008, p. 677; Varmuyan Sherif, Transcript 10 January 2008, pp. 933-934;
Transcript 14 January 2008, pp. 1206-1207; Tay/or 92bis Decision on Special Task Force, p. 6.
480 See, eg., Issa Sesay, Transcript 9 July 2010, p. 44136; Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44256, 44294;
Transcript 19 August 2010, p. 46714; Transcript 23 August 2010, p. 46931; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-
T, Transcript 11 March 2011, pp. 49534-49536.
481 See, eg., Exhibit P-028, "Operation Order 20 January 2001"; Exhibit P-093, "Restricted RUF/SL
Comprehensive Report from Major Sam Bockarie to Brigadier Issa Sesay on the take over of Koidu, 26 January
1999"; Exhibit P-136, "Revolutionary United Front of Sierra Leone, Defence Headquarters, 19 November
1998"; Exhibit D-009, "RUF Defence Headquarters, Salute report to the Leader of the Revolution from Major
General Sam Bockarie"; Exhibit D-084, "RUF, Sierra Leone, Defence Headquarters, Salute Report, from
Brigadier Issa H. Sesay Battlefield Commander RUF/ SL, to the Leader of the Revolution, 27 September 1999".
See also Exhibit P-582, "End of Page indicating fifteen different signatures with marks indicating those signatures that
do not belong to Issa Sesay - as indicated by DCT—172"; Issa Sesay, Transcript 25 August 2010, pp. 47061-
47063.

---- End of Page 78 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T QN. 18 May 2012

és wt
3. Expert Testimony and Reports
207. The Trial Chamber heard the testimony of three expert witnesses who testified for
the Prosecution pursuant to Rule 94bis, and admitted their respective reports.482 One of those
three experts, Expert Witness TF]-150, testified entirely in closed session.483 Two other
expert reports were admitted without calling the experts to testify in person, as the Defence
accepted their reports pursuant to Rule 94bis(C).484 Although Witness Corinne Dufka was
originally tendered as an expert witness, the Trial Chamber, pursuant to a motion from the
Defence, reclassified her as a witness of fact and excluded the opinion portion of her
evidence.485
208. The Trial Chamber has evaluated the probative value of the expert evidence taking
into account the professional competence of the expert, the methodology used and the
credibility of the findings made in the light of all the other evidence in the trial.486 ln
addition, in assessing the weight to be given to expert evidence, the Trial Chamber has taken
into consideration the sources upon which the expert based his or her opinion and the extent
to which the expert has been able to provide details regarding the basis of the opinion.487
209. Where expert testimony or reports went beyond their parameters by drawing
conclusions touching upon the ‘ultimate issue’ in this case, i. e., the individual criminal
responsibility of the Accused, the Trial Chamber disregarded such conclusions.488
482 Expert Witness lan Smillie, Exhibit P-019, "Diamonds, the RUF and the Liberian Cor1nection"; Expert
Witness Stephen Ellis, Exhibit P—03 1, "Char1es Taylor and the War in Sierra Leone"; Expert Witness TF1-150,
Exhibit P-077 (confidential).
483 The provision that TF 1—150's testimony be heard entirely in closed session was ordered by Trial Chamber
I in Prosecutor v. Norman, F ofana and Kondewa, SCSL—04—14—T—432, Decision on Prosecution Application for
Closed Session for Witness TF2—218, 15 June 2005. See Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL—03-01—T—432, Transcript 18
February 2008, p. 4002, where the Trial Chamber found that it continued to be bound by this order.
444 Expert Witness Beth Vann, Exhibit P—073, "Conflict—Related Sexual Violence in Sierra Leone"; Jessica
Alexander, Exhibit P—43, "Children Associated with Fighting Forces in the Conflict in Sierra Leone".
485 Prosecutor v. T ctylor, SCSL-03-01-T—543, Decision on Defence Application to Exclude the Evidence of
Proposed Prosecution Expert Witness Corinne Dufka or, in the Alternative, to Limit its Scope and on Urgent
Prosecution Request for Decision, 19 June 2008.
486 Vasiycvié Trial Judgement, para. 20; Orié Trial Judgement, paras 59-71; Prosecutor v. Galié, [T-98-29-T,
Decision on the Expert Witness Statement Submitted by the Defence, 27 January 2003, p. 3.
437 Prosecutor v. Bizimurtgu et al., ICTR—99—50—T, Decision on Defence Motion for Exclusion of Portions of
Testimony of Expert Witness Alison Des Forges, 2 September 2005, para. 21.
444 See Transcript 16 January 2008, p. 1451. AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 151; RUF Trial Judgement, para.
538.

---- End of Page 79 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / GQ 18 May 2012

3% 1 *1-1
4. Facts of which Judicial Notice was Taken
210. On 7 December 2007, the Trial Chamber issued a decision taking judicial notice of
36 facts pursuant to Rule 94(A) of the Rules.489 These facts have been relied upon in this
Judgement as indicated. The Trial Chamber also took judicial notice of 15 adjudicated facts
from the AFRC Trial.490 The Trial Chamber recalls that these judicially noticed adjudicated
facts are subject to a rebuttable presumption of truth, and could be challenged by the parties
during the course of the trial.49l
5. Agreed Facts
211. A number of facts in this case were admitted in whole or in part by the Defence.492
There is no provision in the Rules pertaining to agreed facts. Nonetheless, it follows from
the very nature of adversarial proceedings that the parties may stipulate to any fact on which
they reach consensus.493 Before relying on these agreed facts as indicated in this Judgement,
the Trial Chamber has subjected them, as all other evidence, "to the tests of relevance,
probative value and reliability".494
C. Credibilig Assessment of Specific Witnesses
212. The Trial Chamber has made both general assessments of the credibility of particular
witnesses, as well as assessments of their credibility in relation to particular events. In this
section, the Trial Chamber provides a general credibility evaluation of several significant
Prosecution and Defence witnesses whose credibility has been challenged by the Parties.
VVhere possible, the assessments of credibility in relation to specific events have been
discussed in the sections dealing with those events. However, in instances where the
489 Taylor Decision on Judicial Notice.
400 Taylor Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC Adjudicated Facts. However, the Trial Chamber dismissed
Motions from both the Prosecution and Defence for judicial notice of adjudicated facts from the RUF Trial. See
Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-04-01-T-987, Decision on Defence Application for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated
Facts from the RUF Trial Judgement Pursuant to Rule 94(B) gid Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of
Adjudicated Facts from the RUF Judgement, 17 June 2010 [Taylor Decision on Judicial Notice of RUF
Adjudicated Facts]. T
W Taylor Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC Adjudicated Facts, para. 27; Prosecutor v. Popovié et. al.,
IT-05-88-T, Decision on Prosecution Motion for Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts with Annex, 26 September "
2006 [Popovic Decision on Adjudicated Facts], para. 21.
492 Admitted Facts and Law.
493 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 154; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 521. See also Rule 92 of the Rules
("Confessions") which has however a different scope of applicability.
494 Simié Trial Judgement, para.21; B/agojevié and Jokic Trial Judgement, para. 28; Ha/ilovic Trial

---- End of Page 80 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T / du 18 May 2012

3% W3
credibility of witnesses with relation to specific events was challenged by one or both of the
Parties, and did not arise in context elsewhere in the draft, the evidence related to such
events has been addressed in this section.
Prosecution Witness Abu Keita
213. Abu Keita testified that he joined the AFL in 1990.495 Following his service in the
AFL, Keita became a member of LUDF during the time LUDF was fighting the RUF.496
Keita served in ULIMO—K from 1995 to 1997, where he attained the rank of Deputy Chief
of Staffim In 1998, according to his testimony, Keita was sent to the RUF by the Accused to
serve as head of the Scorpion Unit in Sierra Leone, where he was until 2002.498
214. The Defence submits that Abu Keita has political motivation to incriminate the
Accused. It points out that Keita was a member of LUDF and ULIMO at the time they
fought against the Accused and the NPFL, and that he was imprisoned for not fighting
against Roosevelt Johnson's forces, although he denied interacting with Johnson as part of a
coup attempt against the Accused.499 The Trial Chamber notes that while Keita was once an
enemy of the Accused, he acknowledged in his testimony that the Accused was involved in
his release from prison.5OO The Defence further challenged Keita's credibility in relation to
his role within the ‘Scorpion Unit’ and a meeting he allegedly attended with Sam Bockarie,
lbrahim Bah and the Accused. This evidence has been considered in context in the section
on Military Persom1el.5Ol
215. Abu Keita repeatedly testified that he shared information with investigators that did
not appear in his earlier statements, and that he had not told investigators what the
statements say he said. For example, the Defence highlighted a number of inconsistencies
between Keita's testimony and his prior statements to the Prosecution. Some of these
Judgement, para. 20.
""5 Abu Keita, Transcript 23 January 2008,p. 2077.
4% Abu Keita, Transcript 23 January 2008, pp. 1947-1949.
497 Abu Keita, Transcript 23 January 2008, pp. 1950-1954.
‘*"’·‘ Abu Keita, Transcript 24 January 2008, p. 2117.
4°° Defence Final Trial Brief paras 1400-1401.
500 Abu Keita, Transcript 24 January 2008, pp. 2106-2108. See also TF1-406, Transcript 9 January 2008, pp.
856-857; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 22 September 2009, pp. 29325—29327.
501 Provision of Military Personnel: Scorpion Unit.

---- End of Page 81 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Gibb 18 May 2012

Es e CM
inconsistencies, such as the identity of the person who released him from prison,502 and the
number of bodyguards assigned to him by Yeaten,5O3 are minor in nature. With regard to
Keita's prior statement that he left with Bockarie to travel to Buedu, the Trial Chamber finds
his testimony in court to be more detailed, indicating that he left for Buedu in a convoy that
included Bockarie but that they parted in Voinjama, after which Keita joined 1ssa Sesay in
Foya and they continued together to Buedu.5O4 As the prior statement is so limited in detail,
the Trial Chamber finds it is not necessarily inconsistent with Keita's testimony.
216. The Trial Chamber notes that some details which could incriminate the Accused and
were mentioned in Keita's prior statements were not mentioned during his testimony. For
example, Keita testified that he did not leave Sierra Leone between 1998 and 2002. He
denied telling investigators what was recorded in his prior statements, that he had been
present with Bockarie (a.l<.a. Mosquito) on three occasions in 1999 in which he brought
diamonds to Charles Taylor in Liberia,5O5 and that he had been present when Charles Taylor
and Issa Sesay discussed finances at a house in Kongo Town in 2000.506
217. The Defence alleges that several Prosecution witnesses testified about Abu Keita's
relations with the RUF prior to 1998, while Keita himself omitted these facts from his
testimony. These omissions relate to RUF purchasing arms from ULIMO while Keita was a
ULIMO General, the relations of his girlfiiend's father with Sankoh, or times he spent in
Sierra Leone prior to the Accused's inauguration.5O7 Keita testified prior to these witnesses
and was not cross—examined on these issues. The Trial Chamber finds that these omissions
are relatively minor in nature and do not undermine Keita's credibility.
218. The Defence asserts that Keita received payments in excess of what was necessary to
cover his expenses, and that his testimony was influenced by the indebtedness he felt to the
Prosecution.5O8 The Trial Chamber notes that most of the $USD 2,502 and 6,000 leones
(approximately $USD 2)5O9 received by Keita can be accounted for as reimbursement for
502 Abu Keita, Transcript 24 January 2008. pp. 2107-2108.
503 Abu Keita. Transcript 24 January 2008, p. 213 l.
504 Abu Keita, Transcript 24 January 2008, p. 2126.
505 Abu Keita, Transcript 24 January 2008, pp. 21 17-21 18.
506 Abu Keita, Transcript 24 January 2008, pp. 2120-2121.
507 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1404.
508 Defence Final Trial Brief. para. 1397.
509 Conversion based on the rate of approximately 3,000 leones/US dollar.

---- End of Page 82 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / W 18 May 2012

3% l`-`+S`
plane tickets, hotel expenses, meals, and other transport—related expenses.5m The Trial
Chamber does not find that these payments undermine the witness's credibility. The
Defence also submits that Abu Keita "denied all suggestions that he had been promised
incentives, including relocation, only to appear in the newspaper in Sierra Leone later
threatening to sue the Prosecution for failing to meet its end of the bargain after he had
testified for them".5H The Trial Chamber notes that Abu Keita was not questioned on
whether he was promised relocation, or that he denied that he was. Keita did deny that he
told others that if they would cooperate with the Prosecution they would subsequently be
able to get asylum.5l2 In a newspaper article published after Keita had testified, Keita is
recorded as saying that he had been "misused and abandoned by the Special Court" since he
believed that after he testified and "performed his own side of the bargain" officials of the
Special Court have breached the verbal agreement he had with them to protect and relocate
him and his family to a country where he would feel safe, thereby putting his life in
danger.5l3 The Trial Chamber notes that Keita is also recorded as saying that "he carmot
travel to Liberia nor can he continue to live in Sierra Leone because he knows that Charles
Taylor has spies all over the country".5l4 Given this explanation, and since this information
stems from an unverified news article, the Trial Chamber does not find that this undermines
Keita's credibility.
219. ln light of the above, the Trial Chamber finds the witness to be generally credible
and will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they may arise.
Prosecution Witness TF1-371
220. Witness TF1-371, an RUF member,5l5 testified entirely in closed session. Although
he denied personally committing crimes, other witnesses have alleged that he did so. He is
an accomplice witness, and the Defence argues that TF1~371 received immunity from
prosecution in exchange for his testimony. The witness testified that there was no such
exchange, that he was simply informed in a letter handed to him during his first meeting
510 Exhibit P-048, "Special Court all disbursements for Witness Form SCSLP0023 (Redacted)".
5 H Defence Pinal Trial Brief, para. 1270.
512 Abu Keita, Transcript 24 January 2008, pp. 2152-2154.
SB Exhibit D-468, "Standard Times Article, Prosecution Witness May Take Legal Suit Against Special Courts.
Breach of Agreement, Vol. 30 No. 46, 29 September 2009".
SM Exhibit D-468, "Standard Times Article, Prosecution Witness May Take Legal Suit Against Special Courts.
Breach of Agreement, Vol. 30 No. 46, 29 September 2009".
515 TE1-371, Transcript 29 January 2008, pp. 2555-2556 (CS).

---- End of Page 83 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / dw l8 May 2012

3% t *H¤
with the Prosecution that he was not under investigation. The Prosecution also stated that
there were no negotiations or communications relating to the letter given to the witness.
22l. The Trial Chamber observes that TF]-371 was very consistent between his evidence
in chief and cross-examination. He was confronted by some prior inconsistent statements in
cross-examination. ln most of these cases, the witness reafhrmed his examination in chief
and indicated that the prior inconsistent statements were asked in different contexts or were
improperly recorded.
222. The statement that TF]-371 prepared for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
("TRC"), for example, stated that he escaped Kakata and went into hiding at Bong Mines
before he was arrested on suspicion of spying for ECOMOG, while in Court he testified that
he was forcibly recruited by the NPFL in Kakata before being marched to Bong Mines. ln
cross-examination, the witness affirmed his testimony and explained that his TRC statement
was in draft form with mistakes that had not been corrected. The TRC statement entered into
evidence is in draft form.5l6 The Trial Chamber notes that it is handwritten with several
deletions, and clearly is not a final document. It is not clear from the evidence whether this
statement reached the TRC. The Defence notes a prior statement to the Prosecution
indicating that TF]-371 "opted" into the NPFL because he had no other way to feed his
family.5l7 The witness denied using this word. The Trial Chamber accepts that it was the
OTP's word. In light of the explanations of the witness, the Trial Chamber finds that the
inconsistencies highlighted with regard to his entry into the NPFL are relatively minor and
do not undermine the fundamental credibility of his testimony.
223. The Defence also highlights an interview TF]-371 gave as an illustrative example of
his duplicity.5l8 The interview is a tirade against the former government, British, Nigerians T
and UN. ln cross-examination, the witness said he had reneged on some of his earlier stands
in support of the RUF. The Trial Chamber found him to be sincere and candid in his
testimony on this matter. He came across as a man who realised and accepted that what had
been done was wrong. The Trial Chamber notes that his contrition is not inconsistent with
the views he espoused previously in the interview, but rather a subsequent expression of
regret resulting from reflection on previous behaviour.
5 M Exhibit D-006 (confidential).

---- End of Page 84 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-O3-Ol-T J 18 May 20l2

231 41
( 224. In his evidence, TF1-371 testified that ‘Operation No Living Thing’ was a plan
involving the Accused, to capture Freetown at all costs, in which the fighters should broker
no nonsense from anyone, civilian or military.5l9 The Defence submits that this is
"diarnetrically opposite" to the testimony he gave about the same operation in the RUF trial,
where he said that the term ‘Operation No Living Thing’ was a morale booster for the
fighters to urge them to keep on fighting without fear of death.52O The Trial Chamber
disagrees with the submission that TF1-371's evidence in this trial is "diametrically
opposite" to the testimony he gave in the RUF trial since both descriptions he gave could be
applicable to ‘Operation No Living Thing.’ Moreover, the Trial Chamber notes that in his
cross-examination on this issue, TF1-371 did not disavow his earlier testimony, in which he
stated that Freetown was to be captured "by all means".52l TF1-371 stated that no explicit
orders were given to burn, rape, loot and kill indiscriminately.522 While the specifics of the
interpretation of the term offered by the witness vary somewhat, in the Trial Chamber's
view his testimony is not inconsistent. The primary message conveyed, as described
consistently by the witness, was that Freetown was to be captured.
225. Factual issues raised by the Defence in challenging the testimony of TF1-371 in
relation to particular events are dealt with in the context of the Trial Chamber's
consideration of these events.
226. In light of the foregoing considerations, the Trial Chamber finds TF1-371 to be
generally credible and will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as
. they may arise.
Prosecution Witness Pegry Kamara
227. Witness Perry Kamara was an RUF memberm and radio operator524 with the
codename "System".525 He testified that he was abducted into the RUF in April 1991.526
517 TF1-371, Transcript 29 January 2008, pp. 2514-2535 (CS).
518 Exhibit D¥005A (confidential).
519 TF1—371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2413—2414 (CS); Transcript 30 January 2008, pp. 2640, 2650—
2660 (CS).
520 Defence Final Trial Brief para. 1552.
521 TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2413—2414 (CS).
522 TF1—371, Transcript 30 January 2008, pp. 2652—2653 (CS).
523 Perry Kamara, Transcript 4 February 2008, p. 3024.
524 Perry Kamara, Transcript 4 February 2008, pp. 3033, 3037, 3059; Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3073,

---- End of Page 85 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T [ W 18 May 2012

?>%l °1*%
Before the AFRC coup, Kamara worked for a number of RUF commanders including Foday
Sankoh, Issa Sesay and Isaac Mongor.527 During the Junta Period, Kamara served in Makeni
as the overall signal commander,528 moving briefly to Koidu Town and then Superman
Ground after the ECOMOG lntervention.529 Around September 1998 he testified that he was
sent by Morris Kallon to join Alex Tamba Brima (a.k.a. Gullit) in Rosos53O and participated
in the Freetown invasion in January 1999.53l From 1999 until disarmament, Kamara was
based in Kono.532
228. The Trial Chamber observes that Kamara's testimony was coherent, detailed and
generally consistent between his evidence—in—chief and cross—examination. He maintained a
calm demeanour, despite persistent questioning by Defence Counsel and accusations that he
was lying.533
229. The Defence submits that Kamara's determination to implicate the Accused was "so
palpable it resulted in him making some of the most outrageous allegations".534 In particular,
the Defence makes lengthy submissions regarding Kamara's testimony concerning the
Accused's involvement in a plan for a multi—axis operation to capture Kono and Freetown
conceived before Operation Fitti—Fatta.535 The Trial Chamber notes that while it did not
ultimately rely on Kamara's testimony in this regard, certain aspects of his testimony were
corroborated by other witnesses and that an offensive similar to the one described by
Kamara ultimately took place in the latter half of 1998. The Trial Chamber is therefore of
the view that Kamara's evidence was influenced by his subsequent knowledge of the events
that unfolded and that he added detail to events he recalled with the benefit of hindsight. It
does not consider that Kamara's general credibility is adversely affected thereby.
3089.
525 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3073.
526 Perry Kamara, Transcript 4 February 2008, pp. 3024-3025.
527 Perry Kamara, Transcript 4 February 2008, pp. 3038-3040, 3051-3053; Transcript 5 February 2008, pp,
3085-3086.
528 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3087-3089.
529 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3100-3102, 3112-3115.
530 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3174-3176; Transcript 6 February 2008, pp. 3184-3189.
53] Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, pp. 3224-3225, 3250.
532 Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, pp. 3254-3255.
533 See for example Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, pp. 3308, 3313-3314, 3340, 3344, 3348.
534 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 898.
535 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 891-898; Defence Response to Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 31.

---- End of Page 86 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-Ol-T J du 18 May 2012

2% ¤ ’r‘1
230. The Defence also submits that Kamara's credibility is damaged by his denial of
certain exculpatory facts, despite being "someone who claimed to be in the know". It cites
by way of` example Kamara's denial that weapons used in the Fitti—Fatta attack on Kono
were obtained from ULIMO.536 In this regard, the Trial Chamber notes Kamara's testimony
that he knew that any arms or ammunition that came from Liberia had been sent by
Taylor.537 The Trial Chamber recalls its findings that the Accused was one of` several
sources for the materiel for Fitti—Fatta538 and that ammunition was supplied by the Accused
on many occasions throughout 1998.539 However, it considers that, although Kamara may
have been overzealous in makin such an assum tion, in his testimon he made his views
S P Y
clear and the basis for them is explicit. For this reason, the Trial Chamber does not find that
Karama's overly broad statement to be detrimental to his general credibility.
231. In its Final Trial Brief`, the Defence also highlights Kamara's agreement with
Defence Counsel's proposition that he tailored his evidence according to the trial in which
he testifying.540 To the extent that evidence provided in a previous trial is not inconsistent
with the sworn testimony before this Court, the Trial Chamber is not of` the view that
rovidin testimon s ecificall relevant to the case at hand is a matter from which adverse
P S Y P Y
inferences can be drawn.
232. On cross—examination, Kamara testified that radio messages541 between Sankoh and
Taylor were recorded in special logbooks at each of the 20 RUF stations in the Sankoh era,
most of which were destro ed when the RUF "lost ower" or when it dissolved.542 He also
Y P
described how the special logbooks "got missing" when the Kamajors attacked Zogoda in
1996543 or when the RUF were attacked by government troops.544 W"hen challenged about
the discrepancy between saying the books went missing or were destroyed545, Kamara
536 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 898.
537 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, p. 3349.
538 Arms and Ammunition: Use of Materiel Supplied or F acilitated by the Accused.
539 Arms and Ammunition: Allegations of Direct Supply by the Accused, During Sam Bockarie's Leadership
(February l998·December 1999).
540 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 898 highlighting the testimony given at Perry Kamara, Transcript 7
February 2008, p. 3389 (PS).
541 As opposed to radio conversations between the two men which Kamara explained were never recorded.
See Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, pp. 3310-3311.
542 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, pp. 3309, 3311, 3314-3315.
543 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, pp. 3309, 3315.
SM Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, p. 3315.
545 The Defence also raises Perry Kamara's "conflicting answers" on this topic in the Defence Final Trial

---- End of Page 87 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL·03·01·T On 18 May 2012

121 z 0
explained that he was talking about different occasions: sometimes they went missing during
operations or were destroyed, and mostly when they were about to disarm, the books were
destroyed. They were burnt.546 He remained firm in his testimony that the Taylor-Sankoh
logbooks in all 20 RUF stations ultimately disappeared.547 The Trial Chamber accepts the
witness's explanation.
233. ln his prepping session shortly before his testimony to the Court, Kamara stated that
Foday Sankoh was present in Senge on the first occasion the witness saw the Accused.
Neither in his first statement to the Prosecution548 nor at Court549 did he mention Sankoh in
relation to that meeting. When confronted with the inconsistency, the witness stated that he
did not recall that Foday Sankoh and the Accused were in Senge, stating that Prosecution
Counsel had erred when taking the prepping notes.550 Noting that the witness did not
mention Sankoh's presence in his first statement to the Prosecution or in his testimony, the
Trial Chamber accepts this explanation.
234. On cross-examination, Defence counsel questioned Perry Kamara about various
payments, including some for accommodation, meals, repairs to a motor vehicle, repair of a
generator in Freetown, ‘assistance’ and a top-up card made on days when no interviews
were conducted by the Prosecution.55l Although Kamara could not recall what he was doing
on each of the days in question or the dates of his interviews with the Prosecution, he
explained that he lived far from Freetown and travelled there frequently whenever required
to do so by the Prosecution.552 Further, in addition to his own interviews, Kamara testified
that the Prosecution invited him to assist them in locating a particular individual.553 He also
highlighted that some of the payments for example were of the nature of disbursements, not
direct payments to him554 and denied that any money had been given without consideration
on his part.555 ln total, Kamara received 2,615,025 Leones (approximately SSUSD 870)55°
Brief, para. 829.
546 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, p. 3312.
547 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, p. 3315.
548 Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, p. 3283.
544 Perry Kamara, Transcript 4 February 2008, pp. 3032-3033.
550 Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, pp. 3283-3286.
55I Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, pp. 3397, 3399-3401.
552 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, pp. 3397-3398, 3400.
554 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, pp. 3398-3399.
554 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, pp. 3396, 3401.
555 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, p. 3402.

---- End of Page 88 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03-01-T Z @*8 18 May 2012

3% r sn
from the Prosecution in 41 payments.667 The Trial Chamber does not find that these
payments undermine his credibility.
235. Throughout its Final Trial Brief the Defence makes other submissions regarding
specific portions of Kamara's testimony. The Trial Chamber has considered these instances
in the context of the Judgement as they arise, and has accepted or rejected Kamara's
testimony about those particular events accordingly.
236. ln light of the foregoing, the Trial Chamber finds Perry.Kamara to be a generally
credible witness and will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they
may arise.
Prosecution Witness Foday Lansana
237. Foday Lansana, an RUF radio operator,668 was born in Liberia and joined the NPFL ·
in February or March 1990.669 Lansana was trained as a radio operator in 1990, and he
remained an operator until at least 1997.666
238. The Defence highlights the fact that Lansana's testimony in court differed from his
prior statements with regard to the order by Charles Taylor to evacuate NPFL fighting forces
from Sierra Leone in 1992.661 The witness testified that he was present in Baidu in May
1992 when Taylor spoke to Mekunagbe on the radio and ordered the evacuation of NPFL
fighting forces from Sierra Leone.662 ln one prior statement he said that he heard Oliver
Varney announce this message at a parade in Kailahun, while in another prior statement he
said that the order came from Liberia to Dopoe Menkarzon, and he learned of it through
NPFL fighters in Vahun.666 ln cross-examination, the witness maintained that his prior
statements were not inconsistent with his testimony. He explained, "different questions were
asked and I responded to them in different manners". He said that he heard the general
communication from Taylor over the radio in Baidu and that Oliver Varney was the more
556 Conversion based on the rate of approximately 3,000 Leones/US dollar.
667 Perry Kamara, Transcript 7 February 2008, p. 3402.
566 Foday Lansana, Transcript 20 February 2008, pp. 4361-4362.
556 Foday Lansana, Transcript 20 February 2008, pp. 4315-4320. Lansana confirmed that he also goes by the
name CO Nya. Foday Lansana, Transcript 25 February 2008, pp. 4703-4706.
666 Foday Lansana, Transcript 20 February 2008, pp. 4406-4407.
Sm Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1488.
562 Foday Lansana, Transcript 20 February 2008, pp. 4368-4369, 4377.

---- End of Page 89 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T VX Gy? l8 May 2012 %

Bin sa.
operational person carrying out the instruction.664 On re-examination, the witness clarified
the sequence of events, that a message for the evacuation of the NPFL fighting forces was
first transmitted from Charles Taylor's operator to the radio station in Baidu and when the
generals arrived, Taylor spoke to them in the radio room in Baidu and gave Oliver Varney
the task of ensuring that all the NPFL fighters assembled, and the message was read to them
on the parade ground.666
23 9. The Defence also notes that Lansana denied that he was arrested on account of being
involved in an incident at Spur Road on 8 May 2000.666 Lansana testified that he was
arrested on 7 May 2000 as he was suspected of being a mercenary working as an
intermediary between Taylor and Sankoh. His co-defendants were charged with crimes
relating to the Spur Road incident. The witness maintained on cross-examination that he had
been arrested the day before and was not involved in the incident. He was convicted for
crimes relating to the incident and sentenced to ten years imprisonment.667 The Defence
argues that Lansana's account is "if not totally ridiculous, then at least illogical and highly
suspect".666 The Trial Chamber notes Lansana's testimony that in May 2000 he gave a
statement to the police regarding the Spur Road incident under torture.666 The Trial Chamber
has not seen a transcript of the trial and does not know the details of the case, but notes that
the witness referred to his date of incarceration as one of the grounds of his appeal.676 lt does
not find that his testimony with regard to his arrest, torture and subsequent conviction is
illogical, in light of his explanation, or that his version of events with regard to the criminal
case against him undermines his general credibility.
240. The Defence argues that the witness had a clear motive to help the Prosecution's
case, as his early release from prison was due to his testimony and he had been promised
support for himself and his family.67l ln cross-examination, Lansana testified that he was
given money by the Prosecution while in prison so that he could buy a suit for his interviews
666 Foday Lansana, Transcript, 25 February 2009, p. 4678.
664 Foday Lansana, Transcript 25 February 2008, pp. 4675-4679.
666 Foday Lansana, Transcript 26 February 2008, pp. 4771-4773.
566 Defence Final Trial BriefQ para. 1485.
567 Foday Lansana, Transcript 22 February 2008, pp. 4574-4581, 4584-4590.
666 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1485.
669 Foday Lansana, Transcript 25 February 2008, pp. 4610-4612.
570 Foday Lansana, Transcript 22 February 2008, p. 4581.
57] Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1491.

---- End of Page 90 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / qi; 18 May 2012

3%%;
with the Court investigators but he denied that prisoners were offered money by the
Prosecution in exchange for testimony against Taylor.572 He testified that the Prosecution
promised to work for his release from prison because he feared for his safety in prison
should he testify. He testified that the Prosecution paid for his children's school fees and
school uniforms, and promised to take care of his family in case of illness.575 Having served
six and a half years of his sentence, with just under two years left to serve, on 27 April 2007
Lansana was released.574 The witness affirmed that he had received from the OTP a total of
a roximatel 932,000 leones (a roximatel SSUSD 300 575 for ex enses includin
PP Y PP Y P 8
medication, meals, communication, his children's education and uniforms.576 He also
received in disbursements from WVS a total of 5,952,800 leones, or "approximately SSUSD
6,000" to cover rent, utility bills, subsistence, medical care, child care, transportation and
other miscellaneous expenses.577 The Trial Chamber notes that almost all of the funds
received by the witness came through WVS, not OTP, and finds that the promise of early
release from prison for protective reasons and the support he received for his and his
family's expenses did not influence his testimony.
241. A number of other prior statements were presented to the witness as inconsistent
with his testimony, which he clarified. For example, he testihed that he heard Charles Taylor
speak on BBC radio from the Coca—Cola factory in Monrovia in 1990 saying the people of
Sierra Leone "would taste the bitterness of war", while his prior statement to investigators
said that he was physically present with Taylor during this interview. ln cross—examination,
Lansana affirmed his testimony, explaining that he was physically present with Taylor when
he addressed the Special Forces and that the prior statement was incorrect, that he heard the
BBC broadcast but had not been physically present with Taylor during that broadcast.578 In
re—examination, the Prosecution cited notes from a preparatory session with Lansana in
February 2008, where the point had been clarified and the witness had stated that he was
575 Foday Lansana, Transcript 22 February 2008. pp. 4597~99; Transcript 25 Feb 2008, pp. 4603-4609.
575 Foday Lansana, Transcript 25 Febraury 2008, pp. 4612~4617.
574 Foday Lansana, Transcript 25 February 2008, p. 4617.
5 15 Conversion based on the rate of approximately 3,000 leones/US dollar.
5 76 Foday Lansana, Transcript 26 February 2008, pp. 4754-4761.
577 Foday Lansana, Transcript 26 February 2008, pp. 4761-4763.
575 Foday Lansana, Transcript 25 February 2008, p. 4631.

---- End of Page 91 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03—01~T ""' 18 May 2012
,/

3s 1%%
present with Taylor when he met the Special Forces but that he had heard the BBC interview
on the radio,579
242, The Trial Chamber found Lansana to be a very steady witness, who remained calm
and repeatedly afhrmed his testimony under intensive cross—examination by the Defence,
His explanations and clarifications of prior statements put to him by the Defence in cross-
examination were clear and coherent responses that effectively addressed the issues raised,
243, For these reasons the Trial Chamber finds Foday Lansana to be generally credible
and will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they may arise,
Prosecution Witness TF 1 -362
244, Witness TF1-362, an RUF member580 and a Liberian, joined the RUF in 1990,58] The
witness gave testimony regarding military training at Matru Jong, Bunumbu and Yengema
training bases,582
245, The Trial Chamber notes that TF1-362 is an accomplice witness but found her to be
very candid about her own role, including her own mistreatment of recruits, which caused
injury and even many deaths, by her own account,583 The witness admitted to lying in her
first statements to the Prosecution due to fear of being prosecuted and fear of betrayal by
those who had introduced her to the Prosecution,584
246, The Trial Chamber notes TF1-362's concession that she did not like the NPFL and
its commander, the Accused, because the NPFL abducted, brutalised or killed some of her
siblings, looted her family house and killed her stepfather,585
247, TFl—362 conceded she is not too familiar with Sierra Leone's geographical
locations,586 Moreover, the Trial Chamber notes that there were discrepancies in TF1-362's
579 Foday Lansana, Transcript 26 February, p. 4770.
580 TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp. 4826-4827 (CS).
jg! TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp. 4802-4803 (CS),
582 TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp. 4866-4868, 4916-1917 (CS).
583 TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp, 4830-4832. 4836-4853, 4869-4873, 4899-4901, 4906, 4917-
4919, 4927-4928 (CS).
584 TF1-362, Transcript 28 February 2008, pp. 4984, 4986, 5076-5078 (CS).
585 TF1-362, Transcript 28 February 2008, pp. 4963-4968. 4970 (CS); Transcript 4 March 2008, pp. 5191-
5192 (CS).
586 TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp. 4983-4984 (CS).

---- End of Page 92 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012

.?>·~z¤%S'
testimony regarding dates and that she was unable to specify months. For example, the
witness testified that she left Sierra Leone in 1994 when Sankoh left for Abidjan, stayed in
Liberia for two years and thereafter returned to Sierra Leone in 1998. As Sankoh left for
Abidjan in 1996, which coincides with the witness's account of returning to Sierra Leone
after two years in 1998, the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the witness left Sierra Leone in
1996 and simply made a mistake in her recollection of the year.587
248. The Trial Chamber found TF1-362 to be very consistent and detailed when
describing the command structure, procedures and methods of training at the training bases
where she was stationed, which were methods to which she was subjected.588
249. The Trial Chamber finds the witness's inconsistencies with prior statements
regarding why she joined the RUF to be minor, and accepts her version at trial, which was
corroborated by other witnesses,589 of how she joined the RUF.590
250. The Trial Chamber notes that TF1-362 received 14,311,150 leones (approximately
$USD 4,770591) in total from W VS. Additionally, payments were made to the witness by the
Prosecution. ln total, the witness received $USD 3,836 and 624,000 leones (approximately
$USD 208592) from the Prosecution for various items such as lost wages, accommodation
and transportation. For a period of a few months it appears that the witness lived on
Prosecution funds at a "Safe House" along with her three children and her sister. During that
period, she received a mobile phone, expenses for child care and school fees for her
children. There are records of only four interviews with her from that period. The witness
ex lained that she asked for this mone since durin that eriod since she was "under their
P Y S P
[referring to personnel from the Special Court of Sierra Leone] control".593
587 TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp. 4851, 4856-4858, 4866-4868 (CS).
5*8 TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp. 4830-4832, 4836-4853, 4869-4873, 4899-4901, 4906, 4917-
4919, 4927-4928 (CS).
589 TF1-168, Transcript 21 January 2009, pp. 23145-23148 (CS); Issa Sesay, Transcript 28 July 2010, p.
44909.
590 TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp. 4861-4863,4943 (CS); Transcript 28 February 2008, pp. 4944-
4946 (CS); Transcript 4 March 2008, p. 5193 (CS).
Sm Conversion based on the rate of approximately 3,000 leones/US dollar.
592 Conversion based on the rate of approximately 3,000 leones/US dollar.
tm TF1-362, Transcript 3 March 2008, pp. 5142-5153 (CS); Transcript 4 March 2008, pp. 5155-5186 (CS).

---- End of Page 93 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Em 18 May 2012

3*51 Sb
251. The Accused testified that TF1—362 had been boasting to her friends in Liberia that
she was given $USD 10,000 to build a house.594 Defence witness Sam Kolleh testified that
TF1—362 told him she received $USD 10,000 from the Prosecution after she testified, and
was now using it to build her house.595 However, when challenged on this statement in
cross—examination, Kolleh said he "had no personal knowledge of it".5% Defence witness
John Vincent testified that he, Martin George and another Vanguard met TF1—362 in 2009,
after she gave her testimony. According to Vincent, the witness told them she was asked to
go and tell lies in exchange for "a little thing" which she was using to build her house.
Vincent understood it to mean money from the Prosecution, although she did not specify
who "they" were or the exact amount of the payments.597 Defence witness Martin George
described the meeting but stated that TF1—362 only said that she was tired of paying rent and
wanted to build a house. He said she did not tell them that she was getting support from
anyone.5Q8 The Trial Chamber notes that although she was cross—examined on the benefit
issues of relocation, healthcare, childcare, and other expenses, TF1—362 was not cross-
examined on the question of this $USD 10,000.599 ln light of Defence witness George's
contradiction of Defence witness Vincent's testimony, and the vague hearsay testimony_of
the Accused, the Trial Chamber does not find that these allegations undermine the credibility
of TF1—3 62.
252. The Trial Chamber found TF1—362 to be very steady in her testimony. She was
honest and forthright about her own actions, despite the fact that they reflected negatively on
her character. In the Trial Chamber's view, the Defence has not established any impropriety
with regard to the support given to the witness by WVS and the Prosecution.
253. For these reasons the Trial Chamber finds TFl—362 to be generally credible and will
consider further issues relating to her credibility in context as they may arise.
594 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 16 September 2009, pp. 29074-29077 (PS). A
595 Sam Kolleh, Transcript 3 November 2010, pp. 4861 1-48612.
5% Sam Kolleh, Transcript 9 November 2010, p. 49016.
W John Vincent, Transcript 30 March 2010, pp. 38252-38254; Transcript 31 March 2010, pp. 38459-38461;
Transcript 1 April 2010, pp. 38464-38466, 38488-38491.
598 DCT-062, Transcript 26 April 2010, pp. 39900-39904 (PS); Transcript 28 April 2010. pp. 40255—40257
gis). TF1-362, Transcript 3 March 2008, p. 5147 (CS),

---- End of Page 94 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / mx 18 May 2012

3% 1%}-
Prosecution Witness Mustapha M. Mansaray
254. Witness Mustapha M. Mansaray, an lntemal Defence Unit Commander in the
RUF,666 testified that he was captured by RUF/SL and NPFL fighters in 1991, and that he
remained a member of the RUF until disarmament in 2001.66] From 1991 to 1994, Mansaray
was assigned as a fighter, serving in various districts of Sierra Leone and Liberia.662
Mansaray also held several leadership positions within the IDU from 1994 to 2000, and
served as the secretary to the RUF/SL Operational Commander and as transportation
secretary in 2000.666 Mansaray testified that he was appointed to the post of mining
commander in Nyaiga, Kono District in 2001.664
255. The Defence submits that the Prosecution covered a generous amount of medical
expenses for Mansaray and his family, and that Mansaray relied heavily upon the
Prosecution as a source of financial support for medical and other expenses during 2006 and
2007.666 The Defence argues that these financial benefits have undermined Mansaray's
credibility as a witness and induced him to give evidence in favour of the Prosecution.666
256. The Defence notes that although the Prosecution questioned Mansaray about the
Accused in his fourth interview, Mansaray did not tell the Prosecution that he saw the
Accused and Foday Sankoh speak to a group of RUF soldiers at Bomi Hills until his seventh
interview in October 2007.667 The Defence contends that Mansaray mentioned seeing the
Accused at Bomi Hills in his seventh interview because by that time the Prosecution had
covered expensive medical bills on Mansaray's behalf.666 On cross-examination, Mansaray
explained that his failure to mention seeing the Accused at Bomi Hills in the earlier
interview was a mistake on his part.666 The Trial Chamber notes that in a November 2003
666 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 4 March 2008, pp. 5229-5230.
661 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 4 March 2008, pp. 5212, 5223-5229.
662 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 4 March 2008, pp. 5223-5229.
666 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 4 March 2008, pp. 5229-5235.
666 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 4 March 2008, pp. 5234-5235.
666 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1476.
666 Defence Final Trial Brief`, paras 1476-1480.
667 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1479 citing Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, p.
5447.
666 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1479.
666 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 10 March 2008. p. 5610.

---- End of Page 95 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T M 18 May 2012

Ear is %
interview with the Prosecution, Mansaray mentioned having knowledge that the Accused
was in Bomi Hills in 1991, but not that he had seen the Accused there.°l0
257. The Defence also highlights Mansaray's inconsistencies concerning the execution of
miners, arguing that his evidence on this point became more favourable to the Prosecution as
he continued to receive payments.6H On cross-examination Mansaray testified that, on up to
ten occasions, he witnessed the execution of miners in Kaisambo and Number 11 mining
area.6l2 The Defence then confronted Mansaray with his prior inconsistent statements on the
issue, including statements from two interviews with the Prosecution in 2004 and 2006 in
which Mansaray stated that he knew that miners were being executed but that he had not
personally witnessed the executions.6l3 Further, in a 2008 interview with the Prosecution,
while discussing the issue of miners being executed, Mansaray stated that he was merely
told about the killings.6l4 Although he was asked specifically on cross-examination about
whether he witnessed the killings, not whether the killings had occurred, Mansaray was
adamant that he had mentioned the killings to the Prosecution early in the interview process
and seemed not to appreciate the apparent contradiction between his prior statements and his
a testimony.6l5 Mansaray eventually attempted to clarify these inconsistencies on cross-
examination by stating that he had witnessed the execution of miners at the time that he was
a mining commander, but that during the time that he was not a mining commander he had
only heard about the killings.°l6 The witness further explained that he had mistakenly
forgotten to mention to the Prosecution early in the interview process that he had witnessed
the kiiiingsfm
258. The Trial Chamber notes that there was a fair amount of confusion in the cross-
examination on this inconsistency and that when the question became clear to the witness, at
one point Mansaray indicated that the question had not been put to him so clearly in his prior
interviews with the Prosecution.6l8 Particularly in light of his repeated insistence that the
MO Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 10 March 2008, pp. 5638-5640.
GH Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1480.
M2 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, pp. 5449-5451, 5460-5461.
M3 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, pp. 5463-5465, 5469-5470.
M4 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, pp. 5463-5465, 5468-5470.
M5 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, pp. 5449-5451, 5469-5471.
M6 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, pp. 5460-5461.
M7 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, pp. 5460-5462.
M8 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, p. 5462.

---- End of Page 96 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T [ @.0, 18 May 2012

3% ¤%¢‘
killings took place, the Trial Chamber is of the view that the witness may not have fully
appreciated the significance of the distinction between witnessing the killings and knowing
that they occurred.
259. Mansaray testified that he was appointed as mining commander on 14 January
2001.619 However, during two interviews with the Prosecution in 2007 and 2008, Mansaray
had stated that he was appointed mining commander in June 2000.620 When confronted with
this inconsistency on cross-examination, Mansaray confidently confirmed that 2001 was the
correct date that he was appointed as mining commander and stated that he could not recall
whether the incorrect date appeared in the interview through his own mistake or the
Prosecution's.62l The Trial Chamber is of the view that this is a minor inconsistency.
260. The Trial Chamber notes that, in addition to reimbursing Mansaray for meal and
travel expenses and lost wages, the Prosecution paid approximately 1,190,000 leones V
(approximately SUSD 396)622 in medical expenses for Mansaray and other members of his
family during 2006 and 2007.623 Mansaray also testified that the Prosecution paid 250,000
leones (approximately SUSD 83) for his chi1dren's school fees and related expenses in
2006.624 The Trial Chamber notes that although the witness received some financial benefits
from the Prosecution, the nature of the information that he provided to the Prosecution
throughout the interview process was consistent and does not appear to have been tailored in
favour of the Prosecution as a result of those benefits. The Trial Chamber also notes that
Mansaray was detailed and forthright when recounting the payments he received from the
Prosecution.
261. The Trial Chamber finds that the inconsistencies highlighted by the Defence are
relatively minor in nature and that the witness provided plausible explanations for those
inconsistencies, readily admitting to occasional lapses in memory or previous misstatements.
619 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 4 March 2008, pp. 5234-5235.
620 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, pp. 5467-5469.
621 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 6 March 2008, pp. 5467-5469.
622 Conversion based on the rate of approximately 3,000 1eones/ US dollar.
623 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 7 March 2008, pp. 5567-5569, 5597-5598, 5600, 5602. Mansaray
testified that the Prosecution paid an additional 195,000 leones (approximately $USD 65) in medical expenses in
November or December 2007. However, the record is not clear as to whether this was an additional payment, or
one that had already been accounted for in connection with a previous medical procedure. Mustapha M.
Mansaray, Transcript 10 March 2008, pp. 5602-5603.
M4 Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 7 March 2008, p. 5570.

---- End of Page 97 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-O1-T j Obi 18 May 2012

3% ta 0
With regard to his prior statements and the question of` whether he personally witnessed the
killing of miners, the Trial Chamber does not consider this to be a minor issue, but accepts
the explanations of` the witness in light of the considerations set forth above. ln the Trial
Chamber's view, the Defence has not established any impropriety regarding the support
provided to the witness and his family by the Prosecution.625
262. For these reasons, the Trial Chamber finds Mansaray to be generally credible and
will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they may arise.
Prosecution Witness Joseph "Zigzag" Marzah
263. Joseph ("Zigzag") Marzah, an SSS member,626 testified that he was a member of the
NPF L fiom 1989 and later the SSS until late 2003. He stated that in 1991 the Accused sent
him to Sierra Leone as part of a joint operation with Foday Sankoh to overthrow the
government in Freetown. Marzah testified that he later returned to Liberia, where he was
tasked with transporting weapons, materiel, and diamonds between Liberia and Sierra
Leone. Marzah stated that by 1997, he was SSS Chief of` Operations at the Accused's
Executive Mansion.622 In his testimony, Marzah admitted to acts of cannibalism and other
atrocities.°22
264. ln light of his role in the NPF L and the SSS, and his admitted involvement in
E numerous serious atrocities, the Trial Chamber notes that Marzah is an accomplice witness,
and he repeatedly asserted that he was acting according to orders received fiom the Accused.
Marzah approached the Prosecution a1&er being told by another former fighter that he should
do so in order to avoid being prosecuted for the crimes he committed.229 The Trial Chamber
notes with concern the evidence that as soon as he completed his testimony, Marzah phoned
another Prosecution witness whom he had introduced to the Prosecution.620
265. The Trial Chamber notes that, generally, Marzah did not provide specific dates for
the incidents he describes and could not place events in context. Further, it finds that his
625 See Preliminary Issues: Discretionary Payments and Other inducements to Witnesses by the Prosecution.
626 Joseph Marzah, Transcript 13 March 2008, pp. 6053-6055.
(222 Joseph Marzah, Transcript 12 March 2008, pp. 5860-5878, 5894.
622 See for example Joseph Marzah, Transcript 12 March 2008, pp. 5899-5900, 5929-5930, 5943-5949.
622 Joseph Marzah, Transcript 13 March 2008, p. 5970.
""’ See TF1-579, Transcript 26 November 2008, pp. 21212-21213 (PS), The witness testified that they were
laughing and talking about "nothing".

---- End of Page 98 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T J OQ 18 May 2012

3% la t
testimony was confusing and exaggerated. ln particular, he appears to have exaggerated his
own role in the conflict and his level of personal communication with the Accused, for
example in testifying that he informed the Accused of every amputation he performed.63l
The Trial Chamber also notes that while Marzah stated that he was the "Chief of
Operations" of the SSS, numerous other witnesses testified that he was merely Yeaten's
bodyguard or orderly.632 ln addition, the Trial Chamber notes that Mar2ah's testimony was
inconsistent and evasive as to whether or not he participated in the Freetown invasion of
January 1999, or was in Monrovia with serious injuries at the time.633
266. Marzah attempted to implicate the Accused in cannibalism, stating that he and the
Accused ate Sam Dokie's liver together in Liberia. The Trial Chamber notes that the
Accused was in South Africa at the time of Dokie's death, and that this event was
emphatically denied by the person who Marzah alleged had cooked the liver for him.634
267. Marzah's testimony was often inconsistent with his prior statements to the
Prosecution, particularly in regards to allegations against the Accused. With regard to his
first meeting with the Accused and Sankoh, for example, Marzah stated that it was in
Gborplay, after the Accused ordered that Marzah be released from a burning container and
taken to the Accused's house. Marzah had previously told the Prosecution that he first met
the Accused in the Cote d’Ivoire and Sankoh in Burkina Faso. When confronted with these
inconsistencies, Marzah insisted that he had told the Prosecution about the burning container
incident, although there is no record of this.°35 The Trial Chamber does not accept Marzah's
explanation of these inconsistencies.
268. ln light of the numerous inconsistencies and implausibilities in Marzah's testimony,
the Trial Chamber finds that his evidence, particularly as it relates to his personal interaction
and communication with the Accused, must be considered with caution and cannot be relied
upon without corroboration.
631 Joseph Marzah, Transcript 12 March 2008, pp. 5955-5956. See also Joseph Marzah, Transcript 12 March
2008, p. 5891 (testifying that he made more than 100 trips to Sierra Leone carrying materiel, but only accounting
for how he travelled/where the materiel came from for 30 to 40 trips).
M Varmuyan Sherif, Transcript 9 January 2008, p. 818.
633 Joseph Marzah, Transcript 13 March 2008, pp. 5990-5993.
634 See also Joseph Marzah, Transcript 14 March 2008, pp. 6153-6156; Annie Yeney, Transcript, 3 June
2010, pp. 42096-42098; Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 491; Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 30 September
2009, p. 29966; Naomi Campbell, Transcript 5 August 2010, pp. 45463-45465.
635 Joseph Marzah, Transcript 13 March 2008, pp. 5990-6031.

---- End of Page 99 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Q N 18 May 2012

2% 14 *2.
Prosecution Witness Isaac Mongor
269. Witness Isaac Mongor, a Liberian who trained RUF members in 1990, subsequently
rose through the ranks of the RUF to a brigadier.666 He was one of the most senior
commanders in the RUF, overseeing several operations. He participated in a number of
atrocities.667 I
270. The Trial Chamber notes that Isaac Mongor is an accomplice witness, who received
a letter of immunity from the Prosecution. He testified in cross-examination that he received
this letter after he had decided to testify and was adamant that he never had any fear of being
prosecuted.666 However, he also testified that with regard to the involvement of the Accused
in the Freetown invasion, he was fearful of being tricked and arrested, and fearful of what
would happen to him if he told the truth, including the possibility that "they" would kill
him.666 It is unclear to whom he was referring as "they" in this context. He claimed that he
was not fully forthcoming with the Prosecution in his earlier statements relating to the role
of the Accused in the Freetown invasion in the interest of his own protection and that he
eventually decided to tell the truth because he wanted peace for himself and if anything was
going to happen after that let it happen.646 The Trial Chamber finds under these
circumstances that the testimony of the witness with respect to his earlier statements does
not undermine his credibility.
271. The Trial Chamber notes that Isaac Mongor received sums for meals, transport and
lost wages when he was interviewed by the Prosecution. He testified that he was not told he
would benefit from his testimony or be remunerated for lost wages.64l In cross-examination,
the amounts of money given to the witness were put to him, and he was unable to explain
the exact amounts he was given for transportation, food, and lost wages.642 While these
M6 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, p. 6238.
667 See for example Isaac Mongor, Transcript 11 March 2008, pp. 5749-5750, 5760-5764; Transcript 31
March 2008, pp. 6204-6206, 6224-6225; Transcript 3 April 2008, pp. 6512-6513, 6551-6556, 6613-6615.
666 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, p. 6253.
669 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 7 April 2008, pp. 6735-6742.
646 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 7 April 2008, pp. 6735-6744.
641 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, pp. 6259-6261.
646 Isaac Mongor, Transcript l April 2008, pp. 6361-6366.

---- End of Page 100 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Q hg l8 May 2012

3**619 2
amounts were significantly more than he had actually spent, the Trial Chamber accepts the
testimony of the witness in cross-examination that he did not testify for monetary gain.644
272. In cross-examination, a number of other inconsistencies were raised between Isaac
Mongor's testimony and his prior statements. The Trial Chamber finds these inconsistencies,
relating to details such as the date he joined the AFL, the length of time he was Battle Field
Commander, whether a particular radio conversation relating to ‘Operation Stop Election’
took place in 1995 or 1996, or whether materials delivered to Magburaka air strip included
AK-47 ammunition, to be relatively minor in nature. A number of other issues raised by the
Defence as inconsistencies in the testimony of the witness are prior omissions more than
inconsistencies, for example his failure to mention in early interviews a radio conversation
between the Accused and Sankoh where they discussed ‘Operation Stop Election,’ or the
fact that he specifically mentioned amputations in relation to this operation for the first time
only in his testimony.644 The Trial Chamber does not find that these minor inconsistencies
and omissions undermine the credibility of the witness.
273. The Trial Chamber observed that Isaac Mongor maintained a calm demeanour
throughout the entirety of cross-examination, despite being pressed heavily and repeatedly
accused of lying.
274. The Trial Chamber finds Mongor to be a generally credible witness and will consider
further issues relating to his credibility in context as they may arise.
Prosecution Witness TF1-516
275. Witness TF1-516, an RUF radio operator,645 testified that he was abducted into the
RUF in 1991 at the age of 17,646 and that he remained in the RUF until disarmament in
2001.647 During his time in the RUF, TF1-516 attained the rank of Sergeant and served as a
radio operator for the RUF in Sierra Leone and for Benjamin Yeaten in Liberia.648
443 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 1 April 2008, p. 6366.
444 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1555.
645 TF1-516, Transcript 8 April 2008, p, 6845.
646 TF1-516, Transcript 8 April 2008, pp. 6802, 6811-6812, 6876.
W TF1-516, Transcript 10 Aprr1200s,p. 7106.
648 TF1-516, Transcript 10 April 2008, pp. 6858-6859, 7206.

---- End of Page 101 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-O3-O1-T / GM 18 May 2012

2 3 1 ‘7 '-+
276. In the Trial Chamber's view, TF1-516 provided clear and detailed testimony and
testified in a calm and forthright marmer. He was careful to distinguish between those events
about which he had direct knowledge, and those events which he had not personally
witnessed and told the Trial Chamber candidly when he was unsure about when an event
occurred.°49
277. The Defence argues that Witness TF1-516 is not a credible witness because his
testimony was implausible and contradicted by the evidence of other Prosecution
witnesses.55O The Defence notes two particular instances in which, in its view, the witness
rovided im lausible testimon 1 the first occasion relates to a call TF1-516 testified that he
P P Y
received from Taylor's station in Gbam a in or around March 1996 and the second concerns
Y 8
a message that he stated he received from Base 1 during the retreat from Kono in February
1998. The Trial Chamber recalls that it has assessed the evidence relating to the call received
from Taylor's radio station in 1996 in the section of the Judgement on the Abidjan Peace
Accord and the message from Base 1 in 1998 in the section of the Judgement on Military
Operations. On both occasions it found the witness's evidence to be credible.65 I
278. The Defence asserts that portions of TF1-516's testimony in which he provided
details about radio stations, including their names and the dates that they were established,
were factually problematic because they contradicted the testimony of other Prosecution
witnesses.552 The Trial Chamber has considered this evidence in the section of the
Judgement on Operational Support.555 The Defence further challenges TF1-516's testimony
with reference to Dauda Amna Fomie's testimony that there was no direct link between
RUF and NPFL radio stations in March 1996.654 The Trial Chamber has considered this
evidence in the section of the Judgement on the Peace Process, where it found TF1-516's
testimony on this point to be reliable.65 5
545 See for example TFl-516, Transcript 8 April 2008, pp. 6945, 6962; Transcript 16 April 2008, pp. 7820-
7821 where the witness repeatedly and candidly explained that he did not know whether the ammunitions
shipment to which he testified took place during the Freetown attack of January 1999.
550 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1496-1502.
551 See Military Operations: Alleged Message from Base 1 to Troops Retreating from Kono and see Peace
Process: Abidjan.
552 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1500-1501.
555 See Operational Support: RUF and NPF L Radio Codes and Communications.
554 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1499.
555 See Peace Process: Abidjan. .

---- End of Page 102 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T QTKQ, 18 May 2012 w

3 s n 75
279. The Defence argues that because TF 1-516 was reluctant to agree with prior
statements he made to the Prosecution that were exculpatory in nature, he was "not
interested in telling the truth, but in providing a [sic] inculpatory testimony".°56 The Trial
Chamber recognises that TF 1-516 was reluctant to agree with his prior statement.657 It is
clear that the witness wanted to distinguish communications which to0l< place over the radi0
as 0pposed to those conducted over the satellite phone, a distinction that was not made in his
prior statement.658 However, the Trial Chamber is of the view that the reluctance of the
witness was the result of his efforts to explain his answer rather than unwillingness to be
truthful.
280. S0me parts of TF 1-516's testimony were inconsistent with his prior statements to the
Prosecution. In his prior statement, the witness had stated that he had left Z0g0da and gone
to Buedu in December 1995 and stayed there until the AF RC coup when he moved to Kono,
whilst also maintaining that he remained there "over a year". The witness was consistent in
maintaining that he had corrected this version of his prior statement to record that he in fact
left Buedu in December 1996 which was substantiated by written corrections read to the
C0urt. The witness also explained that he had not moved to Kono until around August 1997.
Whilst the Trial Chamber notes that a slight inconsistency remains between these dates and
the assertion that the witness stayed in Buedu for a year, it considers the discrepancy a minor
one which does not affect the witness's overall credibility and which could in any event be
attributable to a miscalculation on the part of the investigator, rather than the witness.659
281. The witness had also previ0usly told investigators that he did not have the auth0rity
to call or receive messages from Liberia while he was wor1Only certain radi0 Operators had such auth0rity, yet he testihed to the Trial Chamber about
messages that he had received from Liberia. The witness explained that when he was in
Z0g0da and during some of his time in Buedu, he did not have auth0rity to communicate
with Liberia but that he had been given permission during his time in Buedu. In view of the
candid and consistent way in which the witness explained the apparent discrepancy and the
°5° Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1502.
057 TF1-516 was asked to agree or disagree with a statement he made to the Prosecution that he had not heard
any cornmunication from the Accused regarding the Freetown invasion of 1999. The witness was reluctant to
give a yes or no answer to the question and made several attempts to explain what he meant by his statement
versus what was written. TF1-516, Transcript 16 April 2008, pp. 7777-7779.
M8 TF1—516, Transcript 16 April 2008, pp. 7777-7779.
W) TF1-516, Transcript 14 April 2008, pp. 7498-7508.

---- End of Page 103 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 103/ GM 18 May 2012

Z 519 fa
fact that the Trial Chamber was not shown the entirety of the prior statements to enable it to
assess the context in which the statements had been given, it does not draw any adverse
inferences from the discrepancy.666
282. The Trial Chamber has considered TF1-516's inconsistencies about whether he
witnessed Sam Bockarie handling diamonds in the Diamonds section of the Judgement,
where it found TF1-516's testimony to be 1‘eliable.66l
283. There were, however, some occasions when TF1-516 became agitated and tried to
avoid answering questions. For example, when presented with a prior statement to the effect
that he had never seen Yeaten or any other high-ranking Liberian dealing with diamonds, he
described an incident in which Eddie Kanneh had visited Yeaten's house but refused a
number of times to answer directly whether he agreed with his prior statement. Only after
being pressed several times by the Trial Chamber, did the witness then assert that the
investigators had made an error.662 The Trial Chamber noted that the witness also refused
several times to answer the question whether General Tengbeh was one of the Special
Forces. When pressed to do so, the witness replied that he did not know.663 The Trial
Chamber accepts this response.
284. For these reasons the Trial Chamber finds TF1-516 to be generally credible and will
A consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they may arise.
Prosecution Witness Alimamy Bobson Sesay
285. Witness Alimamy Bobson Sesay (a.k.a. Bobby, Pastor Bobson and Pastor Yapo
Sesay)664 an AFRC member665 and officer666, testified that he was a member of the SLA
from 1991 until the AFRC coup in May 1997.667 Shortly after the coup, he was assigned to
666 TF1-516, Transcript 14 April 2008, pp. 7545-7548.
66l Diamonds: Alleged Delivery of Diamonds to the Accused, February 1998-December 1999.
662 TF1-516, Transcript 16 April 1998, pp. 7775-7777.
663 TF1-516, Transcript 14 April 2008, pp. 7444-7445.
664 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 16 April 2008, p. 7849.
665 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7859-7867, 7869; Transcript 28 April 2008, pp.
8684, 8689.
666 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7865-7866.
667 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 16 April 2008, p. 7853. Bobson Sesay testified that he was working
in the Military Police at the Sierra Leone Military police Headquarters at Cockerill before 25 May 1997
(Transcript 16 April 2008, pp. 7855-7856). Samuel Kargbo corroborated that Bobson Sesay was an SLA
(Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 2 June 2008, p. 10663).

---- End of Page 104 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T M 18 May 2012

3% 1‘i '?
Hassan Papa Bangura, one of the 17 founding members of the AF RC, as a Military
Transport Officer and security guard.666 Aiier the ECOMOG Intervention, Bobson Sesay
moved to northern Sierra Leone as a combatant under the command of Alex Tamba Brima
(a.k.a. Gullit). While he was promoted a number of times, he never held a rank higher than
Captain.666 Notably, Bobson Sesay was one of two witnesses who participated in the
Freetown invasion led by Brima in January 1999.676 Aiier the Freetown invasion he served
as an aide-de-camp and personal bodyguard to Bangura,67] until he was arrested on 6 June
2000.672 At the time of his testimony before the Special Court, he practised as an
evangelist.673
286. The Trial Chamber notes that the witness provided coherent and detailed testimony.
Aside from isolated occasions on which he became agitated when Defence counsel
suggested that he testified before the Special Court for self-interested motives,674 and that he
killed his bush wife,675 he remained calm throughout his testimony. The Trial Chamber
observes that Bobson Sesay was generally consistent between his evidence in examination-
in-chief and cross-examination. Wihen confronted with prior statements which differed from
his in-court testimony, his explanation was that the investigators or OTP either did not ask
him a particular question,676 did not ask him to elaborate on a particular aspect677 or
666 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7859-7860, 7867.
666 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7861-7863, 7865 (He was promoted to a
Regimental Sergeant Major after February 1998. At Colonel Eddie town, he was Second Lieutenant and he was
then demoted to a Lieutenant around 25 December 1998. He was promoted to Captain just before the Freetown
invasion). Note that Issa Sesay testified that Alimamy Bobson Sesay was one of the "honourab1es", one of the
founding members of the AFRC, see Issa Sesay, Transcript 28 July 2010, p. 44912. However, given that neither
Bobson Sesay nor any other witness corroborates this, the Trial Chamber considers that Issa Sesay is mistaken as
to the witness's identity.
676 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8275-8279.
671 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7866-7867.
672 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7869-7871.
673 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 24 April 2008, pp. 8526-8527.
674 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 24 April 2008, pp. 8535-8536 (where Defence counsel suggested that
he had spoken to his family about seeking asylum in France after his testimony before the Special Court of Sierra
Leone, and that he had told someone that he knew the AFRC had no dealings with the Accused but that he
"needed to survive").
675 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 29 April 2008, pp. 8870-8873, 8881.
676 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 25 April 2008, pp. 8591-8592, 8606 (the witness did not mention the
Accused providing the delegation with $USD 15,000 before 6 April 2008 because the investigators did not ask
him about it prior to this date and maintains that he mentioned this sum of money to the investigators even
during the AFRC trial but they limited his answers since they were not relevant to the case at that time);
Transcript 25 April 2008, pp. 8602-8603 (the witness explained that he did not mention Taylor's logistical
support to the troops for the 6 January 1999 Freetown invasion until his 24th meeting with the OTP because this
was the first time the investigators questioned the witness on this matter and he only answered questions they put
to him); Transcript 28 April 2008, p. 8721 (the witness explained that he limited his answer as to whether he saw

---- End of Page 105 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / 18 May 2012
I

Es eas
otherwise noted his statement wrongly.676 While the Trial Chamber does not accept these
explanations as curing all of the witness's inconsistencies, the Trial Chamber has regard to
his explanations in considering his evidence about specific events.
287. On cross-examination, the Defence raised the issue of payments made by the OTP to
the witness without interviews being conducted. Defence counsel questioned Alimamy
Bobson Sesay about various payments, including payments for medical expenses, meals and
transportation costs, made when there were no interviews conducted by the OTP.679 The
witness did not dispute that payments were made and explained that the OTP invited him on
numerous occasions to assist them in obtaining information, in particular, on the location of
particular individuals. He would also be asked to physically locate persons or to obtain
information and was reimbursed for his travel costs.666 WVS provided him a weekly
allowance for meals and accommodation in addition to payments made by the OTP.66l The
Trial Chamber does not find these payments to be unreasonable, nor did they appear to
influence his testimony. The Trial Chamber also notes that Bobson Sesay was forthright and
candid when asked about the payments he received from the Prosecution.
288. The witness admitted to having personally participated in numerous and a wide
ranging array of crimes throughout the 1ndictment period, including raping two young girls
in Kono and in Freetown,662 training small boy units663 whom he instructed to amputate the
hands of civilians in Yomandu and Tombodu,664 burning civilians in a house at Karina,
any arms and ammunition to the time period when he was in Kono as the question was about when the RUF
withdrew from Freetown).
677 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 25 April 2008, pp. 8588-8589 (the witness did not mention Taylor's
logistical support to the SLA and the reorganisation of SLA soldiers from Guinea to Liberia because the
investigators did not ask him to elaborate on this).
676 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 28 April 2008, pp. 8702-8704, 8920-8922 (the witness blames an
inaccurate recording of his answers by the OTP when questioned by the Defence as to why he did not inform the
OTP until 8 May 2007 that the arms shipment at Magburaka was from Liberia and not Ukraine); Alimamy
Bobson Sesay, Transcript 25 April 2008, pp. 8757, 8577 (when questioned about a statement of 7 November
2003 in which the witness did not mention the presence of RUF boys at Johnny Paul Koroma's house in
Monrovia, Bobson Sesay admits the reference is missing because the investigators edited it and that he had told
the investigators that Koroma had shown the witness the boys).
676 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 24 April 2008, pp. 8542-8545; Transcript 29 April 2008, pp. 8886-
8904.
666 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 29 April 2008, pp. 8900-8904.
66l Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 29 April 2008, pp. 8900-8901.
662 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 29 April 2008, p. 8865. K
663 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7976-7978.
664 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7978.

---- End of Page 106 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T GB rg May 20];;

2% la Q
abducting about 30 women in Karina,685 looting valuable property from civilians at Lunsar
and Makeni in the implementation of ‘Operation Pay Yourself", and participating in
‘Operation Spare No Soul’ as ordered by the senior commanders.686
289. ln light of his admitted involvement in numerous and serious crimes, the Trial
Chamber notes that Bobson Sesay is an accomplice witness. However, given Bobson
Sesay's detailed and coherent account, the candour with which he testified about his own
complicity, and his lack of any motivation to lie, the Trial Chamber finds Bobson Sesay to
be generally credible and will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as
they may arise.
Prosecution Witness Samuel Kargbo
290. Witness Samuel Kargbo, (a.l<.a. Sammy,°87 Honourable Sammy,688 Jungler)689 an .
AFRC Supreme Council member,69O was a soldier in the Sierra Leonean Army from 1990 to
2001691 and one of the 17 coup plotters who overthrew the Kabbah government in May
1997.692 He became a member of the Supreme Council693 and was one of Johnny Paul
Koroma's "securities".694 He testified that he was detained by the RUF in Buedu along with
Koroma as they tried to flee to Liberia in around March 1998695 and thereafter was sent by
the RUF to Manowa Ferry,696 Kailahun Town°97 and to Pendembu where he was appointed
Deputy Brigade Commander in April/May 1998, a position he maintained until the Lome
685 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 29 April 2008, pp. 8867-8877.
686 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 29 April 2008, pp. 8865-8870.
687 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 2 June 2008, p. 10663.
688 Dennis Koker, Transcript 15 January 2008, pp. 1233, 1238; Issa Sesay, Transcript 7 July 2010, p. 43966.
689 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 2 June 2008, p. 10663.
690 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, pp. 10439, 10448, 10450; Exhibit P-58, "Excerpts from the
Sierra Leone Gazette No. 52, 4 September 1997 — 00007703-00007704", ERN 7703-7704.
lm Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, p. 10414.
692 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, pp. 10433-10437.
lm Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, pp. 10450, 10461; Exhibit P-131, "AFRC - Secret Minutes of
the First Meeting of the AFRC Held at the Conference Hall, Defence Headquarters on Saturday 19 July 1997,
00007081 — 00007086", ERN 7801. 1
694 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, p. 10441.
695 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 22 May 2008, pp. 10520, 10523-10540.
°% Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, p. 10813.
W Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 22 May 2008, p. 10556.

---- End of Page 107 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T // QN 18 May 2012 j

3% Q`O O
Accord in July 1999.698 From October 1999 until 2001, Kargbo served in the Sierra Leonean
Army again.°99 From late 2001 until the witness testified, he had been unemployed.70O
291. The Trial Chamber notes that Kargbo's demeanour was of a witness who was eager
to testify. He remained calm throughout his testimony but spoke very quickly despite
repeated requests by Counsel and the Trial Chamber to slow down. He did not always
address events sequentially and often provided extraneous infomation. As a result, some of
the witness's answers were unclear and his testimony sometimes disorganised.
292. On cross—examination, Kargbo was confronted by several prior inconsistent
statements. ln most cases, the Trial Chamber considers these inconsistencies, such as
whether, following the Iranian Embassy incident, Johnny Paul Koroma called the Accused
on a landline or a satellite phoneml to be relatively minor in nature. The Trial Chamber notes
that the record of Kargbo's iiirst interview with the Prosecution omits to mention the
flogging he received at the hands of the RUF after he and Johnny Paul Koroma arrived in
Buedu in early 1998 and that, although Kargbo testiliied that he told the Prosecution about
the event in that interview, he failed to correct the mistake when the interview was read back
to him.702 However, in view of the fact that it is recorded that he mentioned the event as
early as his second interview only three days laterm and subsequently gave graphic
evidence to the Court about his ordeal,7O4 the Trial Chamber has no doubt as to the veracity
of his sworn testimony.
293. The Trial Chamber recalls that it has approached Kargbo's evidence regarding his
second trip to F oya to collect ammunition in early 1998 with caution primarily in view of his
failure to mention the event in his prior statement.705 However, the Trial Chamber notes that,
698 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 22 May 2008, pp. 10551-10552, 10556-10557.
699 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 3 June 2008, p. 10840.
700 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 3 June 2008, p. 10843.
70} Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, p. 10449; Transcript 2 June 2008, pp. 10726-10727, 10730-
10731, 10742-10745.
702 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 3 June 2008, pp. 10766-10769, 10771.
703 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 3 June 2008, p. 10769.
704 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 22 May 2008, pp. 10523-10540.
705 See Arms and Arnmunition: Allegations of Direct Supply by the Accused: During Sam Bockarie's
Leadership (February 1998-December 1999).

---- End of Page 108 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T y 0*9 18 May 2012

25101
in general, Kargbo's testimony that trips were made by Bockarie to Liberia in 1998 to
collect ammunition sent by the Accused is substantially supported by other witnesses.711`1
294. Finally, the Trial Chamber also recalls that it did not find Kargbo's mistaken belief
that the Accused was President of Liberia shortly after the May 1997 coup7117 when Kargbo
asserted that the Accused privately supported the Junta government as indicative of any
intent on his part to mislead the Trial Chamber, but rather that he had simply confused the
Accused's status at the time the events he described occurred.1118 J
295. ln light of the foregoing, the Trial Chamber finds Samuel Kargbo to be a generally A
credible witness and will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they
may arise.
Prosecution Witness TF1-539
296. Witness TF1-539, a member of various fighting groups,7119 testified that he held
various positions including within the AFRC, RUF and SSS from 1990 until 2001.7111
297. The Defence submits that TF1-539's testimony was inconsistent, implausible,
manufactured and therefore not credible.711 1n addition to challenging specific areas of TF1-
539's that are highly inconsistent, the Defence alleges that a portion of TF 1-539's testimony
pertaining to Sam Bockarie's diamond dealings was manufactured to match the testimony of
witnesses who testified before him.712
298. The witness testified that in 1999 he was taken by two men to meet with Sam
Bockarie. On their way to Monrovia they stopped at a pub, where they encountered "Co1one1
Marzah" and "Captain Denis", who had just come from the "Mansion".713 Marzah took the
71111 See Amis and Ammunition: Allegations of Direct Supply by the Accused: During Sam Bockarie's
Leadership (February 1998-December 1999).
707 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 3 June 2008, pp, 10668-10671.
7011 See Leadership and Command Structure: Accused Relationship with the RUF/AFRC, Junta Period.
7119. TF1-539, Transcript 9 June 2008, p. 11374; Transcript, 10 June 2008, pp. 11391, 11469-11471;
Transcript, 11 June 2008 pp. 11532, 11561—11562(CS).
710 TF1-539, Transcript 9 June 2008, p. 11374; Transcript 10 June 2008, pp. 11391, 11469-11471; Transcript
11 June 2008, pp. 11532, 11561-11563 (CS), As this witness is the subject ofprotective measures, he testified as
to potentially identifying information in closed session. The substance of that testimony is not included here.
711 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1449-1458.
712 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1449-1454, 1457-1458.
713 TF1-539, Transcript 10 June 2008, pp. 11409-11412.

---- End of Page 109 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T " 18 May 2012

3% 2.cD-
witness to the back of the pub, questioned him about his companions, and told the witness
that the men the witness was with had alleged that the witness was a spy for Kabbah's
government.7l4 Marzah then showed the witness a photo of a mutilated female corpse who,
according to Marzah, had also been accused of being a spy,7l5 and told the witness that if it
was confirmed that he was a spy, he would die "in a more ugly manner" than the woman in
the photo.7l6 TF1—539's testimony about this incident was inconsistent on a number of
points. TF1—539 first told the Prosecution that Marzah showed him the photo of the
mutilated corpse in an effort to intimidate him, but TF1—539 later testified that Marzah had
simply dropped the photo on the floor while removing other things from his pocket, and the
witness picked up the photo and kept it without Marzah's knowledge.7l7 The witness also
gave inconsistent testimony between examination—in—chief and cross—examination about
whether he knew the identity of the woman in the photo.7l8 TF1—539 contradicted his own
cross—examination testimony when he first testified in detail about how he lost the original
copy of the photo from the pocket of his trousers,7l9 only to testify later on cross-
examination that he had given the photo to two police officers who scanned it, but he could
not recall if it had been returned to him. Additionally, the Trial Chamber notes the
implausibility of the witness's testimony that he managed to hold onto the photograph from
1999 to 2006, throughout his many travels, but then lost it while moving houses twice
between 2006 and 2008.720
299. The Trial Chamber also takes particular note of TF1—539's testimony regarding his
very first meeting with the Accused, which the Defence has characterised as implausiblem
According to the witness, days after being accused of espionage and being threatened by
Marzah, Marzah took the witness to the Executive Mansion to meet the Accused. During the
meeting, the Accused offered the witness encouraging words, and passed on a gift of SUSD
M TF1-539, Transcript 10 June 2008, pp. 11412-11413.
7*5 TF1-539, rraaaaapr 10 Jrma 2008, p. 11413.
M TF1-539, Transcript 10 June 2008, pp. 11412-11413.
W TF1-539, Transcript 10 June 2008, p. 11413; Transcript 11 June 2008, pp. 11599-11605.
H8 TF1-539, Transcript 10 June 2008, p. 11421; Transcript 11 June 2008, pp. 11608-11610; Transcript 12
June 2008, pp. 11638-11639. The witness told the Prosecution in prior interviews that the woman was named
lsha, but on examination-in-chief stated that Marzah did not te11 him her name. On cross-examination he then
disavowed his examination-in-chief testimony, stating that Marzah had told him her name.
H9 TF1-539, Transcript 11 June 2008, pp. 11609; Transcript 12 June 2008, pp. 11617-11621, 11639.
720 TF1-539, Transcript 12 June 2008, pp. 11621-11623.
7** Defence mai Trial Brief, para. 1449.

---- End of Page 110 ---------------------------


Case No.:aaar.-03-o1¤r / GM 18 May 21212 j

3% 2 ¤3
1,500 to him,722 The Accused then appointed the witness as a One Star General, stating that
if he proved his loyalty to the revolution he might "go beyond that",723
300, The Trial Chamber notes the Defence's challenge to TF1-539's inconsistencies
regarding whose signatures he saw on a set of consignment papers for ammunition received
after the Burkina Faso trip,724 and has considered that evidence in the section on Arms and
Ammunition,725 The Trial Chamber recalls that it accepted TF1-539's explanation regarding
those inconsistencies.
301, The Trial Chamber has considered other issues regarding the witness's testimony
raised by the Defence, including inconsistencies in his testimony regarding the dates and
length of some of his professional posts72(’ and his personal mining activities,727 ln the Trial
Chamber's view, these inconsistencies are relatively minor, Regarding the Defence's
contention that TF1-539 altered his testimony about Sam Bockarie and the mayonnaise jar
of diamonds, the Trial Chamber recalls that it has considered this evidence elsewhere in the
Judgement and found it to be unre1iable,728
302, The Trial Chamber notes that, in addition to the inconsistent and implausible aspects
of TF1-539's testimony, his overall testimony was scattered and difficult to follow, ln the
Trial Chamber's view, TF1-539 exaggerated aspects of his testimony, particularly with
regard to his own role in events, While TF1-539 at times testified in significant detail, the
Trial Chamber generally observes that many of his responses were rambling and evasive and
he failed to provide convincing explanations for a number of inconsistencies,729
722 TF1-539, Transcript 10 June 2008, pp. 11468-11470,
723 TF1-539, Transcript 10 June 2008, p. 11471. The witness also told the Prosecution in a prior statement
that he had been stationed to work at the Mansion while with ECOMOG, but on cross-examination the witness
denied making the statement. TF1-539, Transcript 12 June 2008, pp. 11632-11633.
724 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1458.
725 See Arms and Ammunition: Allegations of Direct Supply by the Accused, During Sam Bockarie's
Leadership (February 1998-December 1999).
726 Defence Final Trial Brief; para. 1456, citing TF1-539, Transcript 12 June 2008, pp. 11625-11629.
727 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1455, citing TF1-539, Transcript 12 June 2008, p, 11663.
728 See Diamonds; Alleged Delivery of Diamonds to the Accused, Junta Period; Defence Final Trial Brief
para, 1454, citing TF1-539, Transcript 11 June 2008, pp. 11675, 11684-11685, 11688.
720 See for example TF1-539, Transcript 10 June 2008, p. 11413; Transcript 11 June 2008, pp, 11599-11605,
11608-11610; Transcript 12 June 2008, pp. 11625-11629,

---- End of Page 111 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T ON- 18 May 2012

3320%
303. In light of the foregoing, the Trial Chamber finds that TF1-539's evidence,
particularly as it relates to his personal interaction and communication with the Accused,
must be considered with caution and cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
Prosecution Witness Alice Pyne
304. Witness Alice Pyne, an RUF radio operator,73O testified that she was captured by the
NPFL in 1991, and was a member of the RUF from 1993 until disarmamentm Throughout
her time with the RUF, she testified, she was a radio operator working in a number of
locations and for various RUF members.732
305. The Defence contends that Pyne's reliability is questionable, because she provided
inaccurate details concerning well-known events. For example, the Defence claims, she
testified that Foday Sankoh was in Cote d’Ivoire when the 1996 elections were held.733 The
Defence notes that the elections were held before Sankoh left for Abidjan, which was on 24
March 1996.734 The Trial Chamber finds this inconsistency minor, as the rest of her
testimony concerning well-known events was consistent with the body of evidence at trial.
306. The Defence submitted that portions of Pyne's testimony, more specifically
concerning the allegation that the Accused provided herbalists to the RUF, that Bockarie
ordered the killing of Martin Moinama, and that Taylor sent Senegalese to Bockarie, render
her not credible.735 The Trial Chamber has considered these incidents in the context of the
Judgement as they arise, and has accepted or rejected Pyne's testimony about these events
accordingly.736 As to the Defence's concerns that her testimony was hearsay, the Trial
Chamber has also addressed those issues in context.
307. Based on the foregoing, the Trial Chamber finds Alice Pyne to be generally credible
and will consider further issues relating to her credibility in context as they may arise.
"° Alice Pyne, Transcript 17 June 2008,p. 12074.
m Alice Pyne, Transcript 17 June 2008, pp. 12048-12049.
732 Alice Pyne, Transcript 17 June 2008, pp. 12066-12083, 12091-12092; Transcript 18 June 2008, pp.
12105, 12129-12130, 12135-12136, 12155 -12160, 12166-12167; Transcript 19 June 2008, pp. 12248-12249,
12255-12257, 12272-12273.
733 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1494; Alice Pyne, Transcript 18 June 2008, pp. 12118-12119.
m Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1494.
735 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1492-1494.
736 See Military Operations: The Freetown Invasion, The Implementation of the Plan; Provision of Military
Personnel: Former NPFL Fighters; Operational Support: Support and Training, Alleged Provision ofHerbalists.

---- End of Page 112 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T GM 18 May 2012

3820Si
Prosecution Witness TF 1 -375
308. Witness TF1-375, an RUF fighter,737 testified that he was captured by the RUF in
1991 at a young age and taken to Pendembu for training. He remained with the RUF for the
duration of the war.738
309. The Defence challenges TF}-375's credibility on the basis that he received
incentives, in the form of payments and other benefits from W VS and the Prosecution, to an
extent that the integrity of his testimony was compromised, and that he altered his evidence
to match that of witnesses appearing before him.739 Furthermore, the Defence submits that
the witness's demeanour demonstrates that he did not take the proceedings seriously.740
310. The Trial Chamber notes that TF1-375 also gave internally inconsistent and
implausible testimony relating to several issues before the court.74l
311. The Trial Chamber also notes that the witness made self-aggrandising statements
throughout his testimony, which were not confirmed or corroborated by the remainder of the
body of evidence before the Trial Chamber.742 Although the witness provided highly
detailed testimony at times, that testimony was often inconsistent with his prior statements
in interviews.743 Additionally, as highlighted by the Defence, the Trial Chamber notes that
TF1-375 provided evidence at trial or at a very late stage in his interviews which he had not
737 TF} -375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. }2485.
738 TF} -375, Transcript 23 June 2008, pp. }2475-I2478.
739 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras }405-}4} 7.
740 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. }4 } 8.
Ml For example, the witness gave highly inconsistent testimony regarding the facts of his trip to identify
Johnny Paul Koroma, including whether he was actually present when Koroma was executed, whether he knew
how or why Koroma was executed, and whether Koroma and his men were naked or clothed at the time. TF}-
375, Transcript 25 August 2008, pp. }4512-14523 (PS); Transcript 26 August 2008, pp. 1453 } -}4536 (PS).
742 For example, the witness testified that he was personally sent by Yeaten to Foya to identify Johnny Paul
Koroma. The witness stated that in Foya he saw Koroma and his men, under the custody of Roland Duoh, Sweet
Candy, and Saddam. Koroma was taken away by Sweet Candy and Saddam who then returned and told the
witness that Koroma was dead. The witness testified that he questioned them four or five times to ensure that
Koroma was actually dead, as he did not want to take false information back to the Accused. He did not,
however, check the body. The witness stated he then went to Monrovia via helicopter to personally confirm his
identification of Koroma to the Accused. TF}-375, Transcript 25 August 2008, pp. }4489-}4527 (PS);
Transcript 26 August 2008, pp. }453 } -}4536 (PS).
743 See for example TF}-375, Transcript 25 August 2008, pp. }4458-}4464 (PS) (regarding the number of
people who went to Liberia with Bockarie [200 to 300 or 600 to 700] and how many Sierra Leoneans in the ATU
were killed at the same time as Bockarie, 50% or 90%); Transcript 28 August 2008, p. }48}7 (contradicting a
prior statement that an order from Benjamin Yeaten to kill Samuel Varney came directly from the Accused);
Transcript 27 August 2008, pp. }473}-}4734 (contradicting a prior statement that he did not engage in active
fighting from 199} to }997, stating that he started fighting at the front lines in 1995).

---- End of Page 113 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-0} -T QM 18 May 2012

32,9-¤‘°
previously mentioned744 and which corroborated the testimony of other Prosecution
witnesses testifying before him without providing acceptable explanations.745 In the Trial
Chamber's view, TF1-375's testimony was convoluted and difficult to follow and he gave
dishonest testimony for which the Trial Chamber can find no motivation. Furthermore,
although the Trial Chamber acknowledges that the witness did not attempt to downplay his
part in violent activities that he testified about, the Trial Chamber considers that the
witness's demeanour, including laughing while testifying about serious events, indicate that
he did not take the proceedings seriously.
312. In light of these considerations, the Trial Chamber finds that the testimony of TF1-
375 must be treated with caution and cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
Prosecution Witness TF1-567
313. Witness TF1-567, an RUF member,446 was abducted by Liberian English-speaking
rebels in May 1991 and taken to undergo training in Pendembu.444 The witness held various
positions in the RUF until 2001.448
314. The Defence posits that TF1-567 testified about events that he did not have
knowledge of, and argues that he is a liar or exaggerator and that his testimony is therefore
not credible.444 In particular, the Defence highlights the inconsistencies between TF1-567's
evidence and the evidence of other witnesses, including TF1-371 and Issa Sesay, regarding
the taking of diamonds from Johnny Paul Koroma.45O The Defence also alleges that evidence
744 See for example TF1-375, Transcript 25 August 2008, pp. 14474-14476 (PS) (despite recalling specific
details of his actions on the day in question, the witness did not tell the Prosecution that he went to a meeting
with Moses Blah and Sam Bockarie three days before Bockarie was killed); Transcript 26 August 2008, pp.
14584-14591 (PS) (adding evidence that a plane he took Eom Burkina Faso was loaded with boxes of
ammunition on the seats in the same area as the passengers).
7*5 TF1-375, Transcript 28 August 2008, pp. 14808-14812. For example, during his 2444 interview, the
witness referred to diamonds being held in mayonnaise jars for the first time, shortly after Moses Blah had
testified to the same See also: TF1-375, Transcript 26 August 2008, pp. 14555-14557 (PS) (added statements
that Zigzag Marzah ate human fiesh and that Sweet Candy wore Johnny Paul Koroma's jacket after Koroma's
death following Marzah's testimony of the same incident).
744 TF1-567, Transcript 2 July 2008, p, 12833 (PS); Transcript 4 July 2008, pp. 12986-12988 (PS).
747 TF1-567, Transcript 2 July 2008, pp. 12819-12820.
744 TF1-567, Transcript 2 July 2008, pp. 12832, 12909; Transcript 4 July 2008, pp. 12986-12988 (PS).
744 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1546-1547.
744 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1546.

---- End of Page 114 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T q`\j_ 18 May 2012 g ‘

33 26*1-
provided by the Accused contradicts TF1-567's testimony regarding a meeting between the
two of them.75l
315. Regarding the taking of diamonds from Koroma, the Trial Chamber notes that TF1-
567's testimony regarding this incident does diverge from the testimony of a number of
other witnesses. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber notes that a number of other witnesses also
gave inconsistent and contradictory accounts surrounding the details of this event, including
those witnesses who gave direct evidence about the event. However, the Trial Chamber
recalls that it has assessed the inconsistencies and contradictions of all of the witnesses who
testified about that event elsewhere in the Judgement, and the Trial Chamber does not rely
upon the testimony of TF1-567 when making its findings regarding that event.
316. ln the Trial Chamber's view, TF1-567 was fortlnight in his testimony, openly
admitting when he did not know the answer to a question752 and when his testimony
concerned events that he did not personally witness.753 The Trial Chamber does not find that
this testimony undermines TF1-567's credibility.
317. Based on the foregoing, the Trial Chamber iinds TF1-567 to be a generally credible
witness and will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they may
arise.
Prosecution Witness TF1-338
318. Witness TP1-338, an RUF member,754 testified that he was a member of the RUF
from late 1991 until 2002, during which time he held various positions that afforded him
proximity to senior RUF members, including Foday Sankoh and 1ssa Sesay.755 TF1-338
testified about interactions between the Accused and members of the RUF, as well as about
diamond and weapons dealings.
W Defence Final Trial Brief para. 1547.
752 TF1~567, Transcript 2 July 2008, p. 12838; Transcript 4 July 2008. p. 12996 (PS).
753 TF1—567, Transcript 7 July 2008, pp. 13094~13095, 13097.
754 TF1—338, Transcript 1 September 2008, pp. 15085—15086 (PS).
755 TF1~338, Transcript 1 September 2008, pp. 15083—l5086 (PS). As this witness is the subject of Protective
Measures, additional details of TF1—338's positions in the RUF are not included in this section.

---- End of Page 115 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T f Obg 18 May 2012

3%2¤%
319. In its Final Trial Brief, the Defence submits that TFl-338's credibility was weak and
that his testimony was untrustworthy.756 Furthermore, in its final oral submissions the
Defence submits that TFl-338's testimony was so rife with inconsistencies that the Trial
Chamber should not consider it at all.757 Specifically, the Defence argued that TFl-338's
evidence was inconsistent regarding details of alleged diamond, ammunition, and money
exchanges involving the Accused.756 The Defence also asserted that portions of TFl-338's
testimony were implausible, including his testimony relaying his knowledge about meetings
between the Accused and Issa Sesay for which the witness was not actually present.756
320. Regarding TFl-338's inconsistencies, the Trial Chamber notes at the outset that the
witness is adamant that many of the inconsistencies pointed to by the Defence are statements
that were either incorrectly recorded by the Prosecution, or that he made corrections and
they were not applied to his statements.766 The Defence calls the Trial Chamber's attention
to the witness's failure to correct certain of his statements although he was given the
o ortunit to, and contends that this casts additional doubt on his credibilit .761 The Trial
PP Y Y
Chamber notes TFl-338's testimony that while correcting his prior statements, he was
instructed by the Prosecution to record the corrections in a separate notebook and that they
would be applied later.762 The witness then explained that many of his corrections were not
reflected.763 While the Trial Chamber does not accept that explanation as curing all of the
witness's inconsistencies, the Trial Chamber is mindful of this explanation while
considering TFl -338's evidence.
321. Further regarding TFl-338's inconsistencies, the Trial Chamber is of the view that a
number of them are immaterial, or were the result of confusion on behalf of the witness. For
example, the Trial Chamber considers TFl-338's inconsistency surrounding the amount of
diamonds, 3,500 pieces versus 350 carats or pieces, he took to Monrovia to be relatively
756 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1215.
757 Defence Closing Arguments, Transcript 10 March 2011, p. 49518.
758 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1214-1225.
759 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 966. _
766 TFl-338, Transcript 3 September 2008, pp. 15338-15343, 15346-15348 (PS); Transcript 4 September
2008, pp. 15354-15356 (PS).
76I Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1220-1221, 1225.
762 TFl-338, Transcript 3 September 2008, pp. 15346-15348, 15350 (PS); Transcript 4 September 2008, pp.
15354-15356 (PS).
763 TFl-338, Transcript 3 September 2008, pp. 15346-15348, 15350 (PS); Transcript 4 September 2008, pp.
15354-15356 (PS).

---- End of Page 116 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T if GM 18 May 2012

ggzoq
minor.764 The Defence also points to TFl-338's inconsistency regarding his knowledge of
whether Eddie Kanneh in fact absconded with $USD 150,000765 The Trial Chamber is
satisfied that the witness's statements on this issue were not a true contradiction, and accepts
his argument that having knowledge of whether Eddie Kanneh took the money, and being
told that he took the money are two separate issues.766
322. The Defence challenged TFl-338's credibility on the basis of his testimony
re ardin the content of meetin s held between the Accused and Issa Sesa , which ersons
S S S Y P
the Accused instructed Sesay to deal diamonds with, and the amount and composition of the
diamonds in a certain delivery. The Trial Chamber has addressed these inconsistencies in
context of the events in the section of the Judgement concerning Diamonds.767 The Trial
Chamber recalls that it accepted the witness's testimony on these points.
323. The Defence further asserts that TF 1-338's inconsistencies regarding whether the
Accused advised Issa Sesay about returning weapons to the UN demonstrate that he is a liar
who fabricated evidence.768 The Trial Chamber recalls its finding that TF 1-338's evidence in
relation to this specific event was reliable in the section of the Judgement on
Disannament.769 The Defence also challenged the witness's testimony regarding the number
of times Sesay allegedly visited the Accused and brought him diamonds. The Trial Chamber
has considered that evidence in the section of the Judgement on Diamonds, and recalls that it
found TF1-338's testimony to be reliable.77O
324. The Trial Chamber has also addressed TFl-338's inconsistencies about a delegation
sent to collect $USD 150,000 from the Accused in 2001 in the section of the Judgement on
Operational Support. The Trial Chamber recalls its finding that TFl-338's testimony about
that event is reliable.77l
764 TF1-338, Transcript 3 September 2008, pp. 15340, 15350 (PS).
765 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1220-1221; TF1-338, Transcript 3 September 2008, pp. 15381-15386
(PS); Transcript 4 September 2008, pp. 15411-15414 (PS).
M TF1-338, Transcript 3 September 2008, pp. 15381-15386 (PS).
767 See Diamonds: Alleged Delivery of Diamonds to the Accused, Alleged Facilitation of Diamond Trading
by the Accused.
M Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1225.
769 See Peace Process: Communications with Sesay on Disarmament.
770 See Diamonds: Alleged Delivery of Diamonds to the Accused, June 2000-2002.
771 See Operational Support: Support and Training, Financial Support.

---- End of Page 117 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T / GNP 18 May 2012 _

2% 2. l 0
325. The Defence also points to TFl—338's contradiction in which he testified that he was
not present when the Accused and Issa Sesay spoke on a satellite phone in 2002 and that the
Accused was not in the habit of talking on a satellite phone at that time.772 The Defence
highlights that TF1—338 later contradicted that statement and asserted that he was earlier
speaking of a HF radio, not a satellite phone.773 The record clearly reflects that, when asked
whether Issa Sesay was "in the habit of speaking to Charles Taylor on the telephone to the
President of Liberia at this time", TF1—338 responded, "[a]t that time he was not in the habit
of speaking to the President of Liberia over telephone — on the satellite phone".774 In his later
testimony on cross—examination, when asked to recall his testimony that the Accused was
not in the habit of speaking on the satellite phone, the witness was adamant that he did not
mention a satellite phone, but was referring to an HF radio, because the HF radios were
constantly monitored, so the Accused preferred to speak over satellite phone.775
326. Additionally, the Defence highlights TFl—338's contradiction between his viva voce
testimony and prior statements to the Prosecution regarding the date of his first meeting with
the Accused. This evidence has been considered in the section of the Judgement on Amis
and Ammunition, where the Trial Chamber found that the inconsistency did not undermine
the witness's credibility.776
327. Contrary to the Defence's assertion, the Trial Chamber also does not consider that
these inconsistencies demonstrate that TFl—338 had an agenda to implicate the Accused.777
The Trial Chamber notes that TFl—338 was adamant to correct evidence where the Accused
was incorrectly implicated. For example, TFl—338 adamantly denied the Accused's
involvement in the RUF's diamond dealings with Minin, and denied delivering diamonds to
the Accused on more than two occasions.778
772 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1222 citing TF1-338, Transcript 2 September 2008, pp. 15248-15249
lis). Defence Final Trial Brief para. 1222 citing TF1-338, Transcript 4 September 2008, pp. 15430-15431
SES). TF1-338, Transcript 2 September 2008, pp. 15248-15249 (PS).
775 TF1-338, Transcript 4 September 2008, pp. 15430-15431 (PS).
776 See Arms and Ammunition: Allegations of Direct Supply by the Accused: During Issa Sesay's
Leadership.
777 Defence Final Trial Brief paras 951-952 (arguing that TF 1-338 is determined to implicate the Accused
with his versions of specific events).
778 TF1-338, Transcript 3 September 2008, pp. 15352, 15356, 15359 (PS); Transcript 4 September 2008, p.
15430 (PS).

---- End of Page 118 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T M! 18 May 2012

2 Z 9- 1 1
328. Overall, the Trial Chamber is of the opinion that TF1-338 gave measured testimony
that was rich in detail, although the record at times became very confusing. In the Trial
Chamber's view, TF1-338 offered plausible, logical explanations for a number of the
inconsistencies in his testimony.
329. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds TF1-338 to be generally credible and will
consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they arise.
Prosecution Witness TF1-585
330. Witness TF1-585, an RUF member,779 was captured by the RUF in 1991 at an early
_ age, and remained with the RUF, working alongside high-rarrking members until about the
year 2000. TF1-585 was also assigned in Liberia for a period, until leaving in 2002.780
331. The Defence submits that TF1—585's evidence is problematic and unreliable, and at
times improbable.78l The Defence further submits that TF1-585's testimony was littered
with errors regarding dates.782 The Trial Chamber notes that the witness's testimony with
regard to chronology was at times confused and inconsistent.783 However, in the Trial
Chamber's view, these inconsistencies are a result of confusion or lack of knowledge, and
not as a result of manufactured testimony or a desire to mislead the Trial Chamber. The Trial
Chamber notes that the level and nature of the knowledge reflected in TF1-585's testimony
is consistent with the witness's role and position throughout the indictment period and the
witness readily admitted to gaps in her knowledge. For these reasons, the Trial Chamber
finds that the submission that TF1-585's evidence could have been unduly influenced by the
Prosecution and others is unfounded.
332. The Defence made lengthy submissions regarding specific portions of TF1-585's
testimony that, in the Defence's view, render TF1-585 not credible. The Trial Chamber has
considered these instances in context as they arise, and has accepted or rejected TF1-585's
779 TF1-585, Transcript 5 September 2008, pp. 15589-15592 (PS).
780 TF1-585, Transcript 5 September 2008, pp. 15575-15592 (PS), Transcript 8 September 2008, pp. 15750-
15753.
781 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1524-1525.
1*2 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1526-1527.
183 For example TF 1-585, Transcript 9 September 2008, p. 15877 (the witness stated that RUF radio code
books changed once or twice during the witness's time in Buedu, inconsistent with other evidence that they
changed every few months. This inconsistency is explained by the fact that the witness worked only
intermittently as a radio operator.)

---- End of Page 119 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T `/ 18 May 2012
Q

3% 9.11
testimony about those particular events accordingly. Likewise, as to the Defence's concerns
that much of TF 1-585 's testimony was based on hearsay, the Trial Chamber has addressed
those issues in context throughout the Judgement.
333. Based on the foregoing, the Trial Chamber finds TF 1-585 to be generally credible
and will consider further issues relating to her credibility in context as they may arise.
Prosecution Witness Mohamed Kabbah
334. Mohamed Kabbah, an RUF radio operator,784 was a teacher and a farmer prior to
being abducted by Liberian English—speaking soldiers and taken to a training base in
Pendembu in April 1991.785 During the conflict, Mohamed Kabbah worked at various
locations as a radio operator for the RUF .786
335. The Defence submits that much of Kabbah's testimony was unreliable and that he
poorly grasped "certain crucial details".787 Moreover, the Defence challenges Kabbah's
credibility on the basis that portions of his testimony were contradicted by other Prosecution
witnesses,788 and that other portions are unreliable because of Kabbah's own internal
contradictions regarding certain details, like dates and times.789 The Trial Chamber recalls
that it has addressed specific issues of Kabbah's credibility challenged by the Defence
within the Judgement as they arise.79O
336. The Trial Chamber notes one specific challenge raised by the Defence that does not
arise elsewhere in the Judgement. The Defence alleges that in Kabbah's testimony that
Sunlight infonned Charles Taylor when the RUF needed ammunition, Kabbah assumed that
Sunli t and the Accused were "close".79l Kabbah's actual testimon , that "Sam Bockarie
Y
would give us a message, or he would [...] communicate directly with Sunlight for him to
784 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 16100.
785 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, pp. 16086-16090.
786 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, pp. 16099—16l00, 16104-16105, 16126, 16180-1618l.
7*7 Defence Final Trial Brief; paras 1541, 1545.
788 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1542-1544.
780 Defence Final Trial Brief; para. 1545,
WO See Operational Support: Communications, RUF and NPF L Radio Codes and Communications.
W Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1544.

---- End of Page 120 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—O3-01-T GW / 18 May 2012

Bs zi 2
inform Charles Taylor that we needed ammunition",792 does not contain a statement that
Sunlight actually delivered the messages to the Accused himself
337. The Trial Chamber has further noted the Defence's arguments regarding Kabbah's
early statements to the Prosecution, including certain inconsistent details of those
conversations,793 and finds that they are either relatively minor in nature, or that Kabbah
offered acceptable explanations for them. The Trial Chamber also notes that the passage of
time may have affected Kabbah's memory regarding the details of certain events,794
however because Kabbah's testimony was generally consistent, the Trial Chamber does not
find that the inconsistencies highlighted by the Defence are detrimental to Kabbah's
credibility. Regarding false statements that he made to the Prosecution early in the interview
process, the Trial Chamber accepts Kabbah's explanation that he made those statements out
of fear for his life.795
338. In the Trial Chamber's view, Kabbah was a forthright witness overall, who openly
admitted when he did not know the answer to questions796 and pointed out inconsistencies in
his prior statements.797 For these reasons, the Trial Chamber finds Kabbah to be generally
credible and will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they may
arise.
Prosecution Witness TF1-579
339. Witness TF1-579, an SSS member,798 testified that he voluntarily joined the NPFL in
1990.799 He stated that from 1992 until 1997 he was under Benjamin Yeaten's command.8O0
Later on, TF1-579 was under Bockarie's command until Bockarie's death.8O]
702 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript I2 September 2008, pp. I6132, 16138. In stating that Sam Bockarie
. "wouId teII us to tell Sunlight to teII Charles Taylor that he would talk with him" the witness was describing the
instructions that he was being given, rather than making an assumption as to whether Sunlight was close enough
to the Accused in order to directly convey a message to him.
793 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1545. if
794 The witness, by his own admission, stated that his memory for dates was at times confused. Mohamed
Kabbah, Transcript 17 September 2008, p. 16435.
795 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, pp. 16244-16247.
7% Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 16139.
797 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 16 September 2008, pp. 16401-16402; Transcript I7 September 2008, pp. A
16405-16406.
798 TFI-579, Transcript 5 November 2008, pp. 19822-19823.
799 TF1-579, Transcript 24 November 2008, pp. 21013-21014.
800 TF1-579, Transcript 5 November 2008, pp. 19781-19783 (PS), I9792-19793, 19807-198 I 0.

---- End of Page 121 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-0 I -T I8 May 2012

3 is 2.1 -(
340. There are a number of inconsistencies highlighted by the Defence between the
testimony of TF1-579 and his prior statements.8O2 For example, the witness testified that
after the death of Bockarie and his bodyguard, Kanu, in May 2003, he went into hiding
because of his association with Bockarie. According to his testimony, the witness stayed in
hiding for a week or two, after which he met Benjamin Yeaten and was sent on a mission.8O3
However, in a prior statement the witness said that he stayed in hiding until after Yeaten left
the country in 2004. On cross-examination, he could not explain the inconsistency despite
repeated requests from the Bench to respond to the questions put to him by Defence counsel.
He was evasive and stated that he did not correct the error in his statement when given the
opportunity to do so, despite making other changes, because he wanted to explain it to "this
Court".8O4
341. Similarly, the Trial Chamber notes the Defence's challenge to TF1-579's testimony
about several trips that were taken from Monrovia to Buedu in which materiel was delivered
to Bockarie. The Trial Chamber has considered this evidence in the section on Arms and
Ammunition, and recalls that it accepted this evidence on the basis that it was corroborated
by other witnesses.805
342. In his testimony, TF1-579 made serious accusations against members of the Defence
team, requiring an independent investigation into possible contempt of court. As the Trial
Chamber found that there was no basis for contempt proceedings, the Defence submits that
TF1-579 gave false testimony, which gravely undermines his credibility.806 The Trial
Chamber notes that the accusations made by the witness were not substantiated, detracting
from his credibility.
343. The Defence further argues that TF1-579's behaviour and his relationship with the
Prosecution are questionable.8O7 The witness testified that although he had committed to
being a Prosecution witness, and met with and was paid by the Prosecution, he continued to
visit the Defence office in Monrovia while Prosecution witnesses, including Joseph Marzah,
801 TF1—579, Transcript 5 November 2008, pp, 19856—19858.
802 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1464-1468, 1475.
803 TF1-579, Transcript 26 November 2008, pp. 21184-21197 (PS).
804 TF1—579, Transcript 26 November 2008, pp. 21184-21197 (PS).
805 See Arms and Ammunition: Preliminary Issues: Closure of the Border/Arms Embargo.
806 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1460-1461.
807 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1469-1471.

---- End of Page 122 ---------------------------


Case No; SCSL-03-01-T Wh X 18 May 2012

3% zi S"
were testifying.808 The witness had previously testified that he was not in Monrovia when
Marzah was testifying.8O9 The witness explained that he went to the Defence office only
when asked by the Defence investigator, fearing that if he did not, they and the Accused
would suspect he was a Prosecution witness.8l0 The Trial Chamber notes the concerns
expressed by the Defence and considers the conduct of the witness to have been
inappropriate.
344. The Defence characterises payments received by the witness from the Prosecution as
excessivegn TF1-579 was paid by the Prosecution $USD 2,345 and 126,000 leones
(approximately $USD 42)8l2 in total. For three meetings at the end of March to the
beginning of April 2008, the witness received $USD 150 in total for transportation and lost
wages. Although there is no record of interview by the Prosecution during those dates, the
meetings appear to have been associated with relocation and security concerns. The witness
had been given $USD 500 the previous year for that purpose, and another $USD 500 was
given to him for the same purpose in June 2008.8u On 4 August 2008, the witness received
$USD 250 for family assistance, which he explained was given to him to cover his lost
wages, in order to feed his family. However, transportation, lost wages and communication
are items which were already reimbursed on the same date. Moreover, a week later, the
witness was given another $USD 100 for medical, transportation costs and lost wages.8l4
A The Trial Chamber, while noting the questions about these payments, does not accept that
they improperly influenced the witness in his testimony.
345. However, in light of his evasiveness, and the incidents in which TF1-579 was clearly
untruthful, the Trial Chamber finds that the testimony of the witness must be considered
with caution and cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
808 TF1-579, Transcript 26 November 2008, pp. 21233-21237 (PS).
809 TF1-579, Transcript 26 November 2008, pp, 21205-21206 (PS).
MO TF1-579, Transcript 26 November 2008, p. 21283.
SH Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1472-1474.
W Conversion based on the rate of approximately 3,000 leones/US dollar.
S13 TF1-579, Transcript 26 November 2008, pp. 21239-21252 (PS).
W TF1-579, Transcript 26 November 2008, pp. 21258-21261 (PS).

---- End of Page 123 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / (DAQ 18 May 2012

3 ié 7.1 lo
Prosecution Witness Dauda Aruna Fomie
346. Dauda Aruna Fomie, an RUF radio operator,8l5 testified that he was abducted by the
RUF in 1991, at the age of 16.8*6 At the end of 1991, Fomie was selected by Samuel
Bockarie to undertake radio signal training with the NPP L in Liberia, where he remained
until 1992.8n Fomie then returned to Sierra Leone, working as a radio operator in Kuiva,
Mendekeima, Kailahun Town, Koindu, and Zogoda.8l8 According to his testimony,
following Sankoh's order for all RUF members to join forces with the AFRC, Fomie began
working as a radio operator for Bockarie in Kenema town, Tongo, and then Kailahunm In
1998, he relocated to Buedu, where he travelled with Bockarie on a number of trips to
Liberiam In 1999, Fomie accompanied the RUF delegation to the Peace Talks in Lomé and
other cities.82l Fomie was imprisoned and tortured by Bockarie for his allegiance to Sankoh,
and by the end of the war, Fomie was in Pendembu.822
347. The Defence contends that Fomie's testimony is inconsistent with his prior
statements. In addition, the Defence submits, misattributions and vagueness in his testimony
undermine its credibility. 823
348. When Fornie was first questioned as to whether members of the Black Gadaffa unit
were rumoured to have connived against Taylor, he stated that he was "not aware" of this.
The Defence then presented Fomie with a prior statement in which he had said that "some of
the leaders in Black Gadaffa's group" were rumoured to have connived against Taylor.
Fomie responded that his prior statement was consistent with his testimony because
although "some" of those who were accused were members of Black Gadaffa, other non-
members were accused as well; he could not say, therefore, that it was "only" Black Gadaffa
leaders who had connived to kill Taylor.824 The Trial Chamber notes that Fomie was asked
815 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008, p. 21395; Transcript 2 December 2008, p. 21418.
Sm Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008, p. 21294.
W Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008, p. 21335.
818 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008, pp. 21374, 21382-21383, 21395, 21400; Transcript 4
December 2008, p. 21731.
819 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008, pp. 21400, 21407; Transcript 2 December 2008, pp.
21418-21420,21457. L
820 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 2 December 2008, p. 21457.
X2! Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 3 December 2008, pp. 21616, 21624.
822 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 3 December 2008, pp. 21627-21632.
823 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 1503-1523.
824 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 8 December 2008, pp. 21989-21992.

---- End of Page 124 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T GL 18 May 2012

3% 2-t ’t~
about the Black Gadaffa unit conniving against Taylor. While he had mentioned some of
their leaders, he had also mentioned others who were not members, which indicates that the
witness did not think of Black Gadaffa as a group that was conniving against Taylor.
Rather, as explained, some of those conniving against Taylor were in this unit while others
were not, and not all of those in the unit were conniving against Taylor. The Trial Chamber
accepts this explanation and finds that Fornie's prior statement does not undermine the
credibility of his testimony.
349. Despite Fornie's claim to have been based in Bomi Hills at the same time as Oliver
Varney, he identified "One Man One" as his commander.825 Fomie was not cross-examined
on this point, but the Defence maintains that this response was "poorly infom1ed" as it was
well known that Oliver Varney commanded this battalion.826 The Trial Chamber notes,
however, that witness testimony and Exhibit P-054 indicate that during this time period
Oliver Varney was a superior to One Man One, who was a superior to members such as
Fornie, and thus both could have been considered "commanders" to Fornie.827
350. In his testimony with regard to an alleged visit by Taylor with Sankoh to Kakata
before Operation Octopus in 1992, Fornie gravitated between stating that the windows of the
vehicle in which Taylor allegedly sat were either open, or closed.828 While Fomie was
inconsistent on this point, he was consistent in stating that he was told that Taylor was
present by "Lion", and that he had never seen Taylor before this moment.829 The Trial
Chamber considers that whether the window was open or closed is a minor detail.
351. Fomie testified that he served as a radio operator for the RUF while based in
Tongo.g3O ln a prior statement, however, Fornie did not mention that he was a radio operator
in Tongo.83l When confronted with this inconsistency, Fornie noted that despite not
specifying that he was a radio operator in Tongo, in the same statement he clearly indicated
that he was trained as a radio operator prior to Tongo. Fomie also admits that during his first
825 Dauda Amna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008, pp. 21310, 21317.
826 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1505.
327 TF1-371, Transcript 25 January 2009, pp. 2222-2225 (CS); Exhibit P-054, "NPFL Command Structure
Circa 1990-1991 as indicated by TF1-371, 00100162". See Pre-Indictment Period (1988-1996), Alleged Meeting
between Taylor, Sankoh and Dr Manneh in Burkina Faso.
328 Dauda Amna Fornie, Transcript 8 December 2008, pp. 21993-21995.
829 Dauda Amna Fornie, Transcript 8 December 2008, pp. 21993-21995.
830 Dauda Amna Fornie, Transcript 2 December 2008, pp. 21419-21420.
im Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 151 1.

---- End of Page 125 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T
$$21%
contact with Prosecutors he was pretending not to know certain things so as not to identify
himself too much.832 The Trial Chamber notes that Fornie did proffer in a prior statement
that he was a radio operator in Buedu, despite omitting that he was the same in Tongo.833
The Trial Chamber finds Fornie's explanation for the omission of this detail to be credible.
352. When confronted in cross-examination with other inconsistencies with his prior
statements, Fornie admitted again to a lack of candour in his first dealings with the
Prosecution in 2003.834 Fornie claimed that he was surprised by the Prosecution's
a earance at his home, and he mistrusted them. Fornie contends that until mid-2006, he
PP
still worried that he would be a possible defendant, but his concerns were lessened when he
received a letter promising immunity from prosecution.835 The Trial Chamber accepts this
explanation.
353. Fornie's account of being freed by the Kamajors is vague, and Fomie was not
articularl lucid in his account of his esca e from ca tivit . The Trial Chamber does not,
P Y P P Y
however, believe that the witness is inconsistent on the facts; he maintains that he "escaped"
throughout his testimony.836
354. The Trial Chamber notes the Defence's challenge to Fornie's testimony regarding a
radio recording about the Freetown invasion,837 and has considered that evidence in the
section on the Freetown 1nvasion.838 The Trial Chamber recalls that it accepted Fornie's
evidence on that point.
355. Similarly, upon cross-examination, Fomie mistakenly identified Gullit as a member
of the RUF.839 At another point in his testimony, however, Fomie referred to Gullit as a
senior member of the AFRC, and when he otherwise referred to Gullit in his testimony the
832 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 8 December 2008, pp. 21940-21941.
833 Dauda Aruna Fornie. Transcript 10 December 2008, pp. 22026-22027.
834 Dauda Aruna Fornie. Transcript 8 December 2008. pp. 21940-21941.
835 Dauda Aruna Fornie. Transcript 8 December 2008, pp. 21 889-21894.
836 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008. pp. 21400-21401; Transcript 4 December 2008 pp.
21671-216722; Transcript 8 December 2008, pp. 21924-21929, 21935-21938.
837 Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 899-901. "Q: Do you recall approximately when this recording occurred?
Fornie: lt was around [...] February to March 1999. That was after the Freetown Invasion on January 6 by the
RUF" (Dauda Aruna Fornie. Transcript 2 December 2008, p. 21500).
838 Military Operations: The Freetown Invasion, Allegation that the Accused directed the Freetown Invasion.
839 Defence Final Trial Brief para. 901, citing Dauda Aruna Fornie. Transcript 4 December 2008, pp. 21666-
21667. 1

---- End of Page 126 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03-01—T j GR 18 May 2012

3%¤i
context demonstrates that Fomie knew he was an AF RC member.8444 The Trial Chamber thus
regards Fomie's misidentification of Gullit as a minor error that does not undermine his
credibility.
356. ln direct examination, Fomie also testified that he monitored a conversation in which
Bockarie gave direct instructions to Gullit to cause mayhem in Freetown by destroying
government buildings and amputating civilian hands.844 Upon cross—examination, however,
Defence counsel contended that in his prior statements, Fomie did not mention the ordering
of amputations.842 Fomie insisted that he did tell Prosecutors that this occurred.844 Similarly,
Fomie testified to being put in a dungeon by Bockarie afrer a letter he wrote to Sankoh,
suggesting he use Taylor to convince Bockarie to disarm and depart from Buedu, was made
public.844 When confronted on cross—examination by a prior statement in which he did not
mention the letter or the link to the Accused, Fomie replied that he must have mentioned this
to investigators and that he could not recall every detail that took place a decade ago.845 The
Trial Chamber notes that Fomie's testimony is not inconsistent with his prior statements.
Rather it includes details and information not mentioned in the statements. The witness
testified that he thought he must have mentioned these details to investigators but also noted
that he does not recall everything. The Trial Chamber considers, in light of Fomie's
explanation, that the omission of information he provided at trial from his prior statements
does not undermine the credibility of his testimony.
357. Conceming alleged financial payments to Fomie, Fomie received in total
approximately 3.9 million leones (approximately $USD l,300)846 from the OTP and 6.5
million leones (approximately $USD 2,l70)847 from the W VS over two years.848 These
payments included transportation, medical expenses, rent payments and witness attendance
840 Dauda Aruna Fomie, Transcript 3 December 2008, p. 21564. See for example Dauda Aruna Fornie,
Transcript 5 December 2008, pp. 21820-2182 (describing communication between the RUF and the APRC as
communication between Bockarie and Gullit).
444 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 3 December 2008, pp. 21590-21593.
442 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 10 December 2008, pp. 22112-22114.
444 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 10 December 2008, pp. 2211}-22115.
444 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 8 December 2008, pp. 21629-21632.
4445 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 8 December 2008. pp. 21987-21989.
*46 Conversion based on the rate of approximately 3,000 leones/US dollar.
447 Conversion based on the rate of approximately 3,000 leones/US dollar.
448 Dauda Amna Fornie, Transcript 11 December 2008, pp. 22250-22251.

---- End of Page 127 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T . GN 18 May 2012

3 z 2.9-.04
allowances.549 The Trial Chamber finds that these payments do not appear to be
unreasonable, and did not influence his testimony.
358. ln light of the above considerations, the Trial Chamber finds Fornie to be generally
credible and will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they may
arise.
Defence Witness Issa Sesay
359. Issa Sesay testified that around September or October 1990, while living in Abidjan,
Cote d’Ivoire, Foday Sankoh (a.k.a. Pa Morlai) abducted him into the RUF by deception.550
Sesay trained at Camp Naama from October 1990 until he took part in the RUF invasion of
Sierra Leone in March 1991.55l During the civil war, he rose through the RUF ranks. He
testified that between June 1994 and November 1995, he occupied the position of RUF Area
Commander for Kailahun.852 ln about March 1997 he was promoted to Battle Group
Commander, a position he held for a year until Bockarie appointed him Acting Battle Field
Commander in March 1998.555 During the Junta regime, he was also a member of the Junta
governing body.554 In July 1999, Sankoh re-instated his Battle Group Commander status
before appointing him Battle Field Commander after Bockarie left Sierra Leone in
December 1999.555 From May 2000, Sesay directed RUF activities in Sierra Leone.855 He
was appointed Interim Leader of the RUF in August 2000857 and, in that role, oversaw the
full disarmament of the RUF555 and the formal cessation of hostilities in Sierra Leone on
about 18 January 2002.559
360. On 25 February 2009, Sesay was convicted by Trial Chamber l of the Special Court
of 16 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations of
849 Dauda Amna Fomie, Transcript 11 December 2008, p. 22251.
550 Issa Sesay, Transcript 5 July 2010, pp. 43587-43588, 43597, 43604. See also Issa Sesay, Transcript 16
August 2010, pp. 46390-46391.
55l Issa Sesay, Transcript 5 July 2010, pp. 43590, 43597-43604; Transcript 16 August 2010, p. 46415.
552 Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 July 2010, p. 44596.
555 Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 July 2010, p. 44590.
554 Prosecution Exhibit P-058, "Excerpts from the Sierra Leone Gazette No. 52, 4 September 1997", p. 2.
855 Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 July 2010, p. 44591.
556 Issa Sesay, Transcript 23 August 2010, p. 46883.
557 Issa Sesay, Transcript 27 July 2010, p. 44691.
555 Issa Sesay, Transcript 5 July 2010, p. 43589.
555 Prosecutor v Tay/or, SCSL-03-1-T-370, Admitted Facts and Law, 26 April 2007, Agreed Fact 35.

---- End of Page 128 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / Op 18 May 2012

3 =2» ¤-Ll
intemational humanitarian law,86O for which he was sentenced to 52 years’ imprisonment on
8 April 2009.861 With few exceptions, these convictions and the sentence were upheld on
appeal on 26 October 2009.862
361. The Trial Chamber observed that Issa Sesay maintained a calm demeanour
throughout the entirety of his oral testimony, including cross-examination, despite being
repeatedly accused of lying. He demonstrated a generally good recollection of dates and
offered extensive detail in his responses. The Trial Chamber observed the witness clearly
visualising some of the events as he described them.
362. The Trial Chamber does, however, have concems about the veracity and accuracy of
several aspects of Issa Sesay's testimony. Whilst he freely admitted that other senior
commanders like Foday Sankoh,g63 Mike Lamin864 and Denis Mingo (a.k.a. Supemian)865
and the RUF rebels committed crimes,866 he projected an implausible image of himself
throughout his testimony as the lone pacifist within the RUF movement concemed with the
well-being of civilians throughout the conflict. For example, he testified that Kono was
‘nice’ for civilians in 2000867 and that there was no evidence of crimes in Kailahun during
the time he was area commander there.868 He later admitted in cross—examination that this
latter statement was not correct.869 Considering that Sesay stated that his only hope of an
early release from prison lies in God and the people of Sierra Leone and that he came to
set the record straight on lies told about him by his former RUF colleagues,87l the Trial
Chamber considers that this witness apparently continues to harbour a misplaced belief that
his freedom can be secured if he continues to deny publicly his own involvement in
860 Issa Sesay, Transcript 16 August 2010, pp. 46314-46315. See also Prosecutor v Sesay, Kullon and Gbao,
SCSL-04-15-T, Judgement, 2 March 2009.
W Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 August 2010, p. 47210. See also Prosecutor v Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, SCSI.-
04-15-T, Sentencing Judgement, 8 April 2009.
862 Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 August 2010, p. 47209. See also Prosecutor v Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, SCSL-
04-15-A, Appeal Judgement, 26 October 2009.
863 Issa Sesay, Transcript 16 August 2010, pp. 46315-46316.
864 Issa Sesay, Transcript 16 August 2010, p. 46316.
365 Issa Sesay, Transcript 16 August 2010, pp. 46316-46317.
866 Issa Sesay, Transcript 5 July 2010, pp. 43590-43591.
W Issa Sesay, Transcript 13 August 2010, p. 46275.
868 Issa Sesay, Transcript 5 July 2010, pp. 43590-43591; Transcript 26 July 2010, p. 44614.
wi Issa Sesay, Transcript 16 August 2010, p. 46389.
870 Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 August 2010, p. 47210.
fm Issa Sesay, Transcript 27 August 2010, pp. 47351-47352.

---- End of Page 129 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T QL % 18 May 2012 H

3% 2.2.2
atrocities committed by the RUF and AFRC/RUF alliance and was thus motivated to distort
some of the evidence he provided to this Court.
363. During his testimony, the witness contradicted himself several times when giving
evidence about the diamonds taken from Johnny Paul Koroma in early 1998 and how he
subsequently lost them outside his hotel in Monrovia. On separate occasions during his
examination-in-chief, he told this Chamber that when the diamonds were taken, they were in
a rubber cylinder like a ‘ludo’ cup872 and in a plastic case used to store tabletsm. Under
cross-examination, he testified, very soon afterwards, that they were in a cup or bottle with a
lid874 and then a plastic tablet bag.875 The following day, he reverted to the ‘ludo’ cup saying
he had made a ‘°slip of the tongue".876 The account of the subsequent journey to Monrovia
was equally contradictory. Sesay testified several times that he lost the diamonds on his fifth
or sixth day in Monroviafm. When challenged on cross-examination, he disavowed his
previous testimony saying "1'm talking about the days that 1 spent at the hotel, because when
1 lost the diamonds 1 was at the hotel for another two to three days before 1 went".878
lmmediately he changed his testimony again, telling the Trial Chamber that he went to stay
with Jungle (Daniel Tamba) after losing the diamonds879.
364. Issa Sesay's testimony about the confiscation of diamonds from Alex Tamba Brima
(a.k.a. Gullit) was similarly confused. He testified before this Trial Chamber that he had
seized diamonds from Brima at the Guinean border in 1998. He explained that Johnny Paul
Koroma had rejected the diamonds Brima had previously handed over to Sam Bockarie and
sent Lamin and Sesay for moreggo Three weeks previously he had testified that Brima had
not given up any diamonds until Sesay confronted him.88l Both versions of this encounter
contradicted the evidence he provided to Trial Chamber 1 where he testified that they had
found nothing on Brima because he had already handed his diamonds over to Sam
*72 Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, p. 44025.
873 Issa Sesay, Transcript 29 July 2010, p. 45010.
W Issa Sesay, Transcript 18 August 2010, p. 46585.
875 Issa Sesay, Transcript 18 August 2010, pp. 46586—46588.
*76 Issa Sesay, Transcript 19 August 2010, p. 46676.
*77 Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, p. 44094; Transcript 12 July 2010, p. 44275; Transcript 18 August
2010, p. 46597.
878 Issa Sesay, Transcript 18 August 2010, p. 46598.
’"" Issa ssssy, Transcript is August 2010, p. 46598.
880 Issa Sesay, Transcript 29 July 2010, p. 45005.
88* Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, pp. 44048-44049.

---- End of Page 130 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / VIM 18 May 2012 Q

3 s 22-2
Bockarie.888 When confronted, Sesay offered no explanation for the contradiction, saying
only that he did not recall what he had testified previously.
365. In cross—examination, a number of other inconsistencies were raised between Issa
Sesay's testimony and the evidence he gave to Trial Chamber 1 in his own trial ("the RUF
Tria1"). Examples include whether Sam Bockarie had brought a large shipment of arms in
late 1998 from Burkina Faso (as he testified in the RUF Trial)888 or from Foya, Liberia (as
he testified before this Trial Chamber)888, whether Bockarie had ordered Denis Mingo to
move to Koinadugu in mid-1998888 and how many trips he made to Monrovia in May 2000.
During the RUF Trial, he testified that he had travelled to Monrovia twice: once to discuss
the UN hostage crisis with Taylor and once to escort the hostages when they were
released.888 1n contrast, he told this Trial Chamber that he only went once to discuss the
release of the peacekeepers.887 \Vhen the Prosecution confronted him on each of the
inconsistencies, Sesay re—affirmed his examination-in-chief but claimed not to remember
what he had testified in his own trial.888 The Trial Chamber observed that his testimony that
‘he did not reca11’ what he had testified previously became somewhat of a standard response
while Sesay failed to engage with the factual situation at hand. When pressed on the 1998
arms shipment, he then testified that he had become aware of his error when he read the
transcripts his lawyer had given him after his trial had concluded.8888 In view of the detail in
which he had testified about the incident in the RUF Trial and his initial response that he did
not recall what he testified in the RUF Trial, the Trial Chamber finds this explanation
implausible. ln relation to the May 2000 Monrovia trip, he testified "{f1 said that, then it was
not the truth".89O Such responses did not satisfy the Trial Chamber that this witness was
telling the truth.
888 Issa Sesay, Transcript 19 August 2010, pp. 46740-46742.
888 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 August 2010, p. 46155.
888 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, p. 44302; Transcript 26 July 2010, p. 44627; Transcript 12 August
2010, p. 46158.
*85 Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, pp. 44054-44055; Transcript 18 August 2010, pp. 46629-46630.
886 Issa Sesay, Transcript 23 August 2010, pp, 46896-46897.
887 Issa Sesay, Transcript 26 July 2010, pp. 44601-44602; Transcript 2 August 2010, p. 45233.
888 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 August 2010, pp. 46155-46160 regarding the 1998 arms shipment; Issa Sesay,
18 August 2010, p. 46631 regarding Superman's reassignment to Koinadugu and Issa Sesay, Transcript 23
August 2010, p. 46897 regarding the Monrovia trips.
888 Issa Sesay, Transcript 18 August 2010, p. 46657.
*80 Issa Sesay, Transcript 23 August 2010, p. 46898.

---- End of Page 131 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T . (pg 18 May 2012 %

3%2=>.*+
366. The Trial Chamber notes that there were other major inconsistencies in Sesay's
evidence. For example, Sesay's testimony concerning the relationship between the group led
by Brigadier Mani and the RUF around the time of the January 1999 Freetown invasion was
inconsistent in several respectsgql as was his evidence regarding his knowledge of Idrissa
Kamara (a.k.a. Rambo Red Goat).892 The Trial Chamber has considered these instances in
the context of the Judgement as they arise.
367. Sesay challenged the authenticity of a significant number of Prosecution and
Defence exhibits throughout the course of his testimony, in some instances on the basis that
the signature on the document, purportedly belonging to either Sesay or other RUF
members, was a forgery. Under cross-examination, Sesay was presented with Exhibit P-
582893 which shows 15 different signatures purporting to belong to him. He identified four
signatures as forgeries and adopted the remainder as his own.894 Of those four ‘forgeries’,
two corresponded with documents Exhibit D-084895 and D-2598% whose authenticity Sesay
had questionedgi)7 but he reluctantly admitted that the remaining two, Exhibits P-360898 and
P-584,899 were to be found on documents he testified that he had in fact signed himselfgoo
Furthermore, one of the signatures he accepted as his own belonged to Exhibit P-028, which
he had alleged to be a forgery.9Ol The Trial Chamber considers that Sesay's conflicting
evidence regarding his signature demonstrates that his allegations of forgery are not to be
gm See Military Operations: The Freetown Invasion, The Implementation of the Plan.
892 See Military Operations: The Freetown Invasion, The Implementation of the Plan.
893 Prosecution Exhibit P—582, "End of Page Indicating Fifteen Different Signatures with Marks Indicating those
Signatures that do not belong to Issa Se,say".
W Issa Sesay, Transcript 25 August 2010, pp. 47061—47064.
895 Defence Exhibit D—084, "RUF, Sierra Leone, Defence Headquarters, Salute Report, From Brigadier Issa
H Sesay Battlefield Commander RUF/SL, to the Leader of the Revolution, 27 September 1999".
8% Defence Exhibit D—259, "Press Communiqué Issued by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) Following
a Meeting with H.E. Alpha Oumar Konare, President of Mali and Chairman of ECOWAS, H.E. Olusegun
Obasanjo, President of Nigeria, and H.E. Dahkpannah Dr Charles Ghankay Taylor, President of Liberia, August
21 2000".
897 Regarding D—084, see Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44253-44254; regarding D—259, see Issa
Sesay, Transcript 26 July 2010, pp. 44566-44567; Transcript 25 August 2010, pp. 47089—47092.
898 Prosecution Exhibit P—360, "The People's Amiy of Sierra Leone, to his Excellency Major J. P. Koroma,
Head of State and Chairman Amied Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) State House, Freetown, Proposal for
the Tentative Integration of the People's Amiy into the National Amiy and the Political Circle, from the Military
High Command and War Council, People's Amiy of Sierra Leone, 13 August 1997".
899 Prosecution Exhibit P—584, "Revolutionary United Front Party of Sierra Leone (RUFP/SL), Letter from
General Issa H Sesay, Interim Leader — RUFP/SL, to Lt. General Daniel I Opande, Force Commander,
UNAMSIL, Response, December 7 2000".
000 Regarding P—360, see Issa Sesay, Transcript 25 August 2010, p. 47084; regarding P—584, see Issa Sesay,
Transcript 25 August 2010, pp. 47087—47088.
W Issa Sesay, Transcript 6 August 2010, pp. 45623—45624, 45627.

---- End of Page 132 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T 7 QA 18 May 2012

3% '2."Z.,S"
believed. That Sesay identified Sam Boclwhen he was first shown it,003 only later alleging that it was a forgery000 supports this
conclusion.
368. Sesay alleged that documents D-009, D-084 and P-067000 had been fraudulently
drafted by Gibril Massaquoi.000 However, the Trial Chamber notes that not only did Sesay
initially fail to contest the authenticity of Exhibit D-009, but his allegation that Massaquoi
forged the documents was founded upon nothing more than speculation based on events that
had no relevance to the creation of the document, including Sesay's account of Massaquoi's
arrest007 and Massaquoi's movements throughout the conflict.008 Moreover, two of these
documents, D-009 and D-084, criticise and incriminate Massaquoi in various ways,
undermining Sesay's proposition that Massaquoi had forged the report.000
369. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber notes that Sesay was inconsistent when contesting
the authenticity of` certain documents, reinforcing the Trial Chamber's view that such
challenges enjoyed little genuine foundation. For example, Sesay testified that P-067 could
not be genuine because if Swarray had written the report he would have necessarily signed it
and "then pen[ned] down his name under the signature".0l0 Yet this is contradicted by
Sesay's later challenge to Exhibit P-3 62 that Jackson Swarray was illiterate.0H
370. In light of Sesay's conflicting evidence and speculative assertions when challenging
the authenticity of documents exhibited to this Court, the Trial Chamber considers that his
perpetual allegations of forgery are not to be believed and thus accords no weight to any of
them.
002 Defence Exhibit D-009, "RUF Defence Headquarters, Salute Report to the Leader of the Revolution from
Major Sam Bocl‘"" rm Sesay, Transcript 12 Jury 2010, p. 44252.
000 Issa Sesay, Transcript 23 August 2010, pp. 46930-46931. 2
005 Exhibit P-067, "RUF Peop1e's Army- Situation Report to Foday Sankoh from the Black Revolutionary
Guards".
000 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44296, 44316; Transcript 13 July 2010, pp. 44324-44327.
007 See for example Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44261-44263.
008 See for example Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44261-44263, 44304; Transcript 13 July 2010,
pp. 44324—44326.
000 See for example Exhibit D-009, "RUF Defence Headquarters, Salute report to the Leader of the
Revolution from Major General Sam Bockarie", ERN 9670; Exhibit P-084, "RUF, Sierra Leone, Defence
Headquarters, Salute Report, from Brigadier Issa H. Sesay Battlefield Commander RUF/ SL, to the Leader of the
Revolution, 27 September 1999", ERN 7766.
010 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, p. 44294.

---- End of Page 133 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—O3-01-T 00 18 May 2012

Bazzm
371. Finally, the Trial Chamber notes that in cross—examination, Defence Witness DCT-
292 was asked whether Issa Sesay was a credible person, and the witness replied, "I have to
say that Issa Sesay is not a credible man" and affirmed that he had seen him lie when it was
in his interest to do so.9l2
372. In light of the above considerations, the Trial Chamber finds that Sesay's evidence
must generally be considered with caution and cannot be relied upon without corroboration.
The Trial Chamber will consider further issues relating to his credibility in context as they
may arise.
Defence Witness DCT—008
373. Defence Witness DCT-008, a Liberian,9l3 joined the NPFL in the early 1990s and
joined the SSS a number of years later.9l4 DCT—008 was a radio operator. He testitied that,
while assigned in Monrovia, he had the opportunity to observe what Benjamin Yeaten's
radio operator, code named Sunlight, was doing.9l5
374. The Trial Chamber observes that in cross—examination, when asked by the
Prosecution whether he had "basically reinvented" his testimony, DCT—008 conceded,
stating that "I changed some parts of my testimony that I had given in Monrovia — when I
got here, I changed it".9l6 The witness testitied that he was not honest in the interviews
preceding his arrival in The Hague because he did not know the people who were
interviewing him well and was afraidfm DCT—008 further stated that he decided to change
his testimony because "I did not want to come before this Honourable Court and tell lies or
to explain made up stories".9l8
375. The Trial Chamber notes that with regard to several allegations made by the
Prosecution, the testimony of DCT—008 is wholly inconsistent with the testimony of other
Defence witnesses as well as Prosecution witnesses. For example, DCT—008 is the only
QH Issa Sesay, Transcript 13 July 2010, p. 44339.
(H2 DCT-292 Transcript 3 June 2010, p. 42033.
W DCT-008, Transcript 24 August 2010, pp. 46948-46951 (PS).
914 DCT-008, Transcript 24 August 2010, pp. 46972-46975, 46993, 46996-46999.
(H5 DCT-008, Transcript 24 August 2010, pp. 47024-47025.
(H6 DCT-008, Transcript 6 September 2010, p. 48010.
W DCT-008, Transcript 7 September 2010, p. 48110.
918 DCT-008, Transcript 7 September 2010, p. 48109.

---- End of Page 134 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T %/ OL 18 May 2012

$$22%
witness who testified that Yeaten's arms trading with the RUF was being carried out
independently of and covertly from the Accused.Ql9 The Trial Chamber recalls that
Prosecution witness Dauda Aruna Fornie ("DAF"), an RUF radio operator,920 testified that
when Bockarie contacted Yeaten to request military supplies through his radio operators,92l
Yeaten's radio operator Sunlight would respond that Bockarie should wait while Yeaten
consulted with "Zero—Four—Seven", which Fornie testified to be the code name for the
Accused.922 The Trial Chamber notes that the Accused testified that "Zero—Four—Seven" or
"047" was indeed one of the code names used for him by radio operators.923 The Trial
Chamber also notes the testimony of Prosecution witness Perry Kamara, an RUF radio
operator,924 who testified that Bockarie would send messages to his commanders "that he
had brought ammunitions from Charles Taylor".925 Prosecution witness TF1—516, an RUF
radio operator,926 testified that Yeaten himself would say when ammunition was given to the
RUF "that it is his dad Charles Taylor who provided them".927 The Trial Chamber finds no
corroboration of DCT—008's evidence that Yeaten was acting independently of the Accused,
while there is substantial evidence that Yeaten was representing, and was perceived to be
representing, the Accused.
376. The Trial Chamber notes that in cross—examination, DCT—008 sought to elide the
distinction between fact and opinion. When asked about contradictory evidence from other
witnesses regarding the transport of arms, DCT—008 said that their testimony is their own
view and that he could not judge the "opinions" of another person. According to the witness,
if he said that something happened and another person said it did not happen, "then that's
the person's opinion".928 The Trial Chamber found such an approach evasive, demonstrating
an unwillingness on the witness's part to engage with the inconsistency at hand. The Trial
Chamber also recalls that on successive answers the witness would first state that he had no
919 DCT—008, Transcript 24 August 2010, pp. 47046—47047.
O20 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 1 December 2008, p. 21395; Transcript 2 December 2008, p. 21418.
lm Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 2 December 2008, p. 21482.
022 Dauda Aruna Fornie, Transcript 2 December 2008, p. 21483.
923 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 16 September 2009, p. 28992.
lm Perry Kamara, Transcript 4 February 2008, p. 3039.
925 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 31 18.
026 TF1—5 16, Transcript 8 April 2008, p. 6845.
lm TF1—567, Transcript 7 July 2008, p. 13040.
028 DCT—008, Transcript 3 September 2010, p. 47936.

---- End of Page 135 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T OA 18 May 2012

3%2.‘2.‘2
idea whether the Accused had any relationship with the RUF, and then testify that the
Accused had no involvement with the rebels in Sierra Leone.929
377. The Trial Chamber also notes that certain inconsistencies in the testimony of witness
DCT-008 can be observed. For instance, the witness testified that Sunlight does not speak or
understand Krio.93O The witness also gave evidence to the effect that Sunlight used to
monitor the RUF radio network and listen in to conversations between three Sierra
Leoneans, Foday Sankoh, Sam Bockarie and Issa Sesay.93l The witness testified that
Sunlight could follow these conversations because they were carried out in English and not
in Krio.932 In particular, the witness testified that Sunlight overheard Foday Sankoh giving
an order to Issa Sesay to take charge and become commander of the RUF.933 The Trial
Chamber recalls that Defence witness Issa Sesay testified that his English is not good.934 The
Trial Chamber notes that DCT-008 himself also testified to occasions when Sunlight
understood parts of conversations which, according to the witness, were conducted in Krio,
whereas he also said that Sunlight did not understand Krio. For example, he testified that
Sunlight overheard Daniel Tamba (a.k.a. Jungle) telling Sellay to speak with "the brother",
Sam Bockarie,935 and he told the Court on several occasions that Sellay and Jungle spoke
Krio to each other.936
378. The Trial Chamber notes that DCT-008 provided contradictory and implausible
testimony regarding Liberian telephone communications, an area about which he should
have been best informed. For example, he repeatedly denied that "2-l" was the code for a
telephone in Liberiaim, rather that it was "l0-2-l" or "l0-2l", yet he himself shortly
thereafter described "this well-known code, 2-1 or 10-2-17938 Moreover, DCT-008 testified
that the operators at Base 1 avoided using the code because it was so well known.939 Both
929 See for example DCT-008, Transcript 7 September 2010, p. 48217.
930 DCT~008, Transcript 24 August 2010, pp. 47042-47043.
"" DCT-008, Transcript 7 September 2010, p. 48159.
932 DCT-008, Transcript 7 September 2010, pp. 48159-48161.
933 DCT-008, Transcript 30 August 2010, p. 47488; Transcript 7 September 2010, p. 48160.
934 Issa Sesay, Transcript 5 July 2010, p. 43584; Transcript 9 July 2010, pp. 44163-44164.
"" ocr-008, Transcript 24 August 2010,p. 47048.
936 DCT-008, Transcript 30 August 2010, pp. 47485-47486; Transcript 3 September 2010, p. 47906;
Transcript 7 September 2010, pp. 48157-48158.
937 DCT-008, Transcript 31 August 2010, p. 47584; Transcript 6 September 2010, p. 47958.
"" nor-008, Transcript 31 August 2010, p. 47586.
im DCT-008, Transcript 31 August 2010, pp. 47585-47586.

---- End of Page 136 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T ,4 QN 18 May 2012

3 $27-°q
DCT-008's assertions are belied by the testimonies of a significant number of credible RUF
radio operators who testified to Liberian operators, including those at Base 1, using the code
"2-1", meaning telephone, in communications with Sierra Leone.940
379. The Trial Chamber accepts that the witness might have felt insecure during his first
interviews and as a result lied in his statements. The Trial Chamber notes that after arriving
in The Hague the witness openly admitted doing so. Nevertheless, the Trial Chamber also
observes that throughout his testimony, the witness presented a story which heavily
contradicted that of many other witnesses in the case, that there were inconsistencies in the
evidence provided and that on occasions, the witness appeared evasive.
380. ln light of the above considerations, the Trial Chamber finds that Defence witness
DCT-008's evidence must generally be considered with caution and requires corroboration.
D. Authenticity Assessment of Specific Documents
381. During the course of the proceedings, several documents tendered for admission
were contested by the parties.94l The Trial Chamber recalls that where objections were made
regarding the authenticity of certain documents, the Trial Chamber admitted the documents
on the basis that any considerations relating to the authenticity of documents went to weight,
rather than admissibility.942 ln this section, the Trial Chamber will assess the authenticity of
two documents, Exhibit P-063 and Exhibit P-067, whose authenticity has been challenged
by the Defence during the course of the trial. Many of the other documents challenged were
challenged by Defence witness Issa Sesay. The Trial Chamber finds, for reasons detailed in
its discussion of his credibility, that these challenges are not to be accorded any weight.
Further issues relating to authenticity of specific documents are addressed as necessary in
the context of the Trial Chamber's discussion of the particular events to which they pertain.
940 See for example TF1-516, 8 April 2008, pp. 6911, 6977; TF1-585, Transcript 5 September 2008, pp.
15604-15605; Alice Pyne, Transcript 18 June 2008, p. 12170.
941 Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-747, Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Documents
Seized from Foday Sankoh's House, 26 February 2009, para. 13; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T-749,
Decision on Prosecution Motion for Admission of Documents Seized from RUF Kono Office, Kono District, 27
February 2009, para. 13.
942 See for example lan Smillie, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 675-677; Varmuyan Sherif, Transcript 10
January 2008, pp. 933-934; Transcript 14 January 2008, pp. 1206-1207.

---- End of Page 137 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012 M

Zzzga
Prosecution Exhibit P-067
382. Exhibit P-067 was tendered into evidence through TF1-371. It consists of ten End of Pages
photocopied from a handwritten document entitled "Situation Report" addressed to "the
Leader", whom TF1-371 identified as Foday Sankoh.943 The exhibit is unsigned, although it
purports to have been authored by "the Black Revolutionary Guards". Although Exhibit P-
067 lacks any date, it describes events occuning as early as 1996 and as late as January
1999.944 The exhibit includes underlinings when references are made to the Accused, Johnny
Paul Koroma, Ibrahim Bah, Jungle, and Blaise Compaoré.945
383. The Prosecution adduced evidence on the chain of custody of Exhibit P-067 through
Tariq Malik, who in April 2003 became the chief of the Evidence Section within the Ofhce
of the Prosecutor, and was the chief of the Evidence, Archives and Post-Operational Access
Section within the Office of the Prosecutor at the time of his testimony.94° According to
Malik, on 9 May 2000, the Sierra Leonean police searched Foday Sankoh's residence at
Spur Road, Freetown, which had been "ransacked" the day before, and seized "a large
number of documents [that had been ...] strewn across the compound".947 The seized
documents were brought to the headquarters of the Criminal Investigation Division of the
Sierra Leone police force, or "CID",948 and placed in the custody of Officer Alfred Sesay.
Officer Sesay guarded the documents in "a cabinet in his office under lock and key",949 but
did not keep any written inventory of the documents.950 Later that year, certain documents
from this seizure were photocopied for the office of the Sierra Leonean Attorney General
and examined by UN personnel, as well as by Alfred Sesay himselfim From 2002 to 2004,
the Prosecution obtained a total of fourteen such documents from the CID through Alfred
Sesay on three separate occasions. After these documents had been reviewed by OTP
943 TF1-371, Transcript 29 January 2008, p. 2477 (CS).
(M4 Exhibit P-067, "RUF Peop1e's Army- Situation Report to Foday Sankoh from the Black Revolutionary
Guards", ERN 9672, 9677, 9681.
(M5 Exhibit P-067, "RUF Peop1e's Army- Situation Report to Foday Sankoh from the Black Revolutionary
Guards", ERN 9674-9678.
946 Tariq Malik, Transcript 19 January 2009, p. 22915.
(M7 Tariq Malik, Transcript 19 January 2009, p. 22940.
948 Tariq Malik, Transcript 19 January 2009, p. 22942.
049 Tariq Malik, Transcript 19 January 2009, p. 22942.
950 Tariq Malik, Transcript 20 January 2009, p. 23054.
051 Tariq Malik, Transcript 19 January 2009, p. 22941.

---- End of Page 138 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T dl" J 18 May 2012 M

3 is *2.3 I
lawyers and investigators, they were submitted to the Evidence Unit.552 By November 2004,
Malik's team had processed all 14 documents.955 Malik did not oversee the 14 Sankoh
documents until his unit received them. Consequently, Malik's knowledge of their
whereabouts prior to November 2004 derived from his reading of sworn affidavits and the
RUF trial testimony of Alfred Sesay.554 ln addition, the Trial Chamber notes that there are
also gaps in the chain of custody. Given the imperfect chain of custody, the Trial Chamber
weighed this hearsay evidence»·which on its own does not establish the chain of custody-
with caution. The Trial Chamber, however, recalls that "gaps in the chain of custody are not
fatal, provided that the evidence as a whole demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt that the
piece of evidence concerned is what is says it is".555 The Trial Chamber has therefore
considered additional evidence that may establish the authenticity of Exhibit P-067.
384. The Prosecution tendered Exhibit P-067 through witness TF1-371, who testified that
a representative of the Black Guards, Junior Vandi, presented the original report to Foday
Sankoh in April 1999. The witness further averred that, while in Lome as part of the RUF
delegation, he "went through" the report after Sankoh had conveyed it to his adjutant,
Rashid Dandy.956 This foundation was later corroborated by Prosecution Witness TF1-567,
who, as a Black Guard, claimed to have contributed to the report and watched Junior Vandi
write the original document in Lome.957
385. The Defence led evidence tending to impugn the authenticity of Exhibit P-067
during its cross-examination of TF1-371, asking the witness whether there was any
possibility that the document could be a forgery. TF1-371 replied that, although the exhibit
was a photocopy, he could still recognise the original document based on the content and
writing.558 The Defence also posited on cross-examination that "a journalist called Gberie"
5 5 2 Tariq Malik, Transcript 20 January 2009, p. 23 058.
555 Tariq Malik, Transcript 19 January 2009, p. 22944.
554 Tariq Malik, Transcript 19 January 2009, pp. 22936-22939.
555 See Section IV(A), citing Prosecutor v. Orié, [T-03-68-T, Judgement, 30 June 2006, para. 27.
556 TF1-371, Transcript 29 January 2008, p. 2477 (CS). On cross examination TF1-371 seemed to suggest
perused a photocopy of this same original report, although this testimony was unclear and not pursued further by
either party. TF1-371, Transcript 1 February 2008, pp. 2835-2836 (CS).
557 TFl-567, Transcript 4 July 2008, p. 12970.
555 TF1-371, Transcript 1 February 2008, p. 2835 (CS).

---- End of Page 139 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-O3-O1-T CM- 18 May 2012 `%

3% 2.3 1
claimed to possess the original report, although TFl—37l disavowed any knowledge of this,
and no other evidence has been adduced to substantiate this claim.959
386. During his examination in chief the Accused was questioned about this exhibit, line
by line.%O He denied the document's principal assertions of fact, and described it as "a
mischievous fabrication" and a mix of "facts and half truths, disinformation".%1
387. The Defence later questioned Issa Sesay about the exhibit.962 Sesay alleged that
Exhibit P-067 was forged by of Gibril Massaquoi,963 and provided several reasons for
doubting the authenticity of the document; he claimed that he knew of Sankoh's bodyguards
onl as "the Black Guards" and not "the Black Revolutiona Guards",%4 asserted that the
Y YY
Black Guard commander at the time, Jackson Swarray, would have been the one to prepare
such a report for Sankoh, and he certainly would have signed it.965 Sesay also characterised
most of the exhibit's factual content as "false",%6 "lies",%7 "big lies"%8 and "black lies",%9
further proof according to the witness, that Exhibit P—067 is a forgery.97O
388. The Trial Chamber recalls its finding that Issa Sesay's evidence should be treated
with caution,971 and places little weight on Sesay's challenges to this exhibit due to a
number of reasons. First, when initially asked "who are the Black Revolutionary Guards‘?"
by Defence Counsel, Sesay responded "Well, they are Mr Sankoh's bodyguards. They were
the ones who were called by that title".972 This initial adoption of the term "Black
Revolutionary Guards" belies Sesay's later denial that he had never heard this term used.
This denial was further undermined when the Prosecution confronted Sesay with evidence,
adduced at his own trial from a witness who "would know" that, initially, "Sankoh's
959 TF1-371, Transcript 1 February 2008, p. 2832 (CS).
960 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 24 September 2009, pp. 29660-29686.
961 Charles Ghankay Taylor, Transcript 24 September 2009, p. 29686.
962 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44292-44318; Transcript 13 July 2010, pp. 44321-44325.
963 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, p. 44296; see also Transcript 12 July 2010, p. 44316; Transcript
13 July 2010, pp. 44324-44327.
964 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44292-44293.
965 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, p. 44293.
966 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44306, 44314.
967 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44300, 44307, 44315. A
968 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44309, 44314.
069 Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp 44308, 44314, 44315.
970 Issa Sesay, Transcript 13 July 2010, pp. 44324-44327.
971 Credibility Assessment, Issa Sesay, paras 359-372.
im Issa Sesay, Transcript 12 July 2010, pp. 44292-44293.

---- End of Page 140 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—O3-O1-T GN lg May 2012

3% 23 2
bodyguards [...] were called the Revolutionary Guard".973 This evidence is also consistent
with that of TF1—567, who testified that "Foday Sankoh trained us, the Black Guards, and he
told us that the revolution that he had launched was a black revolution. We, the Black
Guards, our duties were to guard the revolution".974 Furthermore, Exhibit P—067 refers to the
"Black Guards" at least three times and concludes with "Your Revolutionary Guards
RUF/SL", all of which underscore the interrelation of these terms.
389. Second, Sesay's propositions that Jackson Swarray would have been the only Black
Guard to submit reports to Sankoh, and that if Swarray had written the report he would have
necessarily signed it,975 are inherently speculative and unpersuasive in light of the direct,
consistent and mutually corroborative evidence of TF1—371 and TF1—567.
390. Finally, with regard to Sesay's assertion that the document was forged by Gibril
Massaquoi, the Trial Chamber notes that Sesay made the same assertion in relation to other
documents, specifically Exhibits D—009 and D—084, but a perusal of these documents
demonstrates dissimilarities in language, style, and format. Moreover, two of these
documents, D—009 and D—084, incriminate Massaquoi, undermining Sesay's proposition that
Massaquoi had forged the report.976
391. The Trial Chamber has carefully considered the evidence relating to Exhibit P—067, C
and finds that Junior Vandi, as a representative of the Black Guards, did indeed present
Foday Sankoh with a report in April 1999 as part of the RUF's delegation to the peace talks.
TF1—371's testimony on this point is direct, detailed, and corroborated by the equally direct
and detailed testimony of TF1—567.977 The testimony of Dauda Aruna Fornie, who identified
Junior Vandi as a member of the Lome delegation,978 reinforces this finding.
973 Issa Sesay, Transcript 13 August 2010, p. 46199; Exhibit P—561A (confidential); Exhibit P—561B
(confidential).
‘"" TF1—567,Transcript2 July 2008,p. 12833.
975 At first blush, this proposition also runs against Sesay's later testimony that "Jackson Swarray does not
write, nor does he read". Issa Sesay, Transcript 13 July 2010, p. 44339.
W6 See Exhibit D—009, "RUF Defence Headquarters, Salute report to the Leader of the Revolution from
Major General Sam Bockarie", pp. 8, 13, ERN 9665, 9670; Exhibit P—084, "RUF, Sierra Leone, Defence
Headquarters, Salute Report, from Brigadier Issa H. Sesay Battlefield Commander RIB?/SL, to the Leader of the
Revolution, 27 September 1999", p. l 1, ERN 7766.
977 TF1—371, Transcript 29 January 2008, p. 2477 (CS); TFl—567, Transcript 4 July 2008, p. 12970.
978 Dauda Amna Fornie, Transcript 3 December 2008, p. 21640; Exhibit P—266B, "Copy of Photograph —
P0001163 Marked by TF1—274".

---- End of Page 141 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T , GQ 18 May 2012

3r>2;*+
392. The Trial Chamber therefore considers Exhibit P—067 to be a faithful reproduction of
what it purports to be.
Prosecution Exhibit P—063
393. Exhibit P—063, entitled "Forum with the External Delegates Led by the Defence
Staff" and dated 2 December 1998, is a photocopy of a five—End of Page, typewritten document
purporting to be the minutes of a 2 December 1998 meeting held by Sam Bockarie at the
"Waterworks" facility in Buedu. The document bears the signature of an anonymous "Joint
Security Rep.", and has been dated by the signatory "4/12/98". The top of the first End of Page has
been marked "Battle Field Commander — RUF—SL" by hand, suggesting that this version of
the document was copied to Issa Sesay,979 who was the BFC at the time of the exhibit's
purported creation.98O The remaining four End of Pages also contain minor handwritten additions
which either correct spelling and punctuation errors, or insert material that is irrelevant to
the exhibit's authenticity or probative value.
394. Exhibit P—063 was admitted through witness TF1—371,98l who recognised it as the
minutes of "the forum that took place in Waterworks after the external delegate came back
from their trip led by Sam Bockarie".982 The witness expounded on the content of P—063 and
the meeting it describes, as well as the subsequent meeting of senior officers referenced at
the exhibit's final End of Page.983
395. Beyond the foundation developed through TF1-371, the Prosecution adduced
evidence on the chain of custody through Tariq Malik who testified that this document was
given to the Office of the Prosecutor by the Sierra Leone Police, "SLP", in 2005. The SLP
seized the document from an RUF office in 2001 in Kono District.984
396. Issa Sesay challenged the authenticity of Exhibit P—063, asserting that the minutes of
such meetings were typically taken by adjutants, and that Bockarie's adjutant, Rashid Sandy,
im Exhibit P-063, "RUF Defence Headquarters, Forum with the External Delegates Led by the RUF Defence
Staff, handwritten title ‘Batt1efie1d Commander RUF-SL’, 2nd December, 1998", pp. 00015487, 00015491.
°g° Issa Sesay, Transcript 9 July 2000, p. 44183.
Og] Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor, SCSL-03-01-T, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3826.
082 TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, p. 2405 (CS).
983 TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2405-2414 (CS).
p 084 Tariq Malik, Transcript 19 January 2009, p. 22980.

---- End of Page 142 ---------------------------


Case No; SCSL-03-01-T GL" X 18 May 2012 w

3% ¤.:<.s"
would have presumably done so for this meeting.°85 However, the Trial Chamber observes
that the fact that P-063 was authored by a "Joint Security Rep". instead does not vitiate the
document's authenticity. Moreover, the Trial Chamber rejects Sesay's assertion that there
was no "Joint Security Rep". in the RUF, and that only a Joint Security Commander, who
was Augustine Gbao, existed,986 since the record contains at least one example of someone
other than Gbao acting on behalfof Joint Security. lndeed, there is direct evidence that Joint
Security personnel also took minutes of meetings held in or near Buedu at this time.987 The
Trial Chamber has also considered the fact that Exhibit P-063 was retrieved from an RUF
installation in Koakoyima,988 "where the Joint Security office was",989 as circumstantial
corroboration that the exhibit was indeed drafted and retained by a representative from Joint
Security. Sesay's challenges to the document are therefore outweighed by the evidence.
397. ln light of the foregoing, the Trial Chamber accepts Exhibit P-063 as what it purports
to be.
985 Issa Sesay, Transcript 9 July 2010, pp. 44180-4418l; Exhibit P—370, "Revolutionary United Front of
Sierra Leone Defence Headquarter, Minutes of Forum Held with RUF/ SL Administrative Board at Water Works
Compound, 4 December 1998" (minutes of Waterworks meeting purportedly held two days later, prepared and
signed by "Lt. Col. Rashid Sandy, General Adjutant — RUF/SL"); See also Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript
4 March 2008, p. 5236 (testifying that Joint Security was an ad hoc entity charged with investigating misconduct
within the RUF).
986 Issa Sesay, Transcript 9 July 2010, p. 44181. . _
W Albert sarrirr, Transcript 5 Jrrrre 2008, p. 11088.
988 Tariq Malik, Transcript 19 January 2009, p. 22965.
989 Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, p. 5311 ("1 passed a night at Koakoyima, that was where
the Joint Security office was"), 5351 (Q. Was there a Joint Security office located in Kono? A. Yes, it was
located at Koakoyima").

---- End of Page 143 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T l8 May 2012

ggzgb
V. APPLICABLE LAW
A. Introduction
398. Article l(l) of the Statute empowers the Special Court to prosecute persons
who bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law
and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra Leone since 30 November
1996, including those leaders who, in committing such crimes, have threatened the
establishment of and implementation of the peace process in Sierra Leone.
The crimes over which the Special Court has jurisdiction are specified in Articles 2, 3, 4,
and 5 of the Statute. In the instant case, only Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute, which deal
with crimes under international law, are relevant. Regarding such crimes, the Trial Chamber
is bound to apply customary international law in determining whether the crimes charged in
the Indictment have been established. 990 The Secretary—General of the United Nations
("Secretary—General") in his "Report on the Establishment of a Special Court for Sierra
Leone" noted that
In recognition of the principle of legality, in particular rzullum crimen sine lege, and the
prohibition on retroactive criminal legislation, the international crimes enumerated, are
crimes considered to have the character of customary international law at the time of the
alleged commission of the crime.99l
The Trial Chamber is satisfied that all the crimes and modes of responsibility charged in the
Indictment were part of customary international law at the time of the alleged commission of
the crimesm
399. Rule 72bis of the Rules provides that:
The applicable laws of the Special Court include:
(i) the Statute, the Agreement, and the Rules;
(ii) where appropriate, other applicable treaties and the principles and rules of
international customary law;
OOO AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 639; Kamara Decision on Form of Indictment, para. 24. See also Prosecutor
v. Norman, SCSL-04-14-AR72(E), Decision on Preliminary Motion Based on Lack of Jurisdiction (Child
Recruitment), 31 May 2004 [CDF Appeal Decision on Child Recruitment], paras 17 et seq.
W Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of the Special Court, S/2000/915, 4 October 2000,
para. 12.
992 References supporting the customary nature of the crimes and modes of liability at the time of their
alleged commission will be provided in relation to each crime and mode of liability below.

---- End of Page 144 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T /{ 18 May 2012

3% 23%
(iii) general principles of law derived from national laws of legal systems of the world
including, as appropriate, the national laws of the Republic of Sierra Leone, provided
that those principles are not inconsistent with the Statute, the Agreement, and with
international customary law and internationally recognized norms and standards.
400. ln this section, the Trial Chamber has considered the law on the specific elements of
the crimes, and on individual criminal responsibility. The law on the chapeau elements of
Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute has been considered in the section in the Section on "Law
and Findings on the General Requirements".993
40l. There is no significant dispute between the parties regarding the applicable law.994
Therefore, in this section the Trial Chamber has only referred to the submissions of the
parties where the parties have requested the Trial Chamber to depart from existing
jurisprudence, or where they have made submissions on issues which have not yet been
settled by the Special Court's jurisprudence or the jurisprudence of other international
tribunals.
B. Specific Elements of the Crimes
l. Count l: Acts of Terrorism (Article 3gdp of the Statute)
402. Count l charges the Accused with acts of terrorism, a violation of Additional
Protocol ll, punishable under Article 3(d) of the Statute.995 The Prosecution alleges that the
Accused committed the crimes set forth in paragraph 6 to 3l of the lndictment, and charged
, in Counts 2 to ll, "as part of a campaign to terrorise the civilian population of the Republic
of Sierra Leone".°%
403. In addition to the chapeau requirements of Violations of Article 3 Common to the
Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol 11 pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute, the
im See Law and Findings on the General Requirements.
im The Prosecution submits that it relies upon the law as articulated in the Appeal and Trial Judgements of
the Special Court, and incorporates by reference the jurisprudence referred to in these judgements. The
Prosecution indicates that it has only made specific submissions when "there has been a notable development in
the jurisprudence and/or whether [sic] there is some divergence of approach in the jurisprudence". Prosecution
Final Trial Brief, para. 44.
995 The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this crime was part of customary international law at the time of its
alleged commission. See AFRC Trial Judgement, paras 660-662, Prosecutor v. Galic, [T-98-29-A, Judgement
(AC), 30 November 2006 [Galic Appeal Judgement], para. 86.

---- End of Page 145 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-0l-T 0** 18 May 2012

3%.13%
following elements of the crime of acts of terrorism must be proved beyond reasonable
doubt:
i. Acts or threats of violence directed against persons or their property;
ii. The perpetrator wilfully made persons or their property the object of those acts
and threats of violence; and
iii. The acts or threats of violence were committed with the primary purpose of
spreading terror among protected persons.997
404. Actual terrorization is not a required element of the crime of terror, although
evidence of such terrorization may be used to establish other elements of the crime.998
405. The Prosecution must prove that the spreading of terror was specifically intended.9q9
However, while spreading terror must be the primary purpose of the acts or threats of
violence, it need not be the only purpose.m0O Such intent can be inferred from, inter alia, the
"nature, manner, time and duration"lOOl of the acts or threats of violence, and may also be
inferred from the actual infliction of terror and the indiscriminate nature of the attacks. 1002
406. The Defence submits that the ICTY has held in the Milosevic Trial Judgement that an
act or threat can be considered as "terrorism" only where it results in "death or serious injury
to body or health within the civilian population or to individual civilians". 1003 It notes,
however, that Trial Chamber I of the Special Court explicitly rejected this requirement in the
9% Indictment, para. 5; see also Case Summary, para. 19, explaining that "[t]he words ‘civi1ian(s)’ or
‘civi1ian popu1ation’ refer to persons who took no active part in the hostilities, or who were no longer taking an
active part in the hostilities".
im CDF Appeal Judgement, para. 350; AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 667. See also Galic Appeal Judgement,
para. 100; Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milosevic, IT-98-29/1-A, Judgement (AC), 12 November 2009 [D. Milosevic
Appeal Judgement], para. 31
098 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 669, referring to Galic Appeal Judgement, paras 102, 104, 107; D.
Milosevic Appeal Judgement, para. 35.
999 CDF Appeal Judgement, para. 356, citing Galic Trial Judgement, para. 136; AFRC Trial Judgement, para.
699; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 1 19. See also Galic Appeal Judgement, para. 104.
1000 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 669, referring to Galic Appeal Judgement, para. 104; D. Milosevic Appeal
Judgement, para. 37. See also RUF Trial Judgement, para. 121.
mm Galic Appeal Judgement, para. 104. See also AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 669; RUF Trial Judgement,
para. 121.
1002 D. Milosevic Appeal Judgement, para. 37.
1003 Defence Final Trial Brief para. 173, referring to Prosecutor v. Dragomir Milosevic, 1T-98-29/1-T,
Judgement (TC), 12 December 2007 [D. Milosevic Trial Judgement], paras 876 and 880.

---- End of Page 146 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T / Gl" 18 May 2012 E
4/

Bszzq
RUF Trial Judgement. 1004 The Defence submits that this represents a divergence between the
two courts which has not been resolved on appeal, and urges the Trial Chamber to resolve it
in the manner most favourable to the Accused.lOO5 The Prosecution does not address this
issue in its submissions.
407. However, contrary to the Defence submissions, there is appellate authority resolving
this issue, as in the Milosevic case, the Appeals Chamber of the 1CTY found that the Trial
Chamber had "misinterpreted the Galié jurisprudence by stating that ‘actual infliction of
death or serious harm to body or health is a required element of the crime of terror’, and had
thus committed an error of law". 1006 The Appeals Chamber of the 1CTY further found that
actual infliction of death or serious bodily harm was not a required element of the crime of
terror, but that it must be shown that the victims suffered grave consequences resulting from
the acts or threats of violence, which may include death or serious injury to body or
health. 1007 The Trial Chamber concurs with this approach.
408. The Defence submits that, in addition to these requirements, the Appeals Chamber of
the Special Tribunal for Lebanon ("STL") has recently held that a customary mle of
international law regarding the crime of terrorism has emerged which requires the following
three key elements: "(i) the perpetration of a criminal act (such as murder, kidnapping,
hostage—talamong the population (which would generally entail the creation of a public danger) or
directly or indirectly coerce a national or international authority to take some action, or
refrain from taking it; (iii) when the act involves a transnational element". 1008 The Defence
submits that the second and third requirements, which differ from the definition of "acts of
1004 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 173, referring to RUF Trial Judgement, para. 117, footnote 240. At
paragraph 1 17, Trial Chamber I held that "the Prosecution is not required to prove that the act or threat caused
death or serious injury to body or health within the civilian population? In footnote 240, the Trial Chamber
noted that this requirement was included by the ICTY Trial Chamber in the Dragomir Milosevic case. The Trial
Chamber stated that it had "considered the relevant portions of the CDF Appeal Judgement and the Galic Appeal
Judgement and [was] satisfied that this is not a required element of the offence".
1005 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 173.
1006 D. Milosevic Appeal Judgement, para. 33.
mm D. Milosevic Appeal Judgement, para. 33.
1008 Defence Response, para. 171, referring to STL-11-01/I/AC/R176bis, Interlocutory Decision on the
Applicable Law: Terrorism, Conspiracy, Homicide, Perpetration, Cumulative Charging, 16 February 201 1, [STL
Appeal Decision], para. 85.

---- End of Page 147 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T Ou 18 May 2012

3814®
terrorism" as defined above, should be included in the definition of the crime of "acts of
terrorism".lOO9 The Prosecution does not address this issue in its submissions.
409. The Trial Chamber notes that the Appeals Chamber of the STL found that these three
key elements were applicable to "a customary rule of international law regarding the
international crime of terrorism" at least in times of peace. mm It distinguished this from the
war crime of "acts of terrorism".l0ll The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY and the Trial
Chamber of this court have held that the war crime of "acts of terrorism" (which does not
contain these additional elements) is firmly established in customary international law.l0l2
410. The Trial Chamber is therefore of the view that the additional elements referred to in
the above paragraphs do not form part of the war crime of "acts of terrorism".
2. Counts 2 and 3: Unlawful Killings {Articles 2ga) and 3]a] of the Statute)
41 1. In Count 2, the Indictment charges the Accused with murder as a crime against
humanity, punishable under Article 2(a) of the Statute.lOl3 ln addition, or in the alternative,
Count 3 charges the Accused with violence to life, health and physical or mental well—being
of persons, in particular murder, a violation of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions
and of Additional Protocol II, punishable under Article 3(a) of the Statute.lOl4
mg Defence Response, paras 172-173.
mm STL Appeal Decision, paras 85, 102. Moreover, as the Appeals Chamber held that the STL must apply
the crime of terrorism as defined by Lebanese law, it did not find that the elements it listed at paragraph 85 were
applicable before the STL. STL Appeal Decision, para. 145.
mn The STL Appeals Chamber stated that "as the ICTY and the SCSL have found, acts of terrorism can
constitute war crimes". STL Appeal Decision, para. 107 and footnote 208.
lm AF RC Trial Judgement, paras 660-662; Galié Appeal Judgement, para. 86.
lm Indictment, paras 9-13. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this crime was a part of customary
international law at the time of its commission. See RUF Trial Judgement, para. 137, CDF Trial Judgement,
para. 142.
mm Indictment, paras 9-13. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this crime was a part of customary
international law at the time of its commission. See Prosecutor v. Fofana, SCSL-2004-14-AR72(E), Decision on
Preliminary Motion on Lack of Jurisdiction Materiae: Nature of the Armed Contiict (AC), 25 May 2004 [CDF
Appeal Decision on Nature of Armed Contiict], para. 24; Prosecutor v. Tadié, IT-94-1-T, Decision on the
Defence Motion on Jurisdiction (TC), 10 August 1995 [Tadic Decision on Jurisdiction], paras 66-73; Prosecutor
v Karemera et al., ICTR-98-44-A4(a), Decision on Count Seven of the Amended Indictment - Violence to Life,
Health and Physical or Mental Well-Being of Persons (TC), 5 August 2005 [Karemera Decision on Count Seven
of the Amended Indictment], paras 5-10. See also Vasiljevic Trial Judgement, para.195, where in analyzing the
offence of violence to life and person, the Trial Chamber recognized that it is a breach of customary international
law when the underlying act is murder, cruel treatment and torture. See also ICRC, Customary International
Humanitarian Law Online Database, Rule 89 (Violence to Life), and Jean-Marie Henckaerts, Louise Doswald-
Beck. ICRC, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules, Cambridge, University Press (2005),
p. 31 1.

---- End of Page 148 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T . (hg 18 May 2012

3% 2..4]
412. The elements detining murder are identical regardless of the provision under which it
is charged.lOl5 Thus, in addition to the chapeau requirements of Crimes against Humanity
pursuant to Article 2 of the Statute (for Count 2) and the chapeau requirements ofViolations
of Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol 11 pursuant to
Article 3 of the Statute (for Count 3), the following elements of the crime of murder must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt:
i. The perpetrator by his acts or omission caused the death of a person or persons;
and
ii. The perpetrator had the intention to kill or to cause serious bodily harm in the
reasonable knowled e that it would likel result in death. mm
S Y
413. For the physical elements of murder to be satisfied, the Prosecution is required to
establish beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator's conduct substantially contributed to
the death of the person.lOl7 The death of the victim may be demonstrated through
circumstantial evidence, provided it is the only inference that may reasonably be drawn from
the acts or omissions of the perpetrator. mg Therefore it is not necessary to require proof that
the dead body of that person has been recovered. low
3. Counts 4, 5 and 6: Sexual Violence (Articles 2] g] and 3]e) of the Statute)
414. ln Count 4, the Indictment charges the Accused with rape, a crime against humanity,
punishable under Article 2(g) of the Statute.l02O Count 5 charges the Accused with "sexual
W5 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 688, referring to Stakic Trial Judgement, para. 631; Brdanin Trial
Judgement, para. 380; Prosecutor v. Oric, 1T—03-68-T, Judgement (TC), 30 June 2006 [Oric Trial Judgement],
para. 345; Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, 1T-00-39-T, Judgement (TC), 27 September 2006 [Krajisnik Trial
Judgement], para. 848.
W6 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 688. See also Kvocka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 261; D. Milosevic
Appeal Judgement, para. 108;
mw AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 689; Prosecutor v. Milutinovic. Sainovic and Ojdanié, IT-05-87-T.
Judgement (TC), 26 February 2009 [Milutinovic et al. Trial Judgement], para. 137; Kvocka et al. Appeal
Judgement. para. 261; Oric Trial Judgement, para. 3V47. See also Prosecutor v. Delalic, Mucié, Delic and Landio,
IT-96-21-T, Judgement (TC), 16 November 1998 [Celebici Trial Judgement], footnote 435, providing the results
of its examination of various domestic legal systems, including that of England, Australia, Belgium and Norway.
Im AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 689. referring to Prosecutor v. Vasiljevic, 1T—98—32-A, Judgement (AC), 25
February 2004 [Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement], para. 120; Kvocka et al. Appeal Judgement. para. 260; Celebici
Appeal Judgement, para. 458.
mm Krnolejac Trial Judgement, para. 326; Prosecutor v. Tadic. IT-94-1-T, Judgement (TC), 7 May 1997
[Tadic Trial Judgement], para. 240.
mo Indictment, paras 14-17. The Trial Chamber is satistied that this crime was a part of customary
intemational law at the time of its alleged commission. AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 692; RUF Trial Judgement.

---- End of Page 149 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T % 6],4 18 May 2012

3310.1
slavery", a crime against humanity, punishable under Article 2(g) of the Statue.lO2l ln
addition, or in the alternative, Count 6 charges the Accused with outrages upon personal
dignity, a violation of Common Article 3 and of Additional Protocol II, punishable under
Article 3(e) of the Statute.lO22
(a) Count 4: Rape gArticle 2g gt of the Statute;
415. ln addition to the chapeau requirements of Crimes against Humanity pursuant to
Article 2 of the Statute, the following elements of the crime of rape must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt:
i. The non-consensual penetration, however slight, of the vagina or anus of the
victim by the penis of the perpetrator or by any other object used by the
perpetrator, or of the mouth of the victim by the penis of the perpetrator; and
ii. The perpetrator must have the intent to effect this sexual penetration, and the
knowledge that it occurs without the consent of the victim.lO23
416. The consent of the victim must be given voluntarily, as a result of the victim's free
will, assessed in the context of the surrounding circumstances.lO24 This is necessarily a
contextual assessment. However, in situations of armed conflict or detention, coercion is
almost universa1.lO25 Force or the threat of force provides clear evidence of non-consent, but
force is not an element per se of rape and there are factors other than force which may
render an act of sexual penetration non-consensual or non-voluntary on the part of the 1
victim.lO26 ‘Continuous resistance’ by the victim, physical force or even threat of force by
the perpetrator are not required to establish coercion.lO27 A person may be incapable of
para. 144; Kvocka Appeal Judgement, para. 395; Prosecutor v. Furundiija, 1T-95-17/1-T, Judgement (TC), 10
December 1998 [Furundzija Trial Judgement], paras 165-169; Celebiéi Trial Judgement, paras 476-477.
ml Indictment, paras 14-17. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this crime was a part of customary
international law at the time of its alleged commission. See RUF Trial Judgement, para. 157.
mz Indictment, paras 14-17. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this crime was a part of customary
international law at the time of its alleged commission. AF RC Trial Judgement, para. 715; RUF Trial Judgement,
para. 174, Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, paras 21-22; F urundiija Trial Judgement, para. 168.
Im AFRC Trial Judgement, paras 692-693; see also Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 127.
my AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 694, referring to Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 127.
mj AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 694.
Im AF RC Trial Judgement, para. 694, referring to Kunarac Appeal Judgement, paras 129-130.
ION RUF Appeal Judgement, para. 736; AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 694, referring to Kunarac Appeal
Judgement, paras 128-130, 133; see also Gay J. McDougall, Systematic Rape, Sexual Slavery and Slavery—like
Practices During Armed Conflict. Final Report submitted to the Commission on Human Rights Sub-commission

---- End of Page 150 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T @5 18 May 2012

zz 14%
giving genuine consent if affected by natural, induced or age related incapacity. Hm The Trial
Chamber acknowledges that the very specific circumstances of an armed conflict where
rapes on a large scale are alleged to have occurred, coupled with the social stigma which is
borne by victims of rape in certain societies, render the restrictive test set out in the elements
of the crime difficult to satisfy. Circumstantial evidence may therefore be used to
demonstrate the actus reus of rape. mg
417. In addition, the Trial Chamber is guided by the provisions of Rule 96 of the Rules,
which provides, in relevant part that:
In cases of sexual violence, the Court shall be guided by and, where appropriate, apply the
following principles:
(i) Consent cannot be inferred by reason of any words or conduct of a victim where
force, threat of force, coercion or taking advantage of a coercive enviromnent
undermined the victim's ability to give voluntary and genuine consent;
(ii) Consent cannot be inferred by reason of any words or conduct of a victim where
the victim is incapable of giving genuine consent;
(iii) Consent cannot be inferred by reason of the silence of, or lack of resistance by, a
victim to the alleged sexual violence.
(b) Count 5: Sexual Slaveg (Article 2g gl of the Statute)
418. ln addition to the chapeau requirements of Crimes against Humanity pursuant to
Article 2 of the Statute, the following elements of the crime of sexual slavery must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt:
i. The perpetrator exercised any or all of the powers attaching to the right of
ownership over one or more persons, such as by purchasing, selling, lending or
bartering such a person or persons, or by imposing on them a similar deprivation
of liberty.
on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities, 50th session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1998/13, 22
June 1998, para. 25, stating that "[t]he manifestly coercive circumstances that exist in all armed conflict
situations establish a presumption of non—consent and negates the need for the prosecution to establish the lack of
consent as an element of the crime". ·
lm RUF Trial Judgement, para. 148. See also ICC Elements of Crime, Article 8(2)(e)(vi)—1 , footnote 63.
Hm APRC Trial Judgement, para. 695, referring to Muhimana Appeal Judgement, para. 49; Gacumbitsi
Appeal Judgement, para. 1 15.

---- End of Page 151 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—O3-0l-T O\_g 18 May 2012 kg

3% 2}-1-°+
ii. The perpetrator caused such person or persons to engage in one or more acts of a
sexual nature; 8
iii. The perpetrator intended to engage in the act of sexual slavery or acted with the
reasonable knowledge that this was likely to occur. mw
419. The actus reus of the offence of sexual slavery comprises two elements, first, that the
Accused exercised any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership of a person or
persons (the slavery element) and second, that the enslavement involved sexual acts (the
sexual element). ml The mens rea for the violation consists in the intentional exercise of any
or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership, over the victim. Hm
420. The primary characteristic of enslavement is the absence of the consent or free will
of the victim}033 In determining whether the perpetrator exercised a power attaching to the
right of ownership over the victim, the Chamber will take into account the existence of such
factors or indicia as "control of the victim's movement, control of their physical
environment, psychological control, measures taken to deter escape, use or threat of force or
coercion against the victim, duration, assertion of exclusivity, subjection to cruel treatment
and abuse, control of sexuality and forced labour", a list that is by no means exhaustive.lO34
There is no requirement that there be any payment or exchange in order to establish the
exercise of ownership.lO35 The deprivation of liberty may include exacting forced labour or
otherwise reducing a person to servile status.lO36 The Chamber also notes that the expression
mo AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 708; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 158
ml Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement, para. 540
W32 Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para 122
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 709, referring to Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovaé and Vukovié, IT-96-23-T
and IT-96-23/1-T, Judgement (TC), 22 February 2001 [Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement], para. 542; Kunarac et al.
Appeal Judgement, paras 129-131; Update to Final Report submitted by Ms. Gay J. McDougall, Special
Rapporteur, Contemporary Forms of Slavery: Systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices during
armed conflict, Economic and Social Council, Commission on Human Rights, Sub-Cornmission on the
Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, E/CN.4/Sub.2/2000/21, 6 June 2000 [Update to Final Report of
Special Rapporteur], para. 51.
lm Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement, para. 543 cited with approval by the ICTY Appeals Chamber in Kunarac
et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 1 19
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 709, referring to Update to Final Report of Special Rapporteur pm 50
IO36 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 709, referring to the Rome Statute Article 8(2)(b)(xxii) - which lists sexual
slavery as a crime against humanity - delegates to the Working Group on the Elements of Crime took the view
that the word "similar" in the first element (i) of the crime should not be interpreted as referring only to
commercial character of the examples of selling, purchasing, or bartering. These delegates insisted that Footnote
18 be appended to the Article, which states "[i]t is understood that such a deprivation of liberty may, in some
circumstances, include exacting forced labour or otherwise reducing a person to servile status as defined in the
Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar

---- End of Page 152 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T _ 18 May 2012

3% 7-*1S
"similar deprivation of liberty" has been interpreted to cover situations in which the victims
may not have been physically confined, but were otherwise unable to leave the perpetrator's
custody as they would have nowhere else to go and feared for their lives. 1037
421. In addition to proving enslavement, the Prosecution must also prove that the Accused
caused the enslaved person to engage in an act or acts of a sexual nature. The acts of sexual
violence are the additional element that, when combined with evidence of slavery,
constitutes sexual slavery. 1038
422. The Trial Chamber notes that in this case, unlike the AFRC case and the RUF case,
"forced marriage" is not charged in the Indictment. Nevertheless, the evidence adduced by
the Prosecution under the charges related to Sexual Violence includes extensive testimony
by women and girls regarding forced conjugal association to which they were subjected. In
the absence of the charge of "forced marriage", the Trial Chamber has considered this
evidence with regard to the charges in the Indictment, as well as the past jurisprudence of
the SCSL with regard to this issue.
423. The Trial Chamber notes that the review of this issue by the Court has been
hampered by the erroneous pleadings of the Prosecution with regard to various forms of
sexual violence. The Trial Chamber recalls that in the AFRC case it was faced with a
procedural challenge raised by the failure of the Prosecution to distinguish between the
crime of sexual violence and the crime of sexual slavery. Count 7 of the Indictment in that
case, sexual slavery, was dismissed as duplicitous. Justice Doherty opined that the count
need not have been dismissed in its entirety. Justice Sebutinde expressed the view that the
defect in the indictment could be cured by an amendment dividing the offences into separate
to Slavery of 1956. It is also understood that the conduct described in this element includes trafficking in
persons, in particular women and children". Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Elements of
Crimes, Article 8(2)(b)(xxii), footnote 18.; Commentary documented by Eve La Haye, Article 8(2)(b)(xxii) — 2 —
Sexual Slavery, in Roy S. Lee, Ed., The International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of
Procedure and Evidence (2001: Transnational Publishers, Ardsley) at p. 191.
103 7 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 161, AF RC Trial Judgement, para. 709 referring to a distinction also insisted
upon by some delegations to the Rome Statute Working Group on Elements of Crimes to ensure that the
provision did not exclude situations in which sexually abused women were not locked in a particular place but
were nevertheless "deprived of their libertf because they had nowhere else to go and feared for their lives,
Commentary documented by Eve La Haye, Article 8(2)(b)(xxii) —— 2 — Sexual Slavery, in Roy S. Lee, Ed., The
International Criminal Court: Elements of Crimes and Rules of Procedure and Evidence (2001: Transnational
Publishers, Ardsley) pp. 191-192
1038 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 162

---- End of Page 153 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T / 18 May 2012

2%:>.UJ<>
counts. ln its Judgement in the AFRC case, the Trial Chamber noted that the Prosecution
had not availed itself of Justice Sebutinde's suggested remedy. 1039
424. ln the Trial Chamber's view, the Prosecution erred in other lndictments by charging
"forced marriage" as a crime that falls within the scope of the crime against humanity of
other inhumane acts. Because it was charged in this manner, the Trial Chamber was
required to review the charge in this manner. ln her dissent in the AF RC Judgement, Justice
Doherty observed, "the abduction of girls and their coercion into marital unions, as
described by the Prosecution expert and by witnesses, is not the same nor comparable to
arranged or traditional marriages".lO4O She defined the crucial element of "forced marriage"
to be "the imposition, by threat or physical force arising from the perpetrator's words or
other conduct, of a forced conjugal association by the perpetrator over the victim".lO4l
Similarly Justice Sebutinde, in her concurrence in the AFRC Judgement, described this
phenomenon as "the forceful abduction and holding in captivity of women and girls (‘bush
wives’) against their will, for purposes of sexual gratification of their ‘bush husbands’ and
for gender-specific forms of labour including cooking cleaning, washing clothes (conjugal
duties)".lO42 The Trial Chamber considers, as expressed by both Justice Doherty and Justice
Sebutinde in the AFRC case, that the sexual and non-sexual acts involved in this forced
conjugal association carmot be considered separately as they are integrated in this form of
abuse.
425. The Trial Chamber considers that, in the absence of a charge of "forced marriage",
the evidence adduced by the witnesses of forced conjugal association can be considered
afresh with their testimony as a starting point. ln the Trial Chamber's view the term "forced
marriage" is a misnomer for the forced conjugal association that was imposed on women
and girls in the circumstances of armed conflict, and which involved both sexual slavery and
forced labour in the form of domestic work such as cooking and cleaning.
426. The Trial Chamber notes that in the absence of any specific charge relating to forced
conjugal association, which was extensively testified to in this case, the elements of sexual
slavery are satisfied, that is the deprivation of liberty and the imposition of non-consensual
Hm AFRC Trial Judgement, para 93.
1040 AFRC Trial Judgement, Partly Dissenting Opinion of Justice Doherty, para. 36.
WH Para. 53
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, Corrcurring Opinion of Justice Sebutinde, para 12.

---- End of Page 154 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—O3—Ol—T Ok}: / 18 May 2012

3sex. The Appeals Chamber decision in the AFRC case noted other elements that go beyond
sexual slavery as the basis for its decision, namely the "forced conjugal association with
another person resulting in great suffering, or serious physical or mental injury on the part of
the victim" and "a relationship of exclusivity between the ‘husband’ and ‘wife."’m43 The
Trial Chamber does not consider the nomenclature of "marriage" to be helpful in describing
what happened to the victims of this forced conjugal association and finds it inappropriate to
refer to their perpetrators as "husbands".
427. What happened to the girls and women abducted in Sierra Leone and forced into this
conjugal association was not marriage in the universally understood sense of a consensual
and sacrosanct union, and should rather, in the Trial Chamber's view, be considered a
conjugal form of enslavement. While noting that all forms of forced marriage violate human
rights under international law, the abuses perpetrated on women and girls in this context is
clearly criminal in nature, and of sufficient gravity as to constitute a crime against humanity.
lt constitutes a form of enslavement in that the perpetrator exercised the powers attaching to
the right of ownership over their "bush wives" and imposed on them a deprivation of liberty,
_ causing them to engage in sexual acts as well as other acts. The Trial Chamber notes that
conjugal relations involve both sexual and non-sexual acts. All of these forced acts, both
sexual and non-sexual acts, fall within the definition of enslavement in the view of the Trial
Chamber. As noted by the Appeals Chamber, "bush wives" were "coerced to perfomi a
variety of conjugal duties including regular sexual intercourse, forced domestic labour such
as cleaning and cooking for the ‘husband,’ endure forced pregnancy, and to care for and
bring up children of the ‘marriage."’lO44
428. With respect to the powers of ownership, the Trial Chamber notes that there is no
differentiation between the forced sexual and non-sexual acts described, and the Appeals
Chamber did not express the view that these acts did not constitute enslavement, but merely
that they were not limited to sexual forms of slavery. The Trial Chamber is of the view that
the conjugal slavery best describes these acts, and while they may constitute more than
sexual slavery, they nevertheless satisfy the elements of sexual slavery.
Hm AFRC Appeals Chamber Decision, para. 195.
IOM APRC Appeals Judgement, para. 190.

---- End of Page 155 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL~03~01~T / UL 18 May 2012

as 24+%
429. The Trial Chamber considers that part of the confusion created by the Prosecution's
charge of "forced marriage" was its presentation as the conceptualization of a new crime. In
light of the above considerations, the Trial Chamber considers that conjugal slavery is better
conceptualized as a distinctive form of the crime of sexual slavery, with the additional
component described by the Appeals Chamber. However, the Trial Chamber is of the view
that this additional component, which relates to forced conjugal labour, is simply a
descriptive component of a distinctive form of sexual slavery. lt is not a detinitional
element of a new crime, in the same way that gang rape is a distinctive form of rape, yet
nevertheless falls within the scope of the crime of rape.
430. The Trial Chamber considers that unlike the concept of "forced marriage", as it was
presented by the Prosecution in the AFRC and other cases before this Court, conjugal
slavery is not a new crime with additional elements. Rather it is a practice with certain
additional and distinctive features that relate to the conjugal aspects of the relationship
between the perpetrator and the victim, such as the claim by the perpetrator to a particular
victim as his "wife" and the exercise of exclusive sexual control over her, barring others
from sexual access to the victim, as well as the compulsion of the victim to perform
domestic work such as cooking and cleaning. ln the Trial Chamber's view, these are not new
elements that require the conceptualization of a new crime.
(c) Count 6: Outrages upon Personal Digpity, in particular humiliating and degrading
treatment, rape, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault {Article 3ge) of the
statutes;
43l. ln addition to the chapeau requirements of Violations of Article 3 Common to the
Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol ll pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute, the
following speciiiic elements of the crime of outrages upon personal dignity must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt:
i. The perpetrator humiliated, degraded or otherwise violated the personal dignity
of the victim;
ii. The humiliation, degradation or other violation was so serious as to be generally
considered as an outrage upon personal dignity;

---- End of Page 156 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T y A M 18 May 2012 M
(

2.a¤—‘+°1
iii. The perpetrator intentionally committed or participated in an act or omission
which would be generally considered to cause serious humiliation, degradation
or otherwise be a serious attack on human dignity; and
iv. I The perpetrator knew that the act or omission could have such an effect. 1045
432. The Trial Chamber considers that sexual slavery, including the abduction of women
and girls as "bush wives", a conjugal form of sexual slavery, is humiliating and degrading to
its victims and constitutes a serious attack on human dignity, falling within the scope of
outrages upon personal dignity.
4. Counts 7 and 8: Crimes Relating to Physical Violence {Articles 3ga) and 2gi) of the
Statute)
433. In Count 7, the Accused is charged with violence to life, health and physical or
mental well-being of persons, in particular, cruel treatment, a violation of Common Article 3
and Additional Protocol II, punishable under Article 3(a) of the Statr1te.l04° In addition, or in
the alternative, Count 8 charges the Accused with other inhumane acts, a crime against
humanity, punishable under Article 2(i) of the Statute. 1047
(a) Count 7 — Violence to Life, Health and Physical or Mental Well-Being of Persons, in
particular Cruel Treatment (Article 3(a) of the Statutei
434. In addition to the chapeau requirements of Violations of Article 3 Common to the
Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute, the
following specific elements of the offence of cruel treatment must be proved beyond
reasonable doubt:
1045 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 716; see also Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 161, 163; Rome
Statute, Elements of the Crimes, Article 8(2)(b)(xxi). ’
1046 Indictment, paras 18-21. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this crime was a part of customary
intemational law at the time of its alleged commission. CDF Appeal Decision on Nature of Armed Conflict,
para. 24; CDF Trial Judgement, para. 154; Tadié Decision on Jurisdiction, paras 66-73; Karemera Decision on
Count Seven of the Amended Indictment, paras 5-10; See also Vasiljevié Trial Judgement, para.l95, where in
analyzing the offence of violence to life and person, the Trial Chamber recognized that it is a breach of
customary international law when the underlying act is murder, cruel treatment and torture.
1047 Indictment, paras 18-21. The Trial Chamber is satished that this crime was a part of customary
international law at the time of its alleged commission. See AFRC Appeal Judgement, para. 198, referring to
Prosecutor v. Stakié, 1T-97-24-A, Judgement (AC), 22 March 2006 [Stakié Appeal Judgement], para. 315 and
Blagojevié and Jokié Trial Judgement, para. 624. See also AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 697 and RUF Trial
Judgement, para. 165.

---- End of Page 157 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 2% mb 18 May 2012

320.51
i. The act or omission of the perpetrator caused serious physical or mental
suffering or injury or constituted a serious attack on human dignity;
ii. The perpetrator intended to cause serious mental or physical suffering or injury
or a serious attack on human dignity or acted in the reasonable knowledge that
this was likely to occur. 1048
435. The Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution has provided a definition of mutilation
in its final trial brief which adopts and slightly modifies the definition provided in the
AFRC Trial Judgement.1449 However, Count 10 of the AFRC Indictment charged "violence
to life, health and physical or mental well—being of persons, in particular mutilation",1O5O
whereas Count 7 of the Indictment in this case charges only "cruel treatment". The Trial
Chamber therefore finds that a specific definition of mutilation is not required, but notes that
cruel treatment may encompass acts of mutilation, if such acts satisfy the requirements set
out above.
(b) Count 8 — Other Inhumane Acts (Article 2] i] of the Statute)
436. In addition to the chapeau requirements of Crimes against Humanity pursuant to
Article 2 of the Statute, the following specific elements of the crime of other inhumane acts
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
i. The perpetrator inflicted great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or
physical health, by means of an inhumane act;
ii. The act was of a gravity similar to the acts referred to in Article 2(a) to (h) of the
Statute; and
1048 CDF Trial Judgement, para. 156; Celibiéi Appeal Judgement, para. 424; Celibiéi Trial Judgement, paras
551-552; Prosecutor v. Krstié, IT-98-33-T, Judgement (TC), 2 August 2001 [Krstié Trial Judgement], para. 516;
Prosecutor v. Lukié and Lukié, IT-98-32/1-T, Judgement (TC), 20 July 2009 [Lukié and Lukié Trial Judgement],
para. 957; Prosecutor v. Blaskié, IT-95-14-T, Judgement (TC), 3 March 2000, [Blaskic Trial Judgement], para.
186; Prosecutor v. Jelisié, IT-95-10-T, Judgement (TC), 14 December 1999 [Jelisic Trial Judgement], para. 41.
1049 Prosecution Final Trial Brief para. 947, referring to AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 724. The Prosecution,
however, submits that a modification of the mental elements should be adopted, such that the Prosecution should
be required to prove "either that the perpetrator intended to subject the victim to mutilation, or that the
perpetrator acted in the reasonable knowledge that mutilation was likely to occur". See Prosecution Final Trial
Brief para. 948.
1050 Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu, SCSL-04-16-PT, Further Consolidated Amended Indictment, 18
February 2005.

---- End of Page 158 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T dk 18 May 2012

3%Q.S` 1
iii. The perpetrator was aware of the factual circumstances that established the
character of the avit of the act.1051
sr Y
437. With regard to particular acts of physical violence, the seriousness of a particular act
or omission and the sufficiency of its gravity must be examined on a case-by-case basis.1052
5. Count 9: Crimes Relating to Child Soldiers (Article 4(c) of the Statute]
438. In Count 9, the Indictment charges that "[b]etween about 30 November 1996 and
about 18 January 2002, throughout the Republic of Sierra Leone, members of RUF, AFRC,
AFRC/RUF Junta or alliance, and/or Liberian fighters, assisted and encouraged by, acting in
concert with, under the direction and/or control of, and/or subordinate to the Accused,
routinely conscripted, enlisted and/or used boys and girls under the age of 15 to participate
in active hostilities". The Accused is thus charged with conscripting or enlisting children
under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups, or using them to participate actively
in hostilities ("conscripting, enlisting or using child soldiers"), an ‘other serious violation of
international humanitarian law’, punishable under Article 4(c) of the Statute.1053
439. In addition to the chapeau requirements of other serious violations of international
humanitarian law pursuant to Article 4 of the Statute, the following elements of the crime of
conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into armed forces or groups, or
using children under the age of 15 years to actively participate in hostilities must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt:
11151 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 698. See also Rome Statute, Elements of Crimes, Article 7(l)(k);
Prosecutor v. Kunarac, Kovac and Vukovic, IT-96-23 and IT-96-23/1-A, Judgement (AC), 12 June 2002 [Kordic
and Cerkez Appeal Judgement], para. 117; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement, para. 165; D. Milosevic Trial
Judgement, para. 934; Prosecutor v. Martic, IT-95-11-T, Judgement (TC), I2 June 2007 [Martic Trial
Judgement], para. 83; Blagojevic and Jokic Trial Judgement, para. 626; Galic Trial Judgement, para. 152;
Vasiljevic Trial Judgement, para. 234.
11152 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 699. I
11153 Indictment, para. 22. The Appeals Chamber has held that the offence of recruitment of child soldiers by
way of conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years into an armed force or group and/or using
them to participate activitely in hostilities constitutes a crime under customary international law which entailed
individual criminal responsibility prior to the timeframe of the Indictment. CDF Appeal Judgement, para. 139;
CDF Appeal Decision on Child Recruitment, para. 53. See also AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 731; RUF Trial
Judgement, para. 184.

---- End of Page 159 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / OIL 18 May 2012

3i. The perpetrator conscripted or enlisted one or more persons into an armed force
or group or used one or more persons to actively participate in hostilities;1O54
ii. Such person or persons were under the age of 15 years; 11155
iii. The perpetrator knew or should have known that such person or persons were
under the age of 15 years. 1056
440. The actus reus of the crime can be satisfied by ‘conscripting’ or ‘enlisting’ children
under the age of 15, or by ‘using’ them to participate actively in the hostilities.
441. ‘Conscription’ encompasses any acts of coercion, such as abductions11157 and forced
recruitment of children by an armed group with the purpose of using them to participate
actively in hostilities.1O58
1054 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 729; RUF Trial Judgement, paras 190, 193.
11155 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 729; RUF Trial Judgement, paras 190, 193. See also Rome Statute,
Elements of Crimes, Article 8(2)(b)(xxvi) and Article 8(2)(e)(vii).
11156 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 729; RUF Trial Judgement, paras 190, 193. In setting out the elements of
the offence, the Appeals Chamber in the CDF case also included as a mental element that the accused "knew or
should have known that such person or persons [...] may be trained for or used in combat". See CDF Appeal
Judgement, para. 141; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 190. However, the only source for this additional requirement
is paragraph 46 of the Dissenting Opinion of Justice Robertson to CDF Appeal Decision on Child Recruitment,
see Prosecutor v. Norman, SCSL-04-14-AR72(E)-131-7413/7430, Dissenting Opinion of Justice Robertson to
Appeals Chamber Decision on Child Recruitment, 31 May 2004 [Dissenting Opinion of Justice Robertson to
CDF Appeal Chamber Decision on Child Recruitment], para. 46. As a dissenting opinion, this is in and of itself
not binding on the Trial Judgement. Moreover, in the CDF Appeal Judgement, the Appeals Chamber included
this requirement in the absence of any submissions in that regard by the parties and did not explicitly discuss
why it had included this requirement, beyond citing the dissenting opinion of Justice Robertson. Therefore, the
Trial Chamber notes that the Appeals Chamber's inclusion of this requirement in its discussion of conscription
and enlistment is obiter dicta. The Trial Chamber finds that element is not included in the ICC Statute or ICC
‘Elements of the Crimes’ in relation to these offences, and has no other support in international criminal law. See
ICC Elements of Crimes, 8(2)(b)(xxvi) and 8(2)(e)(vii); ICC Statute, Article 2(b)(xxvi) and Article 2(e)(vii).
Moreover, it is evident from the Statutes of the SCSL and ICC, as well as from the relevant provisions of the
Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, that the prohibition against conscripting and enlisting children
in armed forces is absolute and not dependant on the purpose behind the conscription or enlistment. The
rationale behind these provisions, as contemplated by the ICC, is to keep children under the age of 15 years away
from armed conflicts to ensure their safety. See Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, ICC-01/04-01/06,
Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, 29 January 2007 [Lubanga Confirmation of Charges Decision], para.
260, referring to ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of
12 August 1949, Geneva, Sandoz, Swinarski and Zimmerman (eds), 1986, p. 925, para. 3187. The Trial
Chamber therefore concludes that this additional requirement should not be included in the elements of the
crimes of conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 years.
11157 See Report of the Secretary-General on the Establishment of the Special Court para. 18: "While the
defmition of the crime as ‘conscripting’ or ‘enlisting’ connotes an administrative act of putting one's name on a
list and formal entry into the armed forces, the elements of the crime under the proposed Statute of the Special
Court are: (a) abduction, which in the case of children of Sierra Leone was the original crime and is in itself a
crime under common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions; [...]". This proposal was however rejected by the
Security Council.

---- End of Page 160 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T J OA 18 May 2012
\

_§%:z.S3.
442. ‘Enlistment’ entails accepting and enrolling individuals when they volunteer to join
an armed force or group. [059 Enlistment need not be a formal process, and may include "any
conduct accepting the child as part of the [armed group]. Such conduct would include
making him participate in combat operations".m°O Conscription and enlistment are both
types of recruitment,m6l and while conscription involves an element of express
compulsionm`2 or coercion, this element is absent in enlistment.m°3
443. The crime of enlisting or conscripting "is an offence of a continuing character —
referred to by some courts as a continuous crime and by others as a permanent crime".m°4
The crime of conscripting or enlisting children under the age of 15 continues to be
committed as long as a child remains in the armed force or group and consequently ceases to
be committed when the child leaves the armed group or reaches the age of 15 years. [065
444. ‘Using’ children to participate actively in the hostilities encompasses putting their
lives directly at risk in combat,m6° but may also include participation in activities linked to
combat such carrying loads for the fighting faction, finding and/or acquiring food,
ammunition or equipment, acting as decoys, carrying messages, making trails or finding
routes, manning checkpoints or acting as human shields.lO67 Whether a child is actively
participating in hostilities in such situations will be assessed on a case-by—case basis.
1058 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 734.
1059 CDF Appeal Judgement, para. 140, quoting AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 735. See also Dissenting
Opinion of Justice Robertson to CDF Appeal Chamber Decision on Child Recruitment, para. 5. See also
Lubanga Confirmation of Charges Decision. para. 247.
1060 CDF Appeal Judgement, para. 144.
1061 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 184.
1062 Compulsion would include conscription through constitutional or legislative powers in the context of
otherwise lawful governments. See RUF Trial Judgement, para. 186.
1063 CDF Appeal Judgement. para. 140; AFRC Trial Judgement, paras 734-735. This distinction has also been
adopted by the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court. See Lubanga Decision on Confirmation
of Charges, paras’246—247.
·m°4 Lubanga Confirmation of Charges, para. 248.
1065 Lubanga Confirmation of Charges, para. 248. See also AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 39.
1066 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 736, referring to Dissenting Opinion of Justice Robertson to CDF Appeal
Chamber Decision on Child Recruitment, para. 5.
1067 AF RC Trial Judgement, para. 737. See also Report of the Preparatory Committee on the Establishment of
an International Criminal Court, A/CONF. 183/2/Add. 1, 14 April 1998, p. 21 at footnote 12.

---- End of Page 161 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T qik 18 May 2012 m

zziga
6. Count 10: Abductions and Forced Labour {Article 2 {C) of the Statute;
445. The Accused is charged under Count 10 with enslavement, a crime against humanity,
punishable under Article 2(c) of the Statute.[O68
446. In addition to the chapeau requirements of Crimes against Humanity pursuant to
Article 2 of the Statute, the following specific elements of the crime of enslavement must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt:
i. The perpetrator exercised any or all of the powers attaching to the right of
ownership over one or more persons, such as by purchasing, selling, lending or
bartering such a person or persons, or by imposing on them a similar deprivation
of liberty;
ii. The perpetrator exercised these powers intentionally. [069
447. Indicia of enslavement include "control of someone's movement, control of physical
environment, psychological control, measures taken to prevent or deter escape, force, threat
of force or coercion, duration, assertion of exclusivity, subjection to cruel treatment and
abuse, control of sexuality and forced labour". [070 "Lac1< of consent" is not an element of the
crime of enslavement, but may be relevant from an evidentiary perspective.[07[ There is no
requisite duration of the relationship between the Accused and the victim which must exist
in order to establish enslavement, but duration may be relevant in determining the quality of
the relationship. [072
[068 Indictment, paras 23-27. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this crime was a part of customary
international law at the time of its alleged commission. See AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 743; RUF Trial
Judgement, para. 196; Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement, paras 519-537, 539; Kunarac et al Appeal Judgement,
para. 129.
[069 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 749. See also Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 350; Report of the
Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court, Einalised Draft Text for the Elements of the
Crimes, New-York, 13-31 March 2000/12-30 June 2000 [ICC Elements of the Crimes], p. 10, noting that "[i]t is
understood that such deprivation of liberty may, in some circumstances, include exacting forced labour or
otherwise reducing a person to a servile status as defined in the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of
Slavery, the Slave Trade, and Institutions and Practices Similar to Slavery of 1956".
[070 Kunarac et al. Trial Judgement, para. 543, cited with approval by the Appeals Chamber in Kunarac et al.
Appeal Judgement, para. 119. See also AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 745.
[Om AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 746, referring to Kunarac er al. Appeal Judgement, para. 120.
[072 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 200, referring to Kunamc et. al. Appeal Judgement, para. 121.

---- End of Page 162 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T // GA 18 May 2012

35159
448. In order to establish forced labour as enslavement, the relevant consideration is
whether "the relevant persons had no choice as to whether they would work",lO73 which is a
factual detennination that must be made in light of the indicia of enslavement identified.
However, the subjective belief of labourers that they were forced to work is not sufficient to
establish forced labour, but must be supported by objective evidence. Hm
449. The Prosecution submits that in relation to the mental elements for this offence, it
must be established that the perpetrator "either intended enslavement or acted in the
reasonable knowledge that it was likely to occur", as this approach would be consistent with
the mental elements of other crimes in the Statute, the approach of Trial Chamber I, and the
ICC Statute}075
450. However, the Trial Chamber notes that this requirement is not supported by the
AFRC Trial Judgement, which was not overturned on appeal on this point, nor by the
jurisprudence of the Appeals Chamber of the ICTY.lO76 Such an expansion of the mental
elements requirement/mens rea is unwarranted, as it is difficult to envisage what the
requirement of "acting in the reasonable knowledge that enslavement was likely to occur"
would entail in the context of enslavement where the actus reus requires exercising the
powers of` ownership.
7. Count ll: Pillage (Article 3gf] of the Statute]
451. The Accused is charged under Count ll with pillage, a violation of Additional
Protocol II, punishable under Article 3(f) of the Statute. Nm
452. In addition to the chapeau requirements of Violations of Article 3 Common to the
Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II pursuant to Article 3 of the Statute, the
following specific elements of the crime of pillage must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
1073 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 202, citing Krnojclac Trial Judgement, para. 359. See also Prosecutor v.
Krrzojelac, IT-97-25-A, Judgement (AC), 17 September 2003 [Krnojelac Appeal Judgement], paras 194-195.
1074 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 202, referring to Krnojelac Appeal Judgement, para. 195.
_ 1075 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 1064.
1076 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 749; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 122.
W7 Indictment, paras 28-31. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this crime was a part of customary
international law at the time of its alleged commission. See AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 751: Prosecutor v.
Kordié and Cerkez, IT-95-14/2-T, Judgement (TC), 26 February 2001 [Kordié and Cer/cez Trial Judgement],
paras 351-353 (see also Kordié and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 77).

---- End of Page 163 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T % fm 18 May 2012

Zan; 2-
i. The perpetrator appropriated property;
ii. The appropriation was without the consent of the owner;
iii. The perpetrator intended to deprive the owner of the property. 1078
453. Article 3(f) of the Statute contains a general prohibition against pillage which covers
both organised or systematic appropriation and the isolated acts of individuals,11)79 and
extends to all types of property, including both public and private property. 1080
C. Law on Individual Criminal Responsibility
1. Responsibility Pursuant to Article 6g 1 [ of the Statute
454. Article 6(l) of the Statute provides:
A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the
planning, preparation or execution of a crime referred to in Aiticles 2 to 4 of the present
Statute shall be individually responsible for the crime.
455. The lndictment cumulatively charges the Accused with the crimes in Counts 1
through ll under different modes of liability. lt further charges that "the Accused, by his
acts or omissions, is individually criminally responsible pursuant to Article 6(l) of the
Statute for the crimes referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the Statute, as alleged in the
Second Amended lndictment, which crimes the Accused planned, instigated, ordered,
committed, or in whose planning, preparation or execution the Accused otherwise aided and
abetted, or which crimes amounted to or were involved within a common plan, design or
purpose in which the Accused participated, or were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of
such common plan, design or purpose".1O81
(a) Committing
456. The Trial Chamber notes that the Prosecution does not allege that the Accused
physically or directly committed any charged crime as a principal perpetrator. 1082
1078 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 755. See also Kordié and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 79 and 84.
1079 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 754; Celibiéi Trial Judgement, para. 590.
11180 Celibiéi Trial Judgement, para. 590.
1081 Indictment, para. 33.
11182 See Prosecution Final Trial Brief para. 48.

---- End of Page 164 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—O1—T Jin , 18 May 2012 E
1;/

gglg}
(b) Committing through Participation in a Joint Criminal Enterprise
457. The Indictment charges the Accused with the basic ("within") and extended
("foreseeable") forms of J CE}083 The following common elements have to be established:
i. A plurality of persons;
ii. The existence of a common plan, design or purpose which amounts to or
involves the commission of a crime provided for in the Statute;
iii. Participation of the accused in the common plan, design or purpose. mm
458. The principle that an individual may be held responsible based on participation in a
joint criminal enterprise is established in customary international law. M5
459. The plurality of persons need not be "organised in a military, political or
administrative stmcture"l086 but it needs to be demonstrated that the plurality of persons
acted in concert with each other. While the plurality of persons must be identified, it is not
necessary to identify by name each of the persons involved, and depending on the
circumstances of the case, it can be sufficient to refer to categories or groups of persons. 1087
460. With respect to the requirement of the existence of a common purpose, the Appeals
Chamber has held that "the requirement that the common plan, design or purpose of a joint
criminal enterprise is inherently criminal means that it must either have as its objective a
crime within the Statute, or contemplate crimes within the Statute as the means of achieving
mg} Indictment, para. 33.
lm Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24198; Taylor Decision on Pleading of JCE in Indictment,
para. 67; Tadié Appeal Judgement, para. 227.
{OSS RUF Trial Judgement, para. 253; Tadic Appeal Judgement, paras. 220, 226; Prosecutor v. Milutinovié,
Sainovié and Ojdanic, lT-99-37-AR72, Decision on Dragoljub Ojdanié's Motion Challenging Jurisdiction - Joint
Criminal Enterprise, 21 May 2003 [Ojdanié Appeal Decision on JCE], para. 29.
lm Tadié Appeal Judgement, para. 227; Stakié Appeal Judgement, para. 64; Prosecutor v. Dordevié, IT-05-
87/1-T, Judgement (TC), 23 February 2011 [Dordevié Trial Judgement], para.l86l.
IW Prosecutor v. Krajisnik, IT-00-39-A, Judgement (AC), 17 March 2009 [Kmlmk Appeal Judgement], para.
156; Prosecutor v. Limaj, Bala and Musliu, IT-03-66-A, Judgement (AC), 27 September 2007 [Limaj Appeal
Judgement], para. 99; Prosecutor v. Brdjanin, IT-99-36-A, Judgement (AC), 3 April 2007 [B"k""" Appeal
Judgement], para. 430.

---- End of Page 165 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T KT 18 May 2012
wm

Eszss
its objective".lO88 The plan need not have been previously arranged or formulated, but may 1
materialize contemporaneously and be inferred from the facts. [089
461. The Accused's participation in the common plan need not involve the commission of
a specific crime, but may take the form of assistance in or contribution to the common
pl3n‘lO9O
462. The Prosecution submits that the "law may or may not require that the Accused's
contribution be significant", referring to ICTY jurisprudence as authority for the position
that the contribution need not be significant.lO9l The Defence, on the other hand, submits
that the contribution must have "substantially assisted or significantly affected" the
enterprise's goals, and that the Accused's participation must be "indispensable for the
achievement of the final result". Hm
463. The Trial Chamber notes, however, that contrary to the parties’ submissions, it is
established law that it is not required that the Accused's participation in the common plan is
necessar or substantial, but he must have made at least a "si ificant" contribution to the
Y gn
common purpose. IOQ3
464. It is also possible for an Accused to withdraw from the joint criminal enterprise after
which point, he will not bear responsibility for the acts of the other members of the
lm AFRC Appeal Judgement, paras 76, 80. See also Taylor Appeal Decision on Pleading of JCE in
Indictment, para. 25; RUF Appeal Judgement, para. 296.
1089 Krajisnjk Appeal Judgement, para. 184; Tadié Appeal Judgement, para. 227.
1090 Krajisnik Appeal Judgement, para. 215; Kvocka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 99.
[091 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 581, referring to Kvocka et al. Appeal Judgement, paras 97, 421, and
the Krajisnik Appeal Judgement, para. 680. However, the Prosecution submits that in any event, Taylor's
participation reaches the threshold of "significant".
1092 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 147; Prosecutor v. Taylor, SCSL-03-01, Transcript 11 March 2011, pp.
49580, 49594-49595, where the Defence submits that the contribution must be "substantial".
[093 RUF Appeal Judgement, para. 401; Brdanin Appeal Judgement, para. 430; Krajisnik Appeal Judgement,
para. 215. See also RUF Trial Judgement, para. 261. The Trial Chamber notes that, contrary to the Prosecution's
submission, the Krajisnik Appeals Judgement does not provide support, at paragraph 680 for the proposition that
the contribution need not be significant, and specifically states, both in that paragraph and in paragraph 215 that
the contribution must be at least significant. Moreover, in Kvocka, the Appeals Chamber arguably takes the
position not that the threshold for the Accused's contribution is lower than "significar1t" but that in fact it is
higher, and must be "substantial". However, the Trial Chamber notes that this has been superseded by the more
recent Brdjanin and Krajisnik Appeals Judgements, in which the Appeals Chamber has held that the contribution
need not be substantial, but must be at least significant. The Trial Chamber notes that the Defence does Hot
provide any authorities in support of its position that the contribution must be substantial, and has cited only a
textbook, but no jurisprudence, in support of its submission that the Accused's participation should be
"indispensable for the achievement of the final result". See Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 147, citing Antonio
Cassesse, International Criminal Law, p. 183 (Oxford University Press, 2003).

---- End of Page 166 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-O1-T // QL 18 May 2012 j

.3%2Sq
ou .1094 The identit of the other erson or ersons makin u the luralit ma chan e
sr P Y P P g P P Y Y g
over the course of the existence of the joint criminal enterprise as participants enter or
withdraw from it.IO95 The principal perpetrator need not be a member of the joint criminal
enterprise, but may be used as a tool by one of the members of the joint criminal
enterprise. 'O96
465. The following mental elements are required for the first form of J CE in order for the
Accused to be held liable for crimes falling within the common purpose of the J CE:
i. The Accused intended to commit the crime or underlying offence, and this intent
must be shared with the other members of the joint criminal enterprise. I097
466. The following mental elements are required for the third fomi of JCE, in order for
the Accused to be held liable for a crime that falls outside of the common purpose of the
J CE, but is a natural and foreseeable consequence of the common purpose:
i. The Accused intended to take art in and contribute to the common langmqg
P P
ii. The Accused had sufficient knowledge that the additional crime might be
perpetrated by a member of the group, or a person used by a member of the
group, and willingly took the risk by continuing to participate in the common
plan 1099
467. With respect to the third fomi of J CE, the Defence submits that the Trial Chamber
should follow the approach of the Appeals Chamber of the STL and hold that there can be
IOQ4 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 262; Blagojevié and Jokié Trial Judgement, paras 700-701. See also United
States v. Greifelt et al., U.S. Military Tribunal, Judgement, 10 March 1948, in Trials of War Criminals before the
Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10 (1951), Vol. V, pp. 115, 140-141 [RuSHA
Case]; United States of America v. Josef Altstoetter, et al. (Case 3), U.S. Military Tribunal, October 1946 · April
1949, in Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10
(1951), vol. lll, [Justice Case], pp. 1083, 1086-1087
'°"5 ibid.
M6 RUF Appeal Judgement, para. 401; Krajisnik Appeal Judgement, para. 225; Brdanin Appeal Judgement,
paras 412, 430; Prosecutor v. Martié, IT-95-1 1-A, Judgement (AC), 8 October 2008 [Manic Appeal Judgement],
para. 168.
Hm Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24198; Brdanin Appeal Judgement, para. 365.
Im Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24198; see also Tadié Appeal Judgement, para. 228;
Dordevié Trial Judgement, para. 1865.
IW) Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24198. See also Martié Appeal Judgement, para. 83; Kvocka
et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 83; Dordevié Trial Judgement, para. 1865.

---- End of Page 167 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / JQ 18 May 2012

g%').€c:O
no liability for specific intent crimes such as terrorism under the third form of JCE.IIII0 The
Prosecution did not address this issue in its submissions.
468. The Trial Chamber notes that the jurisprudence of the ICTY allows for convictions
under JCE lll for genocide and persecution as a crime against humanity even though those
crimes require specific intent.IIOI However, the Appeals Chamber of the STL has diverged
from this jurisprudence, on the basis that it results in the legal anomaly that "a person could
be convicted as a (co)perpetrator for a dolus specialis crime without possessing the requisite
dolus specialis I III2 lt held that "the better approach under international criminal law is not
to allow convictions under J CE lll for special intent crimes like terrorism", IIO3 and to
instead treat such an offender as an aider and abettor.I IO4 The Trial Chamber concurs with
the reasoning of the STL Appeals Chamber and accordingly finds that the Accused may not
be held liable under the third form of J CE for specific intent crimes such as terrorism.
(c) Planning
469. Planning consists of the following physical and mental elements: I IOS
i. The accused, alone or with others, intentionally designed an act or omission
constituting the crimes charged;I IO6
ii. With the intent that a crime or underlying offence be committed in the execution
of that design, or with the awareness of the substantial likelihood that a crime or
underlying offence would be cormnitted in the execution of that design. I Im
IIOO Defence Response, para. 171, referring toASTL Appeal Decision, paras 248-249; Prosecutor v. Taylor,
SCSL-03-01-T, Transcript 11 March 2011, pp. 49615-49617.
IIOI Prosecutor v. Brdanin, IT-99-36-A, Decision on lnterlocutory Appeal, 19 March 2004, paras 5-10; Stakic
J
Appeal Judgement, para. 38; Prosecutor v. Milosevic, IT-02-54-T, Decision on Motion for Judgement of
Acquittal, 16 June 2004 [Milosevic Decision on Motion for Acquittal], para. 291; Prosecutor v. Popovic et al.,
IT-05-88-T, Judgement(TC), 10 June 2010 [Popovic Trial Judgement], paras 1195, 1332, 1427, 1733-1735.
II02 STL Appeal Decision, para. 248.
II03 STL Appeal Decision, para. 249. 1
IIO4 STL Appeal Decision, para. 249. The Appeals Chamber clarified that the perpetrator should only be held
liable as an aider and abettor "provided of course that all other necessary conditions are met".
IIII5 The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this mode of liability was a part of customary international law at the
time of the alleged commission of the crimes charged against the Accused. AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 761;
RUF Trial Judgement, para. 246; Tadic Trial Judgement, para. 669.
IIO6 Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24199. The accused need only design an "act or
omission"—and not necessarily a crime or underlying offence per se—if he has the intent that a crime or
underlying offence be committed in execution of the plan, or if he is aware of the substantial likelihood that a
crime or underlying offence will be committed. Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 31, 976.

---- End of Page 168 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / qw 18 May 2012

$#5:.6 (
470. While the Prosecution need not prove that the crime or underlying offence with
which the accused is charged would not have been perpetrated but for the Accused's plan,
the plan must have been a factor "substantially contributing to [...] criminal conduct
constituting one or more statutory crimes that are later perpetrated". 1 108
(d) lnstigating
471. lnstigating consists of the following physical and mental elements:1 109 V
i. The accused, through either an act or an omission, prompted another to act in a
particular way,] I 10
ii. With the intent that a crime or underlying offence be committed as a result of
such prompting, or with the awareness of the substantial likelihood that a crime
or underlying offence would be committed as the result of such prompting.] 1 H
472. The Accused's prompting may be implicit, written or otherwise non-verbal,m2 and
does not require that the accused have "effective control" over the perpetrator or
lm Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24199. The standard of "awareness of the substantial
likelihood" was first articulated by the Appeals Chamber in Blaskié in respect of ordering under Article 7(l).
After undertaking a comparative analysis of the standards of recklessness and dolus eventualis in several national
legal systems, the Chamber held as follows:
[1]t appears that under the Trial Chamber's standard, any military commander who issues an order would be
criminally responsible, because there is always a possibility that violations could occur. The Appeals Chamber
considers that an awareness of a higher likelihood of risk and a volitional element must be incorporated in the
legal standard.
Prosecutor v. Blaskié, 1T-95-14-A, Judgement (AC), 29 July 2004 [Blaskié Appeal Judgement], para. 41
(emphasis added); Kordié and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 26, 31; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para.
479; Prosecutor v. Semanza, [CTR-97-20-T, Judgement and Sentence (TC), 15 May 2003 [Semanza Trial
Judgement], para. 380 (planning "envisions one or more persons formulating a method of design or action,
procedure, or arrangement for the accomplishment of a particular crime"). See also Rule 98 Decision, Transcript
4 May 2009, p. 24199.
NOS Kordié and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 26.
Hog The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this mode of liability was a part of customary international law at the
time of the alleged commission of the crimes charged against the Accused. AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 761;
RUF Trial Judgement, para. 246; Tadic Trial Judgement, para. 669.
H10 The accused need only prompt another to "act in a particular way"——and not necessarily to commit a
crime or underlying offence per se—if he has the intent that a crime or underlying offence be committed in
response to such prompting, or if he is aware of the substantial likelihood that a crime or underlying offence will
be committed. Kvocka et al. Trial Judgement, para. 252.
HH AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 770, referring to Kordié and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 29, 32;
Brdanin Trial Judgement, para. 269. See also Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24199.
lm Brdanin Trial Judgement, para. 269; Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 280.

---- End of Page 169 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—O3-O1-T / 18 May 2012

3;~.<¤:>..
perpetrators.III3 The Accused's prompting may consist of a positive act, but may also be
accomplished by omission.I I I4
473. While the Accused's prompting must have been a factor "substantially contributing
to the conduct of another person committing the crime", the Prosecution need not prove that
the crime or underlying offence would not have been perpetrated but for the prompting of
the Accused. I I I5
(e) Ordering
474. Ordering consists of the following physical and mental elements: I I I6
i. The Accused intentionally instructed another to carry out an act or engage in an
omission,I I I7
ii. With the intent that a crime or underlying offence be committed in the execution
of those instructions, or with the awareness of the substantial likelihood that a
crime or underlying offence would be committed in the execution of those
instructions. I I IB
475. While the Prosecution need not prove that there existed a formal superior-
subordinate relationship between the accused and perpetrator,III9 it must provide "proof of
III3 Semanza v. Prosecutor, ICTR-97-20-A, Judgement (AC), 20 May 2005 [Semanza Appeal Judgement],
para. 257. In order to have "effective control", the perpetrator must have the material ability to prevent and/or
punish the commission of the instigated crimes or underlying offences. Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 197.
III4 Brdanin Trial Judgement, para. 269; Galié Trial Judgement, para. l68.
III5 Kordié and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 27; Nahimana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 480; Kvocka et
al. Trial Judgement, para. 252 (holding that it must be shown that "the conduct of the accused was a clear
contributing factor to the conduct of the other person(s)"); Kordié and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 387
(holding that "the contribution of the accused [must have] in fact had an effect on the commission of the crime");
Tadié Trial Judgement, para. 674 (holding that "the prosecution must prove that there was participation in that
the conduct of the accused contributed to the commission of the illegal act").
III6 The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this mode of liability was a part of customary international law at the
time of the alleged commission of the crimes charged against the Accused. AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 761;
RUF Trial Judgement, para. 246; Tadié Trial Judgement, para. 669.
III7 The accused need only instruct another to carry out an act or engage in an omission——and not necessarily
a crime or underlying offence per se——if he has the intent that a crime or underlying offence be committed in the
execution of the order, or if he is aware of the substantial likelihood that a crime or underlying offence will be
committed. Milutinovié et al. Trial Judgement, footnote 94.
III8 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 773, referring to Kordié and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, paras 28, 30;
Martié Appeal Judgement, paras 22l-222. See also Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24200.
IIIQ AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 772, referring to Kordié and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 28; Semanza
Appeal Judgement, para. 361, See also Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24200.

---- End of Page 170 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03—01~T / M 18 May 2012 a

2,<;,1é>'$
some osition of authorit on the art of the Accused that would com el another to commit
P Y P P
a crime in following the Accused's order".H2O Such authority may be informal and of a
temporary nature,l I2] and consequently, the order issued by the Accused need not be legally
binding upon the physical perpetrator or intermediary perpetrator.
476. The order need not take any particular form.l U2 However, ordering requires a
positive act and cannot be committed by omissionlm Because the ICTY Appeals Chamber
held that the Accused need merely "instmct another person to commit an offence",l U4 it is
clear that liabilit for orderin ma ensue where the Accused issues, asses down, or
Y 8 Y P
otherwise transmits the order, and that he need not use his position of authority to
"convince" the perpetrator to commit the crime or underlying offence.H25 Furthermore, the
Accused need not give the order directly to the physical perpetrator,l U6 and an intermediary
lower in the chain of command who passes the order on to the perpetrator may also be held
res onsible for orderin the underl in offence as lon as he has the re uisite state of
P 8 Y 8 8 fl
mma? 127
477. While the issuance of the order must have been a factor substantially contributing to
the physical perpetration of a crime or underlying offence,H28 the Prosecution need not
prove that the crime or underlying offence would not have been perpetrated but for the
Accused's order.H29
478. The Defence submits that while Trial Chambers in the AFRC, RUF and CDF cases
have held that the Accused's position of authority can be inferred or implied, these legal
findings are based on a misreading of the cited authorities, which instead provide only that
H20 Semanza Appeal Judgement, para. 361. See also Kordié and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 28,
lm Semanza Appeal Judgement, paras 363, 364 (finding that the accused—a civilian mayor with no formal
position in the Rwandan military hierarchy—had the necessary authority over Interahamwe fighters to render
him liable for ordering them to kill Tutsis at Musha church, and that the Trial Chamber had erred in not
convicting him under this form of responsibility). See also Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24200.
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 772, referring to Blaskic Trial Judgement, para. 281; Prosecutor v. Strngar,
lT—01—42—T, Judgement (TC), 31 January 2005 [Strugar Trial Judgement], para. 331.
lm Galié Appeal Judgement, para. 176.
lm Kordic and Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 28.
M25 Milutinovié et al. Trial Judgement, para. 86.
M6 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 772, referring to Blaskié Trial Judgement, para. 282; Kordié and Cerkez
Trial Judgement, para. 388.
lm Prosecutor v. Kupreskié, Kupreskié, Kupreskié, Josipovié, Papié and Santié, lT—95—16—T, Judgement
(TC), 14 January 2000 [Kupreskié et al. Trial Judgement], paras 827, 862.
lm Strugar Trial Judgement, para, 332; Galié Trial Judgement, para. 169; Tadié Trial Judgement, para. 674.

---- End of Page 171 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T 4 18 May 2012 w

3%’·b`+
the existence of an order may be proved through circumstantial evidence.ll3O Further, it
argues that the Appeals Chamber in the RUF case failed to make any distinction between an
inference of authority and an inference of an order in finding that "ordering can be
established by direct or circumstantial evidence". I 13 I
479. The Defence therefore submits that while the existence of an order may be proved
through circumstantial evidence, where this is the only reasonable inference, the Prosecution
must furnish direct evidence establishing that, at the material time, the Accused held the
required position of authoritylm lt submits that, even if the Trial Chamber finds that
circumstantial evidence can establish the Accused's position of authority, it should "in the
interests of justice demand independent evidence proving the separate elements of the actus
reus of ordering".lm lt submits that the Trial Chamber should not follow recent
jurisprudence which "compounds the elements to the extent that the existence of an
Accused's position of authority has been derived from evidence that the Accused issued
orders". 1 134
480. ln Section 1V(2), "Considerations Regarding the Evaluation of Evidence", the Trial
Chamber holds that it is entitled to rely on circumstantial evidence in cases in which the
only reasonable inference to be drawn from such evidence leads to proof of the guilt of the
Accusedlm Moreover, the Trial Chamber finds that the Appeals Chamber's statement that
"ordering can be established by direct or circumstantial evidence" implies that each element
of the actus reus of ordering can be proved by means of either type of evidence.
481. The Trial Chamber finds accordingly that, as with all other elements of crimes or
modes of liability, the authority of the Accused may be proved by either direct or
circumstantial evidence. The Trial Chamber further finds that evidence that the Accused has
issued orders may be considered as circumstantial evidence that, inter alia, establishes that
the Accused was in a position of authority.
Im Strugar Trial Judgement, para. 332.
1130 Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 127, referring to AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 772; CDF Trial
Judgement, para. 225; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 273.
IU I Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 128, referring to RUF Appeal Judgement, para. 164.
Im Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 127.
Im Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 129.
Im Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 130.
1135 Evaluation of Evidence: Law Applicable to the Assessment of Evidence.

---- End of Page 172 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T / QW 18 May 2012 M

3%:>.é¤S'
(f) Aiding and abetting
482. Aiding and abetting consists of the following physical elements: I I36
i. The Accused rovided ractical assistance, encoura ement, or moral su ort to
P P S PP
the perpetration of a crime or underlying offenceI I37 and
ii. Such practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support had a substantial
effect upon the commission of a crime or underlying offence. I I38
483. An Accused may aid and abet not only by means of positive action, but also through
omission. I I39
484. The Accused may aid and abet at one or more of the "planning, preparation or
execution" stages of the crime or underlying offence. I MO The lending of practical assistance,
encoura ement, or moral su ort ma occur before, durin , or after the crime or underl in
S PP Y S Y S
offence occurs. I I4I The actus reus of aiding and abetting does not require "specific
direction".II42 No evidence of a plan or agreement between the aider and abettor and the
perpetrator is required,I I43 except in cases of ex post facto aiding and abetting where "at the
time of the planning, preparation or execution of the crime, a prior agreement exists between
II3° The Trial Chamber is satisfied that this mode of liability was a part of customary international law at the
time of the alleged commission of the crimes charged against the Accused. AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 761;
RUF Trial Judgement, para. 246; Tadic Trial Judgement, para. 669.
Im AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 775, citing Blaskié Appeal Judgement, para. 46; Prosecutor v. Perisié, lT—
04-08-T, Judgement (TC), 6 September 201 1 [Perisié Trial Judgement], para. 126; Vasiljevic Appeal Judgement,
para. 102. See also Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24200. Aiding and abetting actually constitute
two discrete activities. "Aiding" consists of giving practical assistance to the physical perpetrator or intermediary
perpetrator, and "abetting" consists of "facilitating the commission of an act by being sympathetic thereto"—in
other words, giving encouragement or moral support to the physical perpetrator or intermediary perpetrator.
Prosecutor v. Akayesu, ICTR—96-4—T, Judgement (TC), September 1998 [Akayesu Trial Judgement], para. 484.
See also Kvoéka et al. Trial Judgement, para. 254; Blaskié Trial Judgement, para. 284 footnote 510.
II38 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 775, citing Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 46; Perisié Trial Judgement,
para.l26; Vasiljevié Appeal Judgement, para. 102. See also Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24200.
II39 Prosecutor v. Mrksié, IT—95—l3/1-A, Judgement (AC), 5 May 2009 [Mrksié Appeal Judgement], para.
135; Nahjmana et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 482.
IMO AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 775, citing Blaskié Appeal Judgement, paras 45, 48.
IILII RUF Trial Judgement, para. 278. See also Prosecutor v. Blagojevié and Jokié, lT—02—60—A, Judgement-
(AC), 9 May 2007 [Blagojevié and Jokié Appeal Judgement], para. 127; Blaskié Appeal Judgement, para. 48.
II42 Perisié Trial Judgement, para. 126, citing Mrksié Appeal Judgement, para. 159.
II43 Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 229; Brdanin Appeal Judgement, para. 263; Prosecutor v. Simié, IT—95—9—
T, Judgement (TC), 17 October 2003 [Simié et al. Trial Judgement], para. 162.

---- End of Page 173 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-O3-01-T J QM ig May 3012

Bgneb
the principal and the person who subsequently aids and abets the commission of the
Cum 8,,.1144
485. Although the practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support provided by the
Accused must have a substantial effect upon the commission of the crime or underlying
offence,l M5 the Prosecution need not prove that the crime or underlying offence would not
have been perpetrated but for the Accused's contribution. I 146
486. The mental elements of aiding and abetting require that:
i. The Accused performed an act with the knowledge that such act would assist the
commission of a crime or underlying offence, or that he was aware of the
substantial likelihood that his acts would assist the commission of underlying
offencegl M7 and
ii. The Accused is aware of` the essential elements of the crime committed by the
principal offender, including the state of mind of the principal offender. I M8
487. Although the lending of practical assistance, encouragement, or moral support must
itself be intentional, the intent to commit the crime or underlying offence is not required.l M9
Instead, the Accused must have knowledge that his acts or omissions assist the perpetrator in
the commission of the crime or underlying offence.ll5O Such knowledge may be inferred
from the circumstanceslm The Accused must be aware, at a minimum, of the essential
elements of the substantive crime or underlying offence for which he is charged with
lm Blagojevié andJokié Trial Judgement, para. 731.
M45 CDF Appeal Judgement, para. 52; Kvoéka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 90; Blaskié Appeal Judgement,
para. 46; Prosecutor v. Naletilié and Martinovic, lT—98—34—T, Judgement (TC), 31 March 2003 [Naletilié and
Martinovié Trial Judgement], paras 63, 507.
mb Blaskié Appeal Judgement, para. 48; Prosecutor v. Simié, IT—95—9—A, Judgement (AC), 28 November
2006 [Simié etal. Appeal Judgement], para. 85.
lm RUF Appeal Judgement, para. 546; Blaskié Appeal Judgement, para. 49; Vasiljevié Appeal Judgement,
para. 102; Perisié Trial Judgement, para. 129. See also Rule 98 Decision, Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24200.
mg Blagojevié and Jokié Appeal Judgement, para. 221; Perisié Trial Judgement, para. 129.
M9 See Kunarac et al., Trial Judgement, para. 392. See also Prosecutor v. Krstié, 1T—98—33—A, Judgement
(AC), Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, 19 April 2004 [Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge
Shahabuddeen], para. 66: Intent must always be proved, but the intent of the perpetrator of genocide is not the
same as the intent of the aider and abettor. The perpetrator's intent is to commit genocide. The intent of the
aider and abettor is not to commit genocide; his intent is to provide the means by which the perpetrator, if he
wishes, can realise his own intent to commit genocide.
USO Blaskié Appeal Judgement, para. 49; Vasiljevié Appeal Judgement, para. 102.

---- End of Page 174 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T g Cu 18 May 2012
// V

3 % ze?
responsibility as an aider and abettor.1152 The requirement that the aider and abettor need
merely know of the perpetrator's intent — and need not share it ~ applies equally to
specific—intent crimes or underlying offences such as persecution as a crime against
humanity. 1 153
2. Responsibility Pursuant to Article 6g 3) of the Statute
488. Article 6(3) of the Statute provides:
The fact that any of the acts referred to in articles 2 to 4 of the present Statute was committed by a subordinate
does not relieve his or her superior of criminal responsibility if he or she knew or had reason to know that the
subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior had failed to take the necessary and
reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof. 1
489. ln addition, or alternatively, pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute, the lndictment
charges that "the Accused, while holding positions of superior responsibility and exercising
command and control over subordinate members of the RUF, AFRC, AFRC/RUF Junta or
alliance, and/or Liberian fighters, is individually criminally responsible for the crimes
referred to in Articles 2, 3 and 4 of the [Second Amended lndictment]". It alleges that "the
Accused is responsible for the criminal acts of his subordinates in that he knew or had
reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the
Accused failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to
punish the perpetrators thereof ’.1 15 '1
(a) Elements of Superior Responsibility
490. ln order to establish criminal liability under Article 6(3) of the Statute, three
requirements must be proved beyond reasonable doubt:
i. The existence of a superior-subordinate relationship between the Accused as
superior and the perpetrator of the crime;
1151 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 280; Strugar Trial Judgement, para. 350; Martié Trial Judgement, para. 451.
See also Kvoéka et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 237; Vasiljevié Appeal Judgement, paras 120, 128.
1152 RUF Trial Judgement, para. 280; Blaskié Appeal Judgement, para. 50; Simié et al. Appeal Judgement,
para. 86; Tadié Appeal Judgement, para. 229.
1153 Blagojevié and Jokié Appeal Judgement, para. 127; Simié Appeal Judgement, para. 86; Prosecutor v.
Krstié, IT-98-33-A, Judgement (AC), 19 April 2004 [Krstié Appeal Judgement], paras 140, 143; Vasiljevié
Appeal Judgement, paras 142-143; Krnojelac Trial Judgement, para. 489.
1154 Indictment, para. 34.

---- End of Page 175 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 4/ - 18 May 2012

3 % 2..é>g
ii. The Accused knew or had reason to know that the crime was about to be or had
been committed; and
iii. The Accused failed to take necessary and reasonable measures to prevent the
crime or punish the perpetrators thereof I ISS
491. The principle that an individual may be held responsible as a superior in the course
0f an armed conflict is established in customary international law.ll56 The scope of Article
6(3) does not Only include military commanders, but also political leaders and other civilian
superiors in possession of authority. I W
492. The responsibility of a superior is not limited to crimes committed by subordinates in
erson, but encom asses an m0de of criminal liabilit roscribed in Article 6 1 of the
P P Y Y P
Statute. It follows that a superior can be held responsible for failure to prevent or punish a
crime which was planned, ordered, instigated or aided and abetted by subordinates.ll58
(b) Existence of a Superior-Subordinate Relationship
493. In order to establish the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship, it must be
demonstrated that the superior had "effective control"H59 over his subordinates — i.e. the
M55 APRC Trial Judgement, para. 781, referring to Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 346; See also Prosecutor
v. Oric, IT-03-68-A, Judgement (AC), 3 July 2008 [Oric Appeal Judgement], para. 18; Rule 98 Decision,
Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24201.
H56 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 782, referring to Celebici Trial Judgement, para. 333, stating "[t]hat
military commanders and other persons occupying positions of superior authority may be held criminally
responsible for the unlawful conduct of their subordinates is a well-established norm of customary international
law". See also Prosecutor v. Hadiihasanovic, Alagic and Kubura, IT-01-47-AR72, Decision on lnterlocutory
Appeal Challenging Jurisdiction in Relation to Command Responsibility, 16 July 2003 [Hadiihasanovic et al.
Appeal Decision on Command Responsibility], para. 31, holding that "[i]n the opinion of the Appeals Chamber,
the Trial Chamber was correct in holding, after a thorough examination of the matter, that command
responsibility was at all times material to this case a part of customary international law in its application to war
crimes committed in the course of an internal armed conflict".
H57 APRC Trial Judgement, para. 782, referring to Aleksovski Appeal Judgement, para. 76; Stakié Trial
Judgement, para. 459; Orié Trial Judgement, para. 308; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, ICTR-95-1A-A, Judgement
(Reasons) (AC), 3 July 2002 [Bagilishema Appeal Judgement], para. 51; Kajelijeli v. Prosecutor, ICTR-98-44A-
A, Judgement (AC), 23 May 2005 [Kajelijeli Appeal Judgement], para. 85. See also Rule 98 Decision,
Transcript 4 May 2009, p. 24201.
HSS AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 783, referring to Oric Trial Judgement, paras 301-302. See also Oric
Appeal Judgement, para. 21; Prosecutor v. Boskoski and Tarculovski, IT-04-82-PT, Decision on Prosecution's
Motion to Amend the Indictment and Submission of Proposed Second Amended Indictment and Submission of
Amended Pre-Trial Brief 26 May 2006 [Boskoski and Tarculovski Decision on Amending Indictment], paras 18
et seq. and Prosecutor v. Bagosora, ICTR-98-41-T, Judgement (TC), 18 December 2008 [Bagosora Trial
Judgement], paras 2037, 2064, 2081.
USO Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 256; Brdanin Trial Judgement, para. 276; Oric Trial Judgement, para.
311; Limaj Trial Judgement, para. 522.

---- End of Page 176 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Ou 18 May 2012

Zszba
material ability to prevent or punish the commission of the offence.H60 However, it is
immaterial whether the power of the superior over the subordinates is based on dejure or on
de facto authority.ll6l Possession of de jure authority is neither necessary nor sufficient to
rove effective control, althou it ma be evidentiall relevant to determinin whether
P Y Y E
there is effective control.ll62 Substantial influence over the conduct of others falls short of
effective control. I 163
494. A superior may be held responsible for crimes committed by individuals temporarily
subordinated to him, provided he exercises effective control over them.] 164 Further, superior
responsibility is not excluded by the concurrent responsibility of other superiors in a chain
of commandl 165
495. Identification of the principal perpetrator, particularly by name, is not required to
establish a superior—subordinate relationship. It is sufficient to identify the subordinates as
belonging to a unit or group controlled by the superior.] 166
(c) Actual or imputed Knowledge
496. For a superior to be held responsible pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute, it must
be established that he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit
or had committed such crimes.] 167
HBO AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 784, referring to Halilovié Trial Judgement, para. 58; Orié Appeal
Judgement, para. l59; Celebici Appeal Judgement, para. 256.
Hm Oric Trial Judgement, para. 309, stating that "the broadening of this liability as described above is
supported by the fact that the borderline between military and civil authority can be fluid. This is particularly the
case with regard to many contemporary conflicts where there may be only de facto self-proclaimed governments
and/or de facto armies and paramilitary groups subordinate thereto" (footnotes omitted). See also Kordic and
Cerkez Trial Judgement, paras 419, 422; Kajelijeli Appeal Judgement, para. 87; Naletilié and Martinovié Trial
Judgement, para. 67.
Im Orié Appeal Judgement, paras 91-92.
M3 Celebiéi Appeal Judgement, para. 266; Blagojevié and Jokic Trial Judgement, para. 791; Prosecutor v.
Ntagerura, Bagambiki and Imanishimwe, ICTR-99-46-T, Judgement (TC), 25 February 2004 [Ntagerura et al.
Trial Judgement], para. 628.
N64 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 786, referring to Halilovic Trial Judgement, paras 61, 62; Kunarac Trial
Judgement, para. 399; Orié Trial Judgement, para. 313; Prosecutor v. Aleksovski, IT-95-14/1-T, Judgement
(TC), 25 June 1999 [Aleksovski Trial Judgement], para. 106.
M65 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 786, referring to Blaskic Trial Judgement, paras 296, 302, 303; Krnojelac
Trial Judgement, para. 93; Naletilic Trial Judgement, para. 69; Halilovié Trial Judgement, para. 62.
HM AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 790, referring to Blaskié Appeal Judgement, para. 217; Prosecutor v.
Krnojelac, IT-97-25-PT, Decision on the Defence Preliminary Motion on the Form of the Indictment, 24
February 1999 [Krnojelac Decision on the Form of Indictment], para. 46; Oric Trial Judgement, para. 3 I l.
Hm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 791.

---- End of Page 177 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / 18 May 20l2

2 g’>El·¤
(i) Actual Knowledge
497. Actual knowledge may be defined as the awareness that the relevant crimes were
committed or about to be committed.ll(°8 There is no presumption of such knowledge but, in
the absence of direct evidence, it may be established through circumstantial evidence.ll69
Factors indicative of actual knowledge include, first of all, an individual's superior position
and the superior's geographical and temporal proximity to the crimesgllm also, the type and
scope of crimes, the time during which they occurred, the number and type of troops and
logistics involved, the widespread occurrence of crimes, the tactical tempo of operations, the
modus operandi of similar illegal acts and the officers and staff involved. I m
(ii) Imputed Knowledge
498. In determining whether a superior "had reason to know", or imputed knowledge, that
his or her subordinates were committing or about to commit a crime, it must be shown that
specific information was available which would have put the superior on notice of crimes
committed or about to be committedlm The superior may not be held liable for failing to
acquire such information in the first placelm However, it suffices for the superior to be in
possession of sufficient information, even general in nature, written or oral, of the likelihood
of illegal acts by subordinates.ll74 The superior need only have notice of a risk that crimes
might be carried out and there is no requirement that this be a strong risk or a substantial
likelihoodlm
499. It is clear from the case law referred to above that negligence is insufficient to
attribute imputed knowledge, and that a superior cannot be held liable for having failed in
1168 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 792, referring to Kordié and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 427.
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 792, referring to Kordié and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 427; Celebiéi
Trial Judgement, para. 386. See also Brdanin Trial Judgement, para. 278.
N70 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 792, referring to Aleksovski Trial Judgement, para. 80.
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 792, referring to Celebiéi Trial Judgement, para. 386; Galié Trial
Judgement, para. I74; Limaj Trial Judgement, para. 524; Bagilishema Trial Judgement, para. 968.
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 794, referring to Blaskié Appeal Judgement, para. 62; Celebiéi Appeal
Judgement, para. 24 l.
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 794, referring to Blaskié Appeal Judgement, paras 62-63, Celebiéi Appeal
Judgement, para. 226.
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 794, referring to (ielebiéi Appeal Judgement, para. 238; Celebiéi Trial
Judgement, para. 393; Kordié and Cerkez Trial Judgement, para. 437; Strugar Trial Judgement, para. 370.
mj AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 794; Prosecutor v. Strugar, lT—0l—42—A, Judgement (AC), 17 July 2008
[Strugar Appeal Judgement], para. 304.

---- End of Page 178 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—O3—0l—T QM 18 May 2012

_ 3g'2.’+\
his duty to obtain infomation in the first place.II76 What is required is the superior's
awareness of` infomation which should have prompted him or her to acquire further
knowledge.II77 Responsibility pursuant to Article 6(3) of the Statute will attach when the
superior remains wilfully blind to the infomation that is available to him. I I78
(d) Failure to Prevent or Punish
500. lt must be established that the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable
measures to prevent or punish the crimes of his or her subordinates. These are two distinct
duties: it is the superior's primary duty to intervene as soon as he or she becomes aware of
crimes about to be committed, while taking measures to punish will only suffice if the
superior did not become aware of these crimes until after they were committed. I I79
50l. As regards the duty to prevent the crimes of subordinates, the type of necessary and
reasonable measures a superior must take is a matter of evidence rather than one of
substantive law.II80 Generally, it can be said that the measures required of the superior are
limited to those within his or her material ability under the circumstances,II8I including
those that may lie beyond his or her fonnal powers.I I82 The type and extent of measures to
be taken depend on the degree of effective control exercised by the superior at the relevant
time, and on the severity and imminence of the crimes that are about to be committed.I I83 I
502. The duty to punish only arises once a crime under the Statute has been
committed.II84 A superior is bound to conduct a meaningful investigation with a view to
establish the facts, order or execute appropriate sanctions, or report the perpetrators to the
II7° AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 796, referring to Celibiéi Appeal Judgement, para. 226.
Im AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 796, referring to Orié Trial Judgement, para. 324.
II78 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 796, referring to Halilovié Trial Judgement, para. 69, relying on Celebiéi
Trial Judgement, para. 387.
II79 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 797, referring to Orié Trial Judgement, para. 326; Limaj Trial Judgement,
para. 527; Strugar Trial Judgement, para. 373.
IIBO AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 798, referring to Blaskié Appeal Judgement, paras 72, 77; Celebiéi Trial
Judgement, para. 394. See also Prosecutor v. Hadiihasanovié and Kubura, IT-01-47-A, Judgement (AC), 22
April 2008 [Hadiihasanovié and Kubura Appeal Judgement].
ISI; Halilovié Appeal Judgement, para. 63.
IISI AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 798, referring to Limaj Trial Judgement, para. 528.
II82 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 798, referring to Celebiéi Trial Judgement, para. 395.
IIB} AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 798. referring to Orié Trial Judgement, para. 329.
II84 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 799, referring to Bias/cié Appeal Judgement, paras 83, 85.

---- End of Page 179 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-0l-T @$4 l8 May 2012

Z S Q..°l’9—
competent authorities in case the superior lacks sanctioning powers.H85 According to the
lCTY Appeals Chamber, there is no support in customary international law for the
proposition that a commander can be held responsible for crimes committed by a
subordinate prior to the commander's assumption of command over that subordinate. I H6
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 799, referring to Limaj Trial Judgement, para. 529; Orié Trial Judgement,
para. 336; Strugar Trial Judgement, para. 376. See also Hadiihasanovié and Kubura Appeal Judgement, para.
154; Halilovié Appeal Judgement, para. 182
H86 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 799, referring to Hadiihasanovié et al. Appeal Decision on Command
Responsibility, paras 45-46; but see Partial Dissenting Opinion of Judge Shahabuddeen, para. 43; and see also
Separate and Partially Dissenting Opinion of Judge David Hunt — Command Responsibility Appeal, para. 8. See
also Orié Appeal Judgement, Declaration of Judge Shahabuddeen, paras l6-l7; RUF Trial Judgement, paras
299-306.

---- End of Page 180 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T GN 18 May 2012

3 3 1‘a—3
VI. LAW AND FINDINGS ON THE GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Article 2: Crimes Against Humanity
503. The Accused is charged with Hve counts of crimes against humanity punishable
under Article 2 of the Statute. Specifically, the Accused is charged with murder (Count 2,
rape (Count 4), sexual slavery (Count 5), other inhumane acts (Count 8), and enslavement
(Count 10).
1. Applicable Law
504. Article 2 of the Statute is entitled ‘Crimes against humanity’ and provides as follows:
The Special Court shall have power to prosecute persons who committed the following crimes as part of a
widespread or systematic attack against any civilian population:
a. Murder;
b. Extermination;
c. Enslavement;
d. Deportation;
e. Imprisonment; p
f Torture
g. Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution; forced pregnancy and any other form of sexual violence;
h. Persecution on political, racial, ethnic or religious grounds;
i. Other inhumane acts.
505. In order for liability to be established under Article 2 of the Statute, the acts of the
accused must have formed part of a widespread or systematic attack against any civilian
population. Five chapeau (or general) requirements for crimes against humanity must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
(a) There must be an attack
506. An ‘attack’ may be deHned as a campaign, operation or course of conduct.1187 It is
not limited to the use of armed force but may encompass any mistreatment of any civilian
o u1ation.1188 ‘Attack’ is a conce t different from that of "armed conf1ict" and need not be
P P P
part ofit.1189
1187 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 214; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 77; CDF Trial Judgement, para. 11 1.
11811 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 214; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 77; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement,
para. 86.
11119 AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 214; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 77; Tadic Appeal Judgement, para. 251;
Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 86.

---- End of Page 181 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.—03—01—T OH 18 May 2012

3 rs 2.%%
(b) The attack must be directed against any civilian population
507. Therefore, it must be established that a civilian population was the primary object of
the attack.II9I) A population is considered a "civilian population" if it is predominantly
civilian in nature.II9I There is no requirement that the victims of the underlying crimes be
"civilians", as lon as the attack is directed a ainst the civilian o ulation.IIQ2 It is not
g g P P
required that the entire population be subjected to the attack. The Trial Chamber must,
however, be satisfied that the attack was in fact directed against a civilian "population",
rather than against a limited and randomly selected number of individuals. I I93
508. It is an agreed fact between the Defence and the Prosecution that the terms "civilian"
and "civilian population" throughout the Indictment refer to "persons who took no active
part in the hostilities, or who were no longer taking an active part in the hostilities, including
combatants rendered hors de combat by virtue of injury or wounds, capture or
surrender". I I94
509. With regards to alleged crimes against humanity under Article 2 of the Statute, the
Trial Chamber finds that this definition of "civilian" agreed to by the parties is overly broad
and inconsistent with customary international law. I I95 Referring to principles of international
humanitarian law, the ICTY Appeals Chamber has distinguished between a person hors dc
combat and a civilian:
Persons hors de combat are certainly protected in armed conflicts through Common Article
3 of the Geneva Conventions. This reflects a principle of customary international law. Even
horns dc combat, however, they would still be members of the armed forces of a party to the
conflict and therefore fall under the category of persons referred to in Article 4(A)(1) of the
Third Geneva Convention; as such, they are not civilians in the context of Article 50,
paragraph 1, of Additional Protocol I. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions
supports this conclusion in referring to "[p]ersons taking no active part in the hostilities,
IIQII AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 216; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 80; CDF Trial Judgement, para. 114;
Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 91; Blaskié Appeal Judgement, paras 1 10-115.
IIQI AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 216, referring to Tadié Appeal Judgement, para. 644; RUF Trial
Judgement, para. 83; D. Milosevic Appeal Judgement, paras 50-51; Milutinovié et al. Trial Judgement, para.
146.
Im Mrksié Appeal Judgement, paras 25-33.
Im AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 217; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 85; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement,
para. 90.
IIQ4 Admitted Facts and Law, para. 37.
II95 AF RC Trial Judgement, para. 219.

---- End of Page 182 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-O3-01-T K 18 May 2012

g%·;;,_:l*`S_`
including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors
de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause".l N6
510. The Trial Chamber therefore holds that the term "civilian" must be more narrowly
defined in order to ensure a distinction in an armed conflict between civilians and
combatants no longer participating in hostilities. The fact that the persons are hors de
combat during the commission of a crime, does not render them "civilian" or part of the
"civilian population" for the purposes of Article 2 of the Statute. This distinction is
articularl im ortant in a case where the Prosecution alle es that crimes a ainst humanit
P Y P S S Y
were committed in a situation of armed conflict. I M7
(c) The attack must be widespread or systematic
511. This requirement that an attack must be either widespread or systematic is
disjunctive, so that once either condition is met, it is not necessary to consider whether the
alternative is also satisfiedllgg The term ‘widespread’ refers to the large—scale nature of the
attack and the number of targeted persons, while the term ‘systematic’ refers to the
organised nature of the acts of violence and the improbability of their random
occurrence. I [99 The existence of a plan need not be proved. [200
(d) The acts of the perpetrator must form part of the attack
512. In order for the offence to amount to a crime against humanity, there must be a
sufficient nexus between the unlawful acts of the perpetrator and the attack.l2Ol Although
this nexus depends on the factual circumstances of each case, reliable indicia of a nexus
include the similarities between the perpetrator's acts and the acts occurring within the
attack; the nature of the events and circumstances surrounding the perpetrator's acts; the
lm Galié Appeal Judgement, footnote 437; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, footnote 220 [emphasis added].
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 2 l9.
lm AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 2l5; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 78; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement,
para. 93.
lvm AF RC Trial Judgement, para. 215; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 78; CDF Trial Judgement, para. ll2; and
Cerkez Appeal Judgement, para. 94; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement, para. 95.
mo AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 215; RUF Trial Judgement, para. 79; Kunarac et al. Appeal Judgement,
para. 98; Blaskic Appeal Judgement, para. 120.
ml Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 579.

---- End of Page 183 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T (lm l8 May 20 l2

381%%
temporal and geographic proximity of the perpetrator's acts with the attack; and the nature
and extent of the e etrator's knowled e of the attack when he commits the acts. 12112
P YP 8
513. lt does not suffice that an accused knowingly took the risk of participating in the
implementation of a policy, plan or ideo1ogy.12113 Nevertheless, the accused need not know
the details of the attack or approve of the context in which his or her acts occur;12114 the
accused merely needs to understand the overall context in which his or her acts took
place. 12115 The motives for the accused's participation in the attack are irrelevant; the accused
need only know that his or her acts are parts thereof.12116
514. Findings related to this requirement are addressed in the Findings on the Crimes
section of this Judgement.
(e) The perpetrator must have knowledge that his acts form part of a widespread or
systematic attack directed against a civilian population
515. The mens rea or mental requisite for crimes against humanity is that the perpetrator
of the offence must be aware that a widespread or systematic attack on the civilian
population is taking place and that his action is part of this attack.1201 Evidence of
knowledge depends on the facts of a particular case; thus the manner in which this legal
element may be proved may vary from case to case.121111 However, the perpetrator need not
have been aware of the details of the pre-conceived plan or policy when he committed the
offence and need not have intended to support the regime carrying out the attack on the
civilian population.12119 Findings related to this requirement are addressed in the Findings on
the Crimes section of this Judgement.
1202 Tadié Appeal Judgement, para. 632.
1203 Limaj Trial Judgement, para. 190; Blaskié Appeal Judgement, paras 125-126.
12114 Limaj Trial Judgement, para. 190; Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 102.
1205 Limaj Judgement, para. 190; Kordié Trial Judgement, para. 185.
12116 Limaj Trial Judgement, para. 190; Tadié Appeal Judgement, paras 248, 252; Kunarac Appeal Judgement,
para. 103: "[a]t most, evidence that [acts were committed] for purely personal reasons could be indicative of a
rebuttable assumption that he was not aware that his acts were part of that attack".
1207 Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 121; Tadié Appeal Judgement, para. 255.
1208 Blaskié Appeal Judgement, para. 126.
‘2"" Biaskie mei Judgement, paras 254-257.

---- End of Page 184 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T % @~;§ 18 May 2012

5s 2.*%%-·
Submissions of the Parties
516. The Prosecution submits that the mistreatment of civilians in Sierra Leone was
constant during rebel operations prior to and for the duration of the indictment period.mO ln
order to demonstrate the existence of an attack, the Prosecution primarily relies (i) on
judicially noticed fact (AI), an RUF speech to the nation made on 18 June 1997 apologising
for rebel violence, Foday Sankoh's 1999 speech apologising for "the pain and g1ief" caused
by his "revolution" and deploring rebel actions in his absence and (ii) the Sierra Leone Truth
and Reconciliation Reportml The Prosecution further submits that the attacks in Sierra
Leone were both widespread and systematic, referring to the large number of victims and the
nationwide scope of the attacks, as well as to ofhcial operations, policies and pattems
relating to the mistreatment of civilians.l2l2 The Prosecution also submits that civilians were
the primary targets of mistreatment, as campaigns were directed at terrorising, punishing or
seeking revenge against civiliansmg
517. The Defence has not made any specihc submissions with respect to the chapeau
elements. However, it maintains that the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt
each element of the crime - including the chapeau requirements. m4
Evidence
518. The crimes charged against the Accused allegedly occurred over the course of more
than Eve years, i.e. 30 November 1996 to 18 January 2002. Over that time period there were
many changes in the alliances between the warring factions, the membership and leadership
structure of such factions, and their position in the conflict. These factors affected the nature,
type and frequency of the attacks perpetrated. ln its submissions regarding the chapeau
requirements, the Prosecution asserts that the chapeau requirements are fulfilled throughout
the lndictment period without distinguishing between the time frames as pleaded in the
Indictment. Because the conflict evolved over time, the Trial Chamber has considered each
mo Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 670-671.
ml Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 671-672 (referring to Exhibit P-094, "Statement by Cpl. Foday
Sankoh, Leader of the Revolution United Front"; Exhibit P-057, "Transc1ipt of the RUF Speech to the Nation
Delivered on SLBS on 18 June 1997"; Exhibit P-296, "TRC Report: Appendix 1: Perpetrator Responsibility for
Violations over Time and Space and Correlations between Perpetrator Groups").
Im Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 674-685.
Im Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 686-688,
Im Defence Pre-Trial Brief para. 42.
N SLSL 01 T 185 T 8

---- End of Page 185 ---------------------------


Case No.: " -03- - % GAD 1 May 2012 vg

3. Ya '2.:1~‘B
hase of the conflict in turn with res ect to the evidence of the cha eau elements for crimes
P P P
against humanity. HIS
(i) Pre—Junta Period (30 November 1996 to 24 May 1997[
519. The first distinct phase the Trial Chamber has examined is the period from the
signing of the Abidjan Peace Accord on 30 November 1996 to the eve of the coup d ’etat by
the SLA on 25 May 1997. 30 November 1996 marks the start of the Court's jurisdiction and
the beginning of the Indictment period.
520. From 1994 and continuing into the Indictment period, witnesses testified that the
RUF established a system of forced labour in Kailahun Districtmé Enslavement took the
form of sexual slavery,l2l7 forced marriagesmg and forced fanning,l2l9 often under the threat
of violence. 1220 From about 1994 to about 1998, men, women and children were abducted by
rebels at the war front and brought back to Buedu where they were trained to fight, forced to
farm and women and girls used as "wives".l22l For example, if civilians did not farm or fish
when ordered to do so, they would be beaten. m2
521. The Trial Chamber heard evidence from witnesses who testified that between 1996
and 2000, the RUF forced civilians to farm. mf; Witness Aruna Gbonda explained that
civilians farmed when they were ordered to because "when the war came", the civilians
were enslaved by the rebels.l224 Before the war, Gbonda said that he would farm at his own
pace and feed himself; but that during the war, the civilians were required to give the rebels
all the proceeds of farming. @5 For example, Gbonda explained that rice farming was a
1215 Kunarac Appeal Judgement, paras 91, 99, 100; Exhibit P-296, "TRC Report: Appendix 1: Perpetrator
Responsibility for Violations over Time and Space and Correlations between Perpetrator Groups", p. 21853
(referring to "the episodic nature of the conflict").
mm Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4239-4243, 4251-4253; Mustapha M. Mansaray,
Transcript 5 March 2008, pp. 5291-5293.
lm Edna Bangura, Transcript 20 October 2008, pp. 18684-18686.
mg Edna Bangura, Transcript 20 October 2008, pp. 18684-18686.
mg Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4251-4253, 4248-4249, 4251-4259.
1220 Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4253-4255, 4267; Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 5
March 2008, pp. 5291-5293.
ml Edna Bangura, Transcript 20 October 2008, pp. 18686-18688.
lm Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4253-4255, 4267.
lm Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4251-4253, 4255-4259. See also Edna Bangura,
Transcript 20 October 2008, pp. 18688-18689.
1224 Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, p. 4252.
1225 Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4252-4253.

---- End of Page 186 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / nk 18 May 2012

. §&'2j·°r
"physical job".l226 Gbonda testified that when rice was farmed, for example, civilians would
together clear and burn the farm, do the planting and farming, harvest the rice and hand it
over to the RUF. [227
522. F arming was organised. When labour was requested by RUF commanders, chiefdom
and de ut chiefdom commanders were enlisted to brin civilians to farms to work without
P Y 8
pay or benefit}228 Witness Mustapha M. Mansaray explained that when Sam Bockarie and
Issa Sesay required labour, they would order the G5 of the RUF who would communicate
the order to chiefdom commanders, section commanders and town commanders in each
town and village who would then order civilians to provide produce to the RUF}229 lf
civilians refused to comply, they faced beatings or detention or the RUF would appropriate
their produce. lm
523. Witness Amna Gbonda testified that civilians were monitored by the rebels and that
the would be beaten if the did not farrn.l23l Civilians were also forced to harvest and
Y Y
transport cacao,l232 to hunt and fishlfm and to weed grass}234 Forced labour occurred in a
number of towns and villages in Kailahun District and civilians, both men and women, were
forced to participate. IHS
524. Edna Bangura was captured in the pre-indictment period and brought to Buedu
where she sta ed until November or December l998.l236 She and other irls were forced to
Y 8
perform domestic labour for the rebels}237 Bangura testified that from l994 to l998,l238
civilian women would be captured and they would become the wives of rebels,l239 and that
{H6 Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, p. 4251.
I227 Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, p. 4252.
mg Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4253, 4248-4249, 4251-4253.
mg Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, p. 5291.
mo Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, pp. 5291, 5923.
ml Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4239-4243, 4253-4255.
Im Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4259-4261.
Im Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4265-4268, 4270-4272.
Im Aruna Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4272-4274.
Im Arurra Gbonda, Transcript 19 February 2008, pp. 4251-4252, 4255-4259.
E36 Edna Bangura, Transcript 20 October 2008, pp. 18665-18666, 18669-18670, 18677.
Im Edna Bangura, Transcript 20 October 2008, pp. 18700-18702, 18727-18730.
Im Edna Bangura, Transcript 20 October 2008, p. 18687.
mq Edna Bangura, Transcript 20 October 2008, pp. 18685-18686.

---- End of Page 187 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / On), 18 MQY 2012 ‘%

y E Qézsc
enerall **no women had ri ts".l24O She further ex lained that the rebels would ca ture
S Y P P
men, women and children when a particular town or village was attackedml
2 525. The testimony of these witnesses is corroborated by Exhibit P-296, an excerpt of the
Sierra Leone Truth and Reconciliation Report, which records instances of mistreatment in
1996 and 1997.*242
526. Also of relevance, is an RUF speech delivered on 18 June 1997 by the RUF
spokesman Eldred Collins apologizing to the citizens of Sierra Leone for violence
committed by the RUF. He stated:
For the past six years or so, we have been living in an environment of hatred and
divisiveness. We looked at our brothers and killed them in cold blood, we removed our
sisters from their hiding places to undo their femininity, we slaughtered our mothers and
butchered our fathers. It was really a gruesome experience which has left a terrible
landmark in our historydm
(ii) Junta Period (25 May 1997 to about 14 February 19983
527. The 25 May 1997 coup d’ ctat ousted the government of President Ahmed Tejan
Kabbah and placed Johnny Paul Koroma in power as Chairman of the AFRC}244 The
second distinct hase of the conflict runs from the cou d ’etat to shortl rior to the
P P Y P
ECOMOG 1nteryention.l245 This period is characterised by a shift in the dynamics of the
conflict as the RUF found itself in a new position of sharing power in Sierra Leone with its
former adversaries. The campaigns of the Junta govemment were aimed at the preservation
of governmental authority and involved hostilities against ECOMOG and CDF forces.
528. In July 1997, the United Nations Security Council expressed its deep concem
regarding the **continuing crisis in Sierra Leone", and in particular, the atrocities committed
against Sierra Leone's citizens}246 A month later, the President of the Security Council
stated that the Security Council **condemns the continuing violence and threats of violence
Im Edna Bangura, Transcript 20 October 2008, p. 18685.
ml Edna Bangura, Transcript 20 October 2008, pp. 18686-18687.
’2"2 Exhibit P-296, "TRC Report: Appendix 1; Perpetrator Responsibility for Violations over Time and Space
and Correlations between Perpetrator Groups", pp. 21853-21860.
lm Exhibit P-057, "Transcript of the RUF Speech to the Nation Delivered on SLBS on 18 June 1997"; TF1-
371, Transcript 1 February 2008, pp. 2837-2838 (CS).
Im Admitted Facts and Law, paras 17, 18, 30; Decision on Judicial Notice of AFRC Adjudicated Facts, Fact
1.
mj Decision on Judicial Notice, Fact AD. 1
E46 Exhibit P-299, "Statement by the President of the Security Council, S/PRST/1997/36, 1 1 July 1997", p. 1.

---- End of Page 188 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T % Nm 18 May 2012

3% 2.% {
by the junta towards the civilian population, foreign nationals and personnel of the
ECOWAS monitoring group, and calls for an end to such acts of violence". I247
529. Witnesses, Amnesty International and a United Nations observer mission reported
that during junta mle, the AFRC and RUF were responsible for extra-judicial killings,
physical violence, rape, arbitrary detention, sexual slavery, the torture of children, forced
labour, looting and the destruction of property, and that the victims were civilians and were
specifically targeted.l248 For example, one witness testified that during a student
demonstration in August 1997, SLA fighters killed two students and detained others at the
Pademba Road Prison in Freetown}249 In Kenema District, several witnesses described the
killings of civilians.l250 During this time period, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
recorded an increase in the number of reported human rights abuses. 1251
530. The violence and mistreatment was directed at perceived political opponents,
journalists, students and human rights activists.l252 However, these attacks were not limited
to such selected civilians. Rather, any perceived collaborator was targeted by the junta.
Prosecution Exhibit P-078, a report by Amnesty International, describes attacks involving
lm Exhibit P-301, "Statement by the President of the Security Council, S/PRST/1997/42, 6 August 1997", p.
2.
mg See, eng. TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2335-2340 (CS); Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September
2008, pp. 17516-17518; Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15009-15011; 15096-
15097; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15141; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF
Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15141-15412; Alex Sheku Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16656; Exhibit P-
078, "Sierra Leone - 1998 - A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International Report", pp. 1-2, 8-9
(report generated from contemporaneous accounts); Exhibit P-077 (confidential) ("Information continues to be
received about human rights abuses perpetrated by forces loyal to the junta in the period before restoration of the
Government. From all parts of the country there are reports of extra-judicial killings, rape, arbitrary detention,
including for purposes of sexual abuse, torture of children (especially of child-combatants), forced labour, and
the looting and destruction of residential and commercial premises and property".)(report generated from
contemporaneous accounts).
mg Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7919-7924.
mo See, eng., Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15007-15010, 15098; Exhibit P-
174, "TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15140-15141 (testifying that a farmer was killed by Sam
Bockarie in Kenema Town in September 1997); Karmoh Kanneh, Transcript 9 May 2008, pp. 9409-9411
(testifying that Mohamed Fityia was killed by Sam Bockarie in Kenema Town in September or November
1997); Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062 AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005". pp. 14919-14920 (testifying that three persons
were killed by unidentified AFRC or RUF fighters in a house in Tongo Fields in August 1997); Abdul Conteh,
Transcript 29 September 2001, pp. 17529-17531 (testifying that 15 civilians were intentionally killed by RUF
fighters in Bumpeh village in Tongo Fields).
lm Exhibit P-296, "TRC Report: Appendix 1: Perpetrator Responsibility for Violations over Time and Space
and Correlations between Perpetrator Groups", pp. 21853-2 1 860.
1252 Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone - 1998 - A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", pp. 8-9; TF1 -371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2346-2347 (CS); Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript
17 April 2008, pp. 7919-7921.

---- End of Page 189 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI--03-01-T AM 18 May 2012

Q $1% 2.
torture, physical violence and extrajudicial killings directed against joumalists and local
civilian leaders. 1255
531. The Trial Chamber heard evidence from a number of witnesses who testified
civilians were forced to work in diamond mines in Kenema District during this period.1254
The mining was organised by the AFRC and RUF.1255 Amnesty Intemational reported that
the rape of women and girls was systematic and that at least one hundred civilians were
"deliberately and arbitrarily killed".1256
(iii) Post-Junta to end of the Indictment Period gl February 1998 to 18 January
2002[
532. The third timeframe considered by the Trial Chamber runs from the ECOMOG
Intervention of February 1998 which led to the ouster of the AFRC/RUF government1257 to
the end of the Indictment period on 18 January 2002.
533. Following the retreat of the AFRC and RUF fighters from Freetown and their
re ou in at Masiaka, Port Loko District, Koroma announced ‘O eration Pa Yourself’
SY P g P Y
which resulted in a campaign of extensive looting.1258 This conduct continued throughout
the movement of the AFRC and RUF troops during this period.
534. AFRC and RUF fighters attacked the provincial headquarters Koidu Town and other
locations in Kono district in February/March 1998,1259 while a breakaway group under SAJ
Musa retreated north to Koinadugu District. AFRC and RUF fighters bumt civilian homes as
1255 Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone - 1998 - A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", pp. 8-9.
1254 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7913-7916; Augustine Mallah, Transcript 12
November 2008, pp. 20153-20156; Dauda Aruna Fornie, 2 December 2008, pp. 21421-21425; Abdul Conteh,
Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17532-17543; TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2335-2340 (CS).
1255 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7913-7916.
1256 Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone - 1998 - A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", p. 9.
1257 Decision on Judicial Notice, Fact AD.
12515 The Junta had been removed from power, meaning that it did not have the money to pay its fighters. As a
result, the forces looted food, clothing and vehicles from the civilian population and broke into a bank to 1oot
money. Issa Sesay, Transcript 7 July 2010, pp. 43963-43968; Isaac Mongor, Transcript 11 March 2008, pp.
5734-5735; TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2008, pp. 2352-2355(CS); TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, pp.
12501-12502; Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7934-7937; Samuel Bull, Transcript 24
September 2008, p. 17062; TF1-516, Transcript 8 April 2008, pp. 6851-6853.
1259 Samuel Kargbo, Transcript 21 May 2008, pp. 10496-10498; Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, pp.
43994-43995.

---- End of Page 190 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T dk 18 May 2012

$$2533.
part of the operation in Koidu Town.121`11 Violence against civilians in AFRC/RUF held
territory was frequent and intensified in the north and east of Sierra Leone as the former
junta attacked those areas.1261 Several thousand civilians were killed or mutilated, and
hundreds more were abducted.1262 Witness testified that other violations, such as rape, the
burning of houses, killings and looting, continued.1263
535. In around May 1998, fighters burnt homes, looted and killed civilians as part of
‘Operation No Living Thing’ in Kenema.1264 One witness explained that the operation meant
that "if you go and attack that town, don’t leave any breathing thing in that village. Sort of
take away every life that you meet in that village".1265 I
536. In mid 1998 AFRC fighters moved from Kono District to an area on the border of
Bombali and Kambia District.1266 En route the fighters specifically targeted the civilian
o ulation. Civilians were ra ed, killed and/or mutilated and rebels burned houses and
P P P
looted property during that campaign.1261 Wounded civilians from Makeni, Bombali, Kono
and Kenema Districts were treated for burns and amputations in Connaught Hospital in
Freetown. 12118
537. In late 1998, RUF fighters instituted a campaign called ‘Operation Spare No Soul’ in
which fighters were encouraged to kill civilians.1269
1260 Dennis Koker, Transcript 15 January 2008, pp. 1241-1246.
12111 Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone - 1998 - A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", pp. 1-2, 7, 11 ("In the days immediately after their removal from power by ECOMOG, AFRC and RUF
forces indiscriminately killed unarmed civilians, looted and burned houses, both in Freetown and other towns.
As the rebel forces were pursued eastwards by ECOMOG forces through towns such as Bo in Southern
Province, Kenema and Koidu in Eastern Province and Makeni in Northern Province during February, March and
April 1998, they were responsible for widespread killings, torture and i11-treatment including rape and other
forms of sexual assault, and abduction. Villages and towns were burnt to the ground, destroying thousands of
homes. Koidu, a major town in the diamond-rich Kono District, was almost totally destroyed by AFRC and RUF
forces and villages between Njaiama-Sewafe and Koidu were repeatedly attacked".).
1262 Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone - 1998 - A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", p. 10.
1m See, e.g., Exhibit P-077 (confidential); TF1-371, Transcript 28 January 2009, p . 2352-2361 CS ; TF1-
P
189, Transcript 17 September 2008, pp. 16497-16515; TF1-174, Transcript 27 January 2009, pp. 23674-23680.
1M Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, pp. 17331-17334.
1265 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, p. 17332.
12611 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3173-3183.
'2‘" Exhibit P-077 qconadimuaii.
121*1 TF1—358, Transcript 19 November 2008, pp. 20616-20626.
1269 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, pp. 20219-20224.

---- End of Page 191 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T QM / 18 May 2012
"Y

3%?-%L1~
538. Witnesses testified that AFRC and RUF forces used forced labour in a large—scale
manner in Kono Districtmo Civilian abductees were forcibly conscripted and trained or
forced to farm and carry suppliesml Civilians were also forced to mine for diamonds in
various locations throughout Kono District. mz
539. Witnessesmg and documentary evidencemil describe attacks by rebel forces on
civilian settlements, in which they burned and looted homes, and mutilated, abducted, raped,
tortured, and killed civilians. Mass internal displacement also occurred during this
period.m5
mo See, e.g., TF1-216, Transcript 28 October 2008, pp. 19336-19337; Exhibit P-189, "TF1-072, AFRC Trial,
Transcript 1 July 2005", pp. 8-15; Sheku Bah Kuyateh, Transcript 31 October 2008, pp. 19695-19700.
ml See, e.g., Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, pp. 17219-17225, 17231-17241, 17285-17286,
17316-17321; Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 696-704.
mz See, e.g., Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, pp. 5341-5346; TF1-516, Transcript 10 April
2008, pp. 7150-7157; TF1-367, Transcript 1 September 2008, pp. 15041-15043; TF1-338, Transcript 3
September 2008, p. 15317.
Im Finda Gbamanja, Transcript 29 January 2009, pp. 23861-23866; Dennis Koker, Transcript 15 January
2008, pp. 1231-1235; Exhibit P-201, "Sia Kamara, RUF Transcript 1 February 2005", pp. 19465-19482; Sia
Kamara, Transcript 15 October 2008, 18434 -18437; Alex Temba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 683-705;
Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, pp. 20171-20176, 20203-20208; TF1-532, Transcript 31
March 2008, pp. 6215-6219; Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October, 2008, pp. 19338-19339; Alice Pyne,
Transcript 18 June 2008, pp. 12199-12201; Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, pp. 17113-17121;
Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17461-17464; TF1-174, Transcript 27 January 2009, pp.
23682-23685.
mil Exhibit P-077 (confidential); Exhibit P-079, "Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)
Press Release - Mutilation of Civilians on the Increase in Sierra Leone, 5 May 1998", p. 1; Exhibit P-078,
"Sierra Leone - 1998 - A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International Report", p. 10-14. See also
Exhibit P-080, "UN Security Council - First Progress Report of the Secretary-General on the UN Observer
Mission in Sierra Leone, 12 August 1998", para. 35 (stating that, "[a] survey of 9 of Sierra Leone's 150
chiefdoms indicated that some 700 civilian war-related deaths have occurred since February, including 200 in
one village, Yifin, in late April. About 1,600 people have suffered war-related injuries in these chiefdoms since
February, of whom 30 per cent are children. In Koidu, a reliable source has stated that 663 bodies were buried
following the fighting in the area in mid-June. A significant percentage of the dead were women and children. At
the same time, the killing of some 44 of the 144 paramount chiefs during that period indicates a deliberate
attempt to target them",). The United Nations Observer Mission also reported that several thousand civilians
were being held by rebel forces, many of whom were women and children. It was also reported that in nine
chiefdoms, 1,619 homes had been destroyed, and another 600 were destroyed in three other chiefdoms. On a
single day in July, 40 homes were destroyed in a village near Masingbi. See Exhibit P-080, "UN Security
Council - First Progress Report of the Secretary-General on the UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, 12
August 1998", paras 35-37. See also Exhibit P-307, "UN Security Council, Third Progress Report of the
Secretary-General on the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, S/ 1998/ 1 176, 15 December 1998",
p. 214161, paras 36-37.
`275 Exhibit P-077 (confidential); Exhibit P-079, "Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF)
Press Release - Mutilation of Civilians on the Increase in Sierra Leone, 5 May 1998", p. 1; Exhibit P-078,
"Sierra Leone - 1998 - A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International Report", p. 10-14. See also
Exhibit P-080, "UN Security Council - First Progress Report of the Secretary-General on the UN Observer
Mission in Sierra Leone, 12 August 1998", para. 35 (stating that, "[a] survey of 9 of Sierra Leone's 150
chiefdoms indicated that some 700 civilian war-related deaths have occurred since February, including 200 in
one village, Yifin, in late April. About 1,600 people have suffered war-related injuries in these chiefdoms since
February, of whom 30 per cent are children. In Koidu, a reliable source has stated that 663 bodies were buried

---- End of Page 192 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T // /LQ 18 May 2012
~/ xl

éczssr
540. In the last days of 1998 and into January 1999, rebels went on the offensive in
several areas of Sierra Leone, including Makeni, Lunsar and Port Loko.m6 Refugees from
these areas fled to camps in Guinea where they reported that civilians had been killed,
property looted and homes destroyed during these attacks. [277
541. During the Freetown attack itself and the subsequent retreat, rebels killed thousands
of civilians.m8 Thousands more were abducted, burnt, beaten, mutilated, raped and/or
sexually abused.m9 Attacks against civilians occurred throughout Freetown and its
surrounds, including the State House area,l28O Kissy,l28l Fourah Bay Road,l282 Upgun,l283
Calaba Townl284 and Allen Town}285 Attacks against civilians also took place in the nearby
towns of Hastings,l286 Wel1ington,l287 Waterloolm and Benguema.l28°
following the fighting in the area in mid-June. A signiHcant percentage of the dead were women and children. At
the same time, the killing of some 44 of the 144 paramount chiefs during that period indicates a deliberate
attempt to target them".). The United Nations Observer Mission also reported that several thousand civilians
were being held by rebel forces, many of whom were women and children. lt was also reported that in nine
chiefdoms, 1,619 homes had been destroyed, and another 600 were destroyed in three other chiefdoms. On a
single day in July, 40 homes were destroyed in a village near Masingbi. See Exhibit P-080, "UN Security
Council - First Progress Report of the Secretary-General on the UN Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, 12
August l998", paras 35-37. See also Exhibit P-307, "UN Security Council, Third Progress Report of the
Secretary-General on the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1998/1176, 15 December l998",
p. 214161, paras 36-37.
mé Exhibit P-348A, "BBC Focus on Africa, Clip from Track 2 - D0000528, 4 January l999".
Im Exhibit P-348A, "BBC Focus on Africa, Clip from Track 2 - D0000528, 4 January l999".
'"8 Exhibit P-077 (confidential).
mg Exhibit P-077 (confidential); Exhibit P-123, "BBC News Article, Freetown Bears the Scars, 27 January
l999"; Exhibit D-191, "UN Security Council, Fifth Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations
Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1999/237, 4 March l999", pp. 21594, 21598-21600; Perry Kamara,
Transcript 6 Febmary 2008, p. 3231.
lm Exhibit P-077 (confidential); Exhibit P—222, "TFl—024, AFRC Transcript 7 March 2005", pp. 43-50, 96-
106; Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8290-8292.
ml Exhibit P-077 (confidential); Exhibit P-263, "BBC Audio File - Tab 17 Clip - D0000507 - Track Two";
Exhibit P-212B (confidential); TFl-097, Transcript 17 October 2008, pp. 18588-18597.
Im Exhibit P-077 (confidential); Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8332-8334.
Im Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8334-8339; Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 Febmary
2008, pp. 3224, 3234, 3232.
*28* Exhibit P-077 (criiiiiiieiitiaii.
Im Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8376; Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008,
pp. 19178- 19183; Exhibit P-284 (confidential); Exhibit P-285 (Confidential).
H86 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8263-8265; Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8376.
Im See Exhibit P-285 (confidential); TFl-026, Transcript 14 Febmaiy 2008, pp. 3843-3848; Akiatu Tholley,
Transcript 23 October 2008, pp. 19173-19178.
Im See e.g. Exhibit P-34lA, "BBC Focus on Afiica, Clip from Track 1 - D0000523, 22 December 1998";
Exhibit P-308, "UN Security Council, Special Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Observer
Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1999/20, 7 January l999", para. 4; Patrick Sheriff] Transcript l October 2008, pp.
17765, 17774-17782.
mg See TFl-143, Transcript 5 May 2008, p. 9022; Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp.

---- End of Page 193 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T ···(w j 18 May 2012 M

32.$sQ>
542. Through July 1999, there was violence against civilians in Masiaka, Port Loko, the
Occra Hills and other locations in Port Loko such as Songo, Mangarama, Masumana,
Matteh, Melikeru and Tomaju which included killings, mutilations, abductions, sexual
abuse, large-scale property destruction and the contamination of fresh water sources by ex-
SLA fighters.l29O Attacks continued despite the Lomé Peace Agreement signed on 7 July
543. In August 1999, the villages of Landomah, Bonkoleke, Roists, Tenkabereh and
Wonfinfer in Port Loko were looted and civilians displaced.l292 From September until the
end of the year, attacks upon civilians increased, particularly along the Lungi-Port Loko axis
where summary executions, instances of physical violence, looting, mutilations, sexual
abuse, abductions and harassment were reported. 1293
544. In Exhibit P-320, a humanitarian situation report, internally displaced persons
interviewed by Medecins Sans F rontieres reported that they had fled Makeni and Magburaka
in order to escape "RUF forced recruitments and continuing attacks".l294 F orcible
recruitment, killings and rape continued in rebel controlled areas and massive displacement
of the civilian population continued to occur.l295 Exhibit P-335, a report by the Coalition to
Stop the Use of Child Soldiers, described reports from Kambia and Makeni Districts that
RUF forces went from village to village demanding a quota of men and boys, "most of
whom were forced to join under duress".l2% While instances of mutilation decreased during
this period,l297 in Kabala, approximately 40 civilians had the letters ‘RUF’ carved into their
.bodies in May 2000.1298
8242-8252; Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8376-8377.
mo Exhibit P-077 (confidential).
ml Decision on Judicial Notice, Fact W.
‘2"2 Exhibit P-077 (cmrrdemiai).
Im Exhibit P-077 (confidential).
1294 Exhibit P-320, "ReliefV/ eb: Sierra Leone Humanitarian Situation Report, UN Office for the Coordination
of Humanitarian Affairs" 25 Jul- 07 Aug 2000", p. 21732.
Im Exhibit P-320, "Relief Web: Sierra Leone Humanitarian Situation Report", UN Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 25 Jul — 07 Aug 2000", p. 21735 ("HRW said it has collected testimonies
of civilians who were tortured by the RUF or killed for attempting to flee (Makeni, Lunsar, Kambia). Given the
massive displacement of populations within RUF areas, the organization said it has reason to believe that the
RUF is trying to terrorize the remaining civilian population in their areas of control to prevent them from
leaving".). See also Exhibit P-335, "Child Soldiers Global Report 2001", p. 23400; Exhibit P-331, "Sierra
Leone: Rape and other forms of sexual violence against girls and women", pp. 23196-23197.
12% Exhibit P-335, "Child Soldiers Global Report 2001", pp. 23400-23401.
@7 Corinne Dufka, Transcript 22 January 2008, p. 1862 ("Also at that time, this is 2000, people were not

---- End of Page 194 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T M GMQ 18 May 2012

gami-
545. Exhibit P-032, a report by an expert panel monitoring the implementation of the
ceasefire agreement, obseryed that military hostilities continued in Kambia District between
the RUF and Guinean forces from Se tember 2000 throu Ma /Jul 200l.m9 The anel
P Y Y P
also reported that hostilities took place between CDF and RUF forces in the east of Sierra
Leone in April 2001, but that a ceasefire was established and commitments to disarmament
reaffirmedmo The expert panel stated that Sierra Leone remained stable from early July
2001 onwardsml
546. The Trial Chamber heard evidence from witnesses who testified that in Kono
District, forced labour involving mining continued to occur until the end of the Indictment
period.l3O2 Mustapha M. Mansaray, commander of 200 mining pits in six towns and villages
in Ngaiya until June 2001, instructed his personnel to forcibly gather civilians for
mininglm Mansaray testified that mining using forced civilian labour was also taking place
in Tombodu, Kaisambu and Bumpe in Kono District}304 In Tombodu, witness Tamba
Yomba Ngekia was forced to mine with other civilians at gunpoint for six months in
2000.mS While working at the mine, Ngekia saw about 70 civilians, tied with ropes around
their waists, brought to the mine to work alongside those already there}306 Ngekia saw one
man shot to death at the mine for refusing to work. mm
being butchered and mutilated every day. The incidents of mutilation had come down drastically by 2000, even
though there were still occasional cases of it".); Exhibit P-296, "TRC Report: Appendix 1: Perpetrator
Responsibility for Violations over Time and Space and Correlations between Perpetrator Groups", pp. 21853-
21860.
lm Corinne Dufka, Transcript 21 January 2008, p. 1814.
W9 Exhibit P-032, "Report of the Panel of Experts Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1343 (200l)",
paras 95-98.
HOO Exhibit P-032, "Report of the Panel of Experts Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1343 (200l)",
paras 96-97. See also Exhibit P-590, "United Nations Security Council, Eleventh Report of the Secretary
General on the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone", paras 15-17, 21-22.
ml Exhibit P-032, "Report of the Panel of Experts Pursuant to Security Council Resolution 1343 (200l)",
paras 97-98.
lm Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 4 March 2008, pp. 5234-5235; Transcript 5 March 2008, pp. 5340-
5353. See also Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 15 September 2008, pp. 16180-16184; Perry Kamara, Transcript 6
February 2008, pp. 3263-3267 (testifying that mining occurred in Kono District until end of disarmament). See
also TFl-174, Transcript 28 January 2009, pp. 23773-23775.
lm Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, pp. 5341-5346.
lm Mustapha M. Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, p. 5344.
lm Exhibit P-196, "Tamba Yomba Ngekia, RUF Trial Transcript, 20 October 2004", pp. 18629, 18631-
18633 (the witness was captured on 16 December 1999 and taken to Tombodu to mine where he stayed until
disarmament); Tamba Yomba Ngekia, Transcript 14 October 2008, pp. 18257-18258.
lm Tamba Yomba Ngekia, Transcript 14 October 2008, p. 18239.
lm Tamba Yomba Ngekia, Transcript 14 October 2008, pp. 18239-18240. ‘

---- End of Page 195 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / OIL 18 May 2012

ggzzz
Findings
(i) An attack directed against any civilian population
547. The evidence shows that starting in the pre-indictment period, the RUF committed
crimes against civilians in Sierra Leone and that this pattem of crimes continued into the
indictment period. From November 1996 until May 1997, the mistreatment of civilians was
concentrated in Kailahun District, where the RUF subjected civilians to forced labour,
sexual slavery and forced marriage.
548. During the junta period, civilian leaders were targeted by the AF RC/RUF fighters, as
were civilians generally, particularly women and children. Civilians were the victims of
killings, physical violence, rape, sexual slavery, torture and arbitrary detention perpetrated
by RUF and AFRC lighters. During this time, the evidence demonstrated that there were
large numbers of civilian victims and that attacks were widespread and occurred in the areas
that were under control of the AFRC/RUF junta forces.l3O8 This mistreatment of civilians
during junta rule demonstrates that the RUF and AFRC specifically targeted the civilian
population in order to minimise any resistance or opposition to the regime. The pattem of
crimes by the RUF and AF RC which were directed against civilians persisted and intensified
during this period.
549. From February 1998 to December 1998, civilians were further victimised. During
operations such as ‘Operation No Living Thing’, ‘Operation Spare No Soul’ and ‘Operation
Pay Yourself`, AF RC and/or RUF fighters were explicitly ordered to kill civilians by
commanders, bum their settlements and take their property, demonstrating a clear intention
to direct attacks against civilians and to terrorise the population. The latter is demonstrated
by the pattem of conduct of the attacks that were conducted with the aim of spreading fear
amongst the population in order to control them and with the aim to call on the attention of
the intemational community. During the operations fighters carried out orders by killing,
mutilating, raping and abducting civilians throughout Sierra Leone.
550. From January 1999 until December 1999, the evidence shows that the RUF and
AFRC continued to commit crimes against civilians. While these crimes took place in the
lm The areas under control during the junta period were the Western Area, parts of Kenema, Bo, Port Loko,
Bombali, Koinadugu, Kono and Kailahun Districts.

---- End of Page 196 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01-T (N 18 May 2012 M

3<;:>.sq
context of an armed conflict, attacks were particularly directed against civilians. Women and
children were amongst the victims of the attacks and attacks continued to be directed against
civilian settlements. The brutality and the vengeful nature of` the attacks further indicate a
specific focus on the civilian population.
551. The mistreatment of civilians continued into the later stages of` the conflict. The RUF
in Kono District continued to forcibly use civilian labour for mining. While active hostilities
occurred in some areas of Sierra Leone, such as in Kambia and Makeni Districts, civilians
were forcibly abducted to participate in the RUF's war effort. Civilians continued to be
intentionally targeted as sources of labour and Hghters.
552. Based on the above, the Trial Chamber Hnds beyond reasonable doubt that at all
times relevant to the indictment an attack was directed against the civilian population of
Sierra Leone by the RUF and/or RUF/AFRC.
(ii) The attack was widespread or systematic
553. The RUF's use of forced civilian labour and physical violence in Kailahun District
from 1996 until 2000 was continuous, organized and structured. From 1994 to 1998, rebels
repeatedly abducted civilians from the war front and used them for labour or trained them to
Hght. They used abducted women as "wives". The pattern of mistreatment shows that crimes
were not isolated or random, but rather formed part of a continuous campaign directed
against civilians in communities that the RUF controlled. This pattern of civilian
mistreatment remained a feature of the RUF regime throughout the conflict, and resulted in
large numbers of civilian being mistreated, through abductions, forced labour and sexual
enslavement, in various towns and villages throughout Kailahun District.
554. During the junta phase, the number of civilian subjected to severe mistreatment
increased as the conflict spread throughout the territory of Sierra Leone.
555. From February 1998 to December 1998, human rights abuses intensihed, leaving
thousands of civilians killed or mutilated by RUF and AFRC Hghters. Hundreds of civilians
were abducted, raped and the burning of houses and looting continued to occur.
556. ln 1999, the evidence shows that thousands of civilians were killed during the attack
on Freetown and the subsequent retreat through Kissy, Upgun, Calaba Town, Allen Town,
Hastings, Wellington, Waterloo and Benguema and that thousands of others were abducted,

---- End of Page 197 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T / 6* 18 May 2012

3burnt, beaten, mutilated and/or sexually abused. Further violence was directed towards
civilians in Masiaka, Port Loko, and the Occra Hills.
557. Attacks continued to occur against the civilian population at all times relevant to the
Indictment, affecting large numbers of civilians throughout the north and east of Sierra
Leone, e.g. Kailahun, Kambia and Kono Districts. Civilians continued to be abducted by
rebels in Makeni and Kambia Districts and a large number of civilians continued to be
captured and brought to mining sites in Kono District.
558. Based on the large number of victims and the geographic scope of the crimes
throughout the indictment period, the Trial Chamber tinds that at all times relevant to the
indictment the Prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the RUF, AFRC and/or
the RUF/AFRC directed a widespread attack against the civilian population of Sierra Leone.
Moreover, based on the pattern and organisation of the violence the evidence demonstrates
beyond reasonable doubt that the attack was also systematic.
Conclusion on the Chageau Reguirements for Crimes Against Humanity
559. The Trial Chamber accordingly tinds that at all times relevant to the Indictment the
Prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the RUF and/or AFRC directed a
widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population; resulting in the following
crimes against humanity having been committed: murder (Count 2), rape (Count 4), sexual
slavery (Count 5), other inhumane acts (Count 8) and enslavement (Count 10).
B. Article 3: War Crimes
560. The Accused is charged with four counts of violations of Article 3 Common to the
Geneva Conventions ("Common Article 3") and of Additional Protocol 11,13 O9 pursuant to
Article 3 of the Statute: acts of terrorism (Count 1), violence to life, health and physical or
mental well-being of persons, in particular murder (Count 3), outrages upon personal dignity
(Count 6), violence to life, health and physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular
cruel treatment (Count 7), and pillage (Count ll). The Trial Chamber notes that the crimes
mg The Appeals Chamber noted that "Article 3, sub-paragraphs (a) to (t), and (h) of the Special Court Statute
are taken directly from Article 4(2) of Protocol II, while Article 3(g) mirrors Article 3(1)(d) of Common Article
3" and are almost verbatim with Article 4 of the ICTR Statute. See CDF Appeal Decision on Nature of the
Armed Contlict, para. 20.

---- End of Page 198 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T GQ, 18 May 2012

$$7-Cl l
alleged in Counts 1 and 11 are crimes enumerated in Additional Protocol ll only, and not
Common Article 3.
Applicable Law
561. Article 3 of the Statute, entitled ‘Violations of Article 3 Common to the Geneva
· Conventions and of Additional Protocol 11’, provides that:
The Special Court shall have the power to prosecute persons who committed or ordered the commission of
serious violations of article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the Protection
of War victims, and of Additional Protocol [1 thereto of 8 June 1977. These violations shall include:
a. Violence to life, health and physical or mental we11—being of persons, in particular murder as well as
cruel treatment such as torture, mutilation or any form of corporal punishment;
b. Collective punishments;
c. Taking of hostages;
d. Acts of terrorism;
e. Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, rape, enforced
prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
f. Pillage;
g. The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgement pronounced by
a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable
by civilised peoples; and
h. Threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
562. ln order for liability to be established under Article 3 of the Statute, the acts of the
Accused must have fonned part of an anned conflict. The jurisprudence has identified three
chapeau (or general) requirements for violations against international humanitarian law.
(a) There must have been an anned conflict at the time of the alleged violation
563. Although Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions is expressed to apply to
anned conflicts "not of an international character", the distinction between internal anned
conflicts and international conflicts is "no longer of great relevance in relation to the crimes
articulated in Article 3 of the Statute as these crimes are prohibited in all conflicts. Crimes
during internal armed conflicts fonn part of the broader category of crimes during
international anned conf1ict".mO The Appeals Chamber of the ICTY has ruled that "an
armed conflict exists whenever there is a resort to anned force between States or protracted
anned violence between governmental authorities and organised anned groups or between
such groups within a State". ml The anned conflict "need not have been causal to the
mo CDF Appeal Decision on Nature of the Armed Conflict, para. 25. See also Milosevic Decision on Motion
for Acquittal, para. 21; Limaj Trial Judgement, para. 90.
ml Tadié Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 70.

---- End of Page 199 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T @,0 18 May 2012 M

3% za 2
commission of the crime, but the existence of an armed conflict must, at a minimum, have
played a substantial part in the perpetrator's ability to commit it, his decision to commit it,
the marmer in which it was committed or the purpose for which it was committed". I3 I2
564. The criteria for establishing the existence of an armed conflict are the intensity of the
conflict and the degree of organisation of the waning factionslm These criteria are used
"solely for the purpose, as a minimum, of distinguishing an armed conflict from banditry,
unorganised and short-lived insurrections, or terrorist activities, which are not subject to
intemational humanitarian law". I3 M
565. Intemational humanitarian law applies irom the initiation of such armed conflicts
and extends beyond the cessation of hostilities until a general conclusion of peace is
reached; or, in the case of intemal conflicts, until a peaceful settlement is achieved. Until
that moment, intemational humanitarian law continues to apply to the entire territory of the
waning States or, in the case of intemal conflicts, the entire territory under the control of a
party, whether or not actual combat takes place there. M5
(b) A nexus existed between the alleged violation and the armed conflict
566. For an offence to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Statute, the Trial Chamber
must establish that a sufficient link between the alleged breach of Common Article 3 or
Additional Protocol Il and the underlying armed conflict existed.l3l6 The rationale of the
said requirement is to protect the victims of intemal armed conflicts, but not from crimes
unrelated to the conflict. The nexus is satisfied where the perpetrator acted in furtherance of
or under the guise of the armed conflict. I3 W
mz Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 58.
Im Tadié Trial Judgement, para. 562; Limaj Trial Judgement, paras 84, 89.
Im Tadié Trial Judgement, para. 562 [emphasis added]; Lima] Trial Judgement, paras 84, 89.
Im Tadic Appeal Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 70; Halilovié Trial Judgement, para. 26; Kunarac
Appeal Judgement, para. 64.
IM See Tadié Appeal Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 70; Prosecutor v. Bagilishema, ICTR—95—1A—T,
Judgement (TC), 7 June 2001 [Bagilishema Trial Judgement], para. 105; Prosecutor v. Musema, ICTR—96—13—T,
Judgement (TC), 27 January 2000 [Musema Trial Judgement], para. 259; Prosecutor v. Rutaganda, ICTR—96—3—
T, Judgement and Sentence (TC), 6 December 1999 [Rutaganda Trial Judgement], para. 104; Prosecutor v.
Kayishema and Ruzindana, ICTR—95—1—T, Judgement (TC), 21 May 1999 [Kayishema and Ruzindana Trial
Judgement], para. 185; Akayesu Trial Judgement, para. 643.
lm Kunarac Appeal Judgement, para. 58; Tadié Appeal Decision on Jurisdiction, para. 70; Rutaganda Appeal
Judgement, para. 570.

---- End of Page 200 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T Ow 18 May 2012 H

?>%2.‘1 3
567. The following factors have been considered in the jurisprudence to determine if an
act was sufficiently related to the armed conflict: whether the perpetrator was a combatant;
whether the victim was a member of the opposing party; whether the act can be said to have ~
served the ultimate goal of a military campaign; and whether the crime was committed as
part of or in the context of the perpetrator's official dutiesmg The Appeals Chamber has
stated that "in respect of Article 3, therefore; the Court need only be satisfied that an armed
conflict existed and that the alleged violations were related to the armed conf1ict". I3 19
(c) The victims were not directly taking part in the hostilities at the time of the alleged
violation
568. Both Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II protect only those persons who
take no active or direct part in the hostilities, and those who have ceased to take part therein
and are therefore placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other
cause.l320 The Prosecution must therefore establish the relevant facts of each victim with a
view to ascertain whether that person was directly involved in the hostilities at the relevant
time 1321
Submissions of the Parties
T 569. The Prosecution submits that an armed conflict existed in Sierra Leonemz The
Prosecution submits that "indictment perpetrators" used civilians as sources of "food,
materials, labour, transportation assistance, shielding during hostilities, and a means of
expression and publicity". It further argues that there was a nexus between the armed
conflict and the alleged violations, as "it was the conflict itself which prompted campaigns
of terror, murder, physical and sexual violence, and looting". 1323
mg Kunarac Appeal Judgement, paras 58~59. The nexus does not imply the requirement that the perpetrator
be related or linked to one of the parties to the conflict: Akayesu Appeal Judgement, paras 443·444. See also
Rutaganda Appeal Judgement, para. 570.
1319 CDF Appeal Decision on Nature of Armed Conflict, para. 25.
1320 Common Article 3; Article 4(l) of Additional Protocol II.
ml AFRC Trial Judgement, para. 248; Tadic Trial Judgement, para. 616.
lm Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 693~694.
1323 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 695-696.

---- End of Page 201 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL—O3~Ol—T 6),9 18 May 2012

3% ufl Mt
570. The Defence has made no specific submissions in relation to alleged violations of
Article 3. However, it maintains that the Prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt
each element of the crime — including the chapeau requirements. 132 4
Findings
(i) The existence of an armed conflict in Sierra Leone during the period relevant to
the Indictment
571. The Trial Chamber took judicial notice of the fact that there was an armed conflict in
Sierra Leone, lasting from March 1991 until January 2002.1325 The parties agree that
"[d]espite temporary lulls in the fighting occasioned by a 30 November 1996 peace
agreement and a 7 July 1999 peace agreement, active hostilities continued in the Republic of
Sierra Leone until about 18 January 200271326 Therefore, the Trial Chamber finds that it is
established beyond reasonable doubt that there was an armed conflict in Sierra Leone at all
times relevant to the Indictment period.
572. The Trial Chamber took judicial notice of the fact that
Armed groups who participated in the armed conflict in Sierra Leone included:
a) The Revolutionary United Front (RUF); b) The Armed Forces Revolutionary Council
(Arno); e) The crvri Defence Forces (CDF)".m7
Conclusions on the Chageau Reguirements for Article 3 of the Statute
573. The Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubts that
there was an armed conflict in Sierra Leone at all times relevant to the Indictment, involving
among others members of the RUF, AFRC and CDF.
Im Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1557; Defence Pre~Trial Brief, para. 42.
mj Decision on Judicial Notice, Fact C ("There was an armed conflict in Sierra Leone from about
March1991 until about 18 January 2002").
Im Admitted Facts and Law, Fact 28. The Trial Chamber does not consider that the ceasefire agreements
between the Government of Sierra Leone and the rebel forces during the Indictment period disrupted the nexus
between the crimes charged and the armed conflict. Despite temporary lulls in the fighting occasioned by the
November 1996 Abidjan Peace Accord, the October 1998 Conakry Accord, the May 1999 ceasefire agreement,
the July 1999 Lomé Peace Accord and the November 2000 Abuja ceasefire agreement, active hostilities
continued in Sierra Leone. International humanitarian law applies in the case of internal conflicts beyond the
cessation of hostilities until a peaceful settlement is achieved. Such a settlement was not brought about until
about 18 January 2002.
M7 Decision on Judicial Notice, Fact M.

---- End of Page 202 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL~03~01~T QV? 18 May 2012

3% 29S
574. The questions of whether (i) nexus existed between the alleged violation and the
armed conflict, (ii) that the victim was not directly taking part in the hostilities at the time of
the alleged violation and (iii) that the perpetrator knew or had reason to know that the victim
was not taking a direct part in the hostilities at the time of the alleged act or omission are
considered on a case by case basis in the findings on the crimes section. mg
C. Article 4: Other Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law
575. The Accused is charged with one count of other serious violations of international
humanitarian law pursuant to Article 4(c) of the Statute: conscripting or enlisting children
under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups or using them to participate
actively in hostilities (Count 9).
576. Article 4(c) of the Statute provides:
The Special Court shall have the power to prosecute persons who committed the following serious
violations of international humanitarian law:
[U,]
c. Conscripting or enlisting children under the age of fifteen years into armed forces or groups
or using them to participate actively in hostilities.
577. The crimes listed in Article 4 of the Statute possess the same chapeau requirements
as those in Article 3 of the Statute.
578. The Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubts that ‘
there was an armed conflict in Sierra Leone at all times relevant to the lndictment, involving
among others members of the RUF, AFRC and CDF. A
579. The questions of whether (i) nexus existed between the alleged violation and the
armed conflict, (ii) that the victim was not directly taking part in the hostilities at the time of
the alleged violation and (iii) that the perpetrator knew or had reason to know that the victim
was not taking a direct part in the hostilities at the time of the alleged act or omission are
considered on a case by case basis in the findings on the crimes section. [329
13 28 See Findings on Alleged Crimes.
13 29 See Factual and Legal Findings on Alleged Crimes.

---- End of Page 203 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL·03—01—T F /,,, A -·{l·*(3 18 May 2012

gquqw
VII. FACTUAL AND LEGAL FINDINGS ON ALLEGED CRIMES
General submissions and Hndings regarding Crime-base evidence
580. The Prosecution observes that the Indictment timeframes as well as locations within
a District are pleaded using "the inclusive language". The Prosecution accordingly submits
that the Trial Chamber should consider for guilt of the Accused all relevant evidence
adduced where the evidence falls within the District and the approximate timeframes V
specihed by the Indictment}330 Similarly, the Prosecution submits that given the "inclusive
language" used in Count 6 of the Indictment, the Trial Chamber should consider for guilt
evidence of all forms of sexual violence (including male sexual violence victims)l33 I and not
just evidence of rape or sexual slavery; and all forms of physical violence constituting "cruel
treatment" under Count 7 or "inhumane treatment" under Count 8.1332 In support, the
Prosecution argues that it has provided "timely, clear and consistent notice" to the Accused
of the material facts underpinning the charges, by the original Indictment, First Amended
Indictment, Second Amended Indictment, Case Summary, Amended Case Summary, Pre- i
Trial Brief Opening Statement and/or witness statements.l333 The Prosecution makes
specihc submissions in relation to the specific Counts as shown hereunder.
581. The Defence submits that it has not substantively addressed crime base evidence in
its submissions because its position from the outset is that it accepts that crimes were indeed
committed in Sierra Leone although it denies that the Accused is responsible for these
crimes}334 The Defence maintains however, that the onus of proving beyond reasonable
doubt the elements of the crimes charged in the Indictment, as well as the guilt of the
Accused, lies squarely upon the Prosecution.l335 In addition, the Defence requests the Trial
Chamber to exclude Prosecution evidence of crimes that fall outside the temporal or
geographical scope of the Indictment, or to impose strict limits on the degree to which such
evidence may be taken into consideration during deliberations.l336
133 0 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 662.
ml Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 665.
lm Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 663.
lm Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 664.
mil Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 1557.
lm Defence Final Trial Brief, para. 27.
lm Defence Final Trial Brief, paras 42-46.

---- End of Page 204 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T mkq 18 May 2012 E

Zsufl il-
582. Tl1e Trial Chamber has, in the Chapter on Preliminary Issues, ruled on evidence
falling outside the temporal and/0r geographical scope of the Indictment,m7 locations and
criminal acts not specifically pleaded in the Indictmentgmg as well as timeframes
imprecisely pleaded in the Indictmentmg The submissions relating to specific C0unts in the
Indictment are appropriately handled under each C0unt. Tl1e Trial Chamber will now
examine the evidence relating to the various Counts in the Indictment. For ease of reference
C0unt 1 (Acts of terrorism) is examined after the other C0unts as it encompasses evidence
relating to all the other Counts. ta examining the crime-base evidence, the Trial Chamber
does not at this stage examine the role if any, played by the Accused or his alleged criminal
responsibility for the said crimes, as these are matters more appropriately examined under
the Chapter on the Role of the Accused and his alleged criminal responsibility.l34O
Accordingly, the Trial Chamber's findings in this Chapter are limited to the primary
perpetrators.
A. Counts 2 and 3 gMurder or "UnlawfulKi11i11gs"[
Allegations and Submissions
583. Counts 2 and 3 of the Indictment allege the following particulars, namely, that
"Between about 30 November 1996 and about 18 January 2002, members of RUF, AFRC,
AFRC/RUF Junta or alliance, and/0r Liberian fighters, assisted and encouraged by, acting in
concert with, under the direction and control of and/0r subordinate to the Accused,
throughout Sierra Leone, unlawfully killed an unknown number of civilians, including the
rp11pw1ng‘3"‘
i. In Kenema District between about 25 May 1997 and about 31 March 1998, in
various locations including Kenema town and the T0ng0 Fields area;l342
ii. In Kono District between about 1 February 1998 and about 31 January 2000, in
various locations including Koidu, T0mb0du or Tumb0du, Koidu Geiya 0r
Im Preliminary Issues: Evidence Outside of the Scope of the Indictment and./or Jurisdiction of the Court.
mg Preliminary Issues: Issues relating to the Pleadin in the Indictment.
mq Preliminary Issues: Issues relating to the Pleadin in the Indictment.
lm) See Chapter VIII.
'3"' Indictment, para. 9.
***2 inrirptment. para. 10.

---- End of Page 205 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL—O3—01—T , 18 May 2012

Koidu Gieya, Koidu Buma, Yengema, Paema or Peyima, Bomboa fuidu,
Bumpe, Nimikoro or Njaima Nimikoro and Mortema,13313
iii. In Kailahun District between about 1 February 1998 and about 30 June 1998, in
various locations including Kailahun town,1344 and
iv. In Freetown and the Western Area between about 21 December 1998 and 28
February 1999, in locations throughout Freetown, including the State House,
Kissy, Fourah Bay, Upgun, Calaba Town, Allen Town and Tower Hill areas of
the city, and Hastings, Wellington, Tumbo, Waterloo and Benguema in the
Western Area".1345
584. The Prosecution submits that throughout the Sierra Leone conflict, massive numbers
of civilians were unlawfully killed at the hands of the Indictment perpetrators subordinate to
the Accused, as an integral part of the campaign of terror unleashed upon villages, towns
and cities,13316 and/or in order to capture the attention of the international community,1347
and/or as a punishment or example for failure to support the AFRC/RUF Junta Government
and forces.1348 The Prosecution further submits that the use of unlawful killin s as an
8
instrument of terror was ordered by senior RUF commanders like Foday Sankoh, Sam
Bockarie, Issa Sesay and Morris Kallon as well as senior AFRC commanders like Johnny
Paul Koroma and Alex Tamba Brima, and was endorsed by the Accused.1349 Furthermore, I
the Prosecution submits that in addition to the evidence of unlawful killings in the locations
s eciiied in the Indictment, civilians were killed durin the pre—Indictment eriod and in
P 8 P
other villages, towns and districts not pleaded in the Indictment throughout Sierra Leone.133O
Evidence and Deliberations
1333 Indictment, para. 1 1
1344 Indictment, para. 12
1343 Indictment, para. 13.
1343 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 757-760.
1337 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 761 -762.
1348 Prosecution Final Trial Brief paras 761 -762. .
1349 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, paras 759-760.
13 30 Prosecution Final Trial Brief, para. 760.

---- End of Page 206 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03-01—T Og J 18 May 2012

1. Alleged unlawful killings in Kenema District Q25 May 1997 to about 31 March 1998;
585. The Trial Chamber heard evidence establishing beyond reasonable doubt that after
the 25 May 1997 overthrow of the Tejan Kabbah Government by the Junta forces, a large
contingent of AFRC/ RUF forces were based in Kenema Townml until the ECOMOG
Intervention in mid-February 1998 when they were forced to flee the areamz The RUF
forces led by Sam Bockarie (a.k.a. Mosquito) were based at the NIC Compound on Dama
Road in Kenema Town, while the AFRC forces led by Eddie Kanneh, the Secretary of State
East, were based at 14 Hangha Road.l353 Notwithstanding that the AFRC and RUF forces
had separate command structures, the two groups worked in collaboration with each other in
Kenema Town during this period.l354 Other commanders in Kenema Town at this time
included Manawa, Morris Kallon, Issa Sesay, Akimlm and Massaquoi.l356 Shortly after the
establishment of the Junta Government in Freetown, the AFRC/ RUF forces in Kenema
Town attempted to have a reconciliation meeting with one Kamoh Brima Bangura, who was
the leader of the Civil Defence Force (a.k.a. Kamajors). M7 When the Kamajor leader
refused to cooperate, Col. Eddie Kanneh and Col. Sam Bockarie ordered his arrest, sparking
off hostilities between the AFRC/RUF forces on the one hand, and the Kamajors and
ECOMOG forces on the other.l358 After 5 June 1997, the AFRC/RUF forces drove out the
ml Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 14989, 14991, 15101and 15108; Alex Bao,
Transcript 18 September 2008, pp. 16649-16652; Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May 2005", p.
15309. The AFRC was based at brigade headquarters near the reservation and the RUF was based on Dama
Road at the NIC compound. Both the AF RC and the RUF shared a secretariat administrative building on Hangha
Road. Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16652; Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May
2005", p. 15309.
B52 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 14991.
lm Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, pp. 16653; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July
2005", pp. 15119, 15190. See also Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May 2005", p. 15309; Abdul
Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17509-17511; TF1-360, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3090; TF1-
371, Transcript 1 February 2008, pp. 2800-2803; Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp.
14992, 15110. See also Karrnoh Kanneh, Transcript 8 May 2008, p. 9388.
B54 Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16653; Exh P178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May 2005"
p. 15310.
USS These are described as RUF Commanders in Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp.
14991-14993; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15119-15120, 15130; TF1-590,
Transcript 16 June 2008, pp. 11916-11917; Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 12 November 2008, p. 20148.
USO Massaquoi is described as an AF RC soldier who was a sergeant in charge of operations under Eddie Karmeh.
Confidential Exhibit 178B, pp. 15368-15369. See also Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June
2005", p. 14992.
W7 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May 2005", p. 15311.
B58 Adesanya Hyde, Transcript 23 September 2008, pp. 17005-17006; Exh. P178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript
12 May 2005" p. 15311.

---- End of Page 207 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012
és jg

Kamajor and ECOMOG forces from Kenema Town.l339 The said hostilities continued until
the Junta forces were driven out of Kenema District in mid-February 1998. During the
eriod Ma 1997 to Februar 1998 man civilians in Kenema District sus ected of
P Y V Y Y P
supporting or cooperating with the Civil Defence Force were murdered, and/or had their
property looted or destroyed, by the AF RC/RUF forces. 1360
586. On 11 August 1997, under the command of Issa Sesay, Akim, and Sam Bockarie, the
AF RC/RUF forces travelled with heavy armaments from Kenema Town to Tongo Fieldsl36*
where they took control of the area from the Kamajors and subsequently looted civilian
property for three days.*363 Persons who fled the area reported that the RUF/AFRC forces
captured able-bodied men to forcibly mine diamonds for them and in the process, killed
many civilians who refused to cooperate.l363 During the AFRC/RUF occupation of Tongo
Fields, Sam Bockarie was in command and control of the Junta forces.*363 Other AFRC
commanders in Tongo Fields at this time included the PLO-2,*363 Captain Yamao Kati,
Captain J alloh, Sergeant Junior, Seth Marrah, and Victor,l366 while other RUF commanders
included Ca tain Ea le a.k.a. Karmoh Kanneh , Amu e eh, and Ban a.*367
P S Y P Y
587. In relation to unlawful killings alleged to have taken place in Kenema District the
Trial Chamber has considered the testimony of Prosecution Witnesses Alex Sheku Bao,
Adesanya Sanya Hyde, Kannoh Kanneh, Augustine Mallah, Abdul Otonjo Conteh, Issac
Tamba Mongor, Samuel Kargbo, protected Prosecution Witnesses TF 1-062, TF 1-375, TF 1-
567, TF 1-590, Defence Witnesses Issa Sesay, Sam Kolleh, protected Defence Witnesses
*339 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 14991; Exhibit P-174, "RUF Transcript of
TF1-122, 7 July 2005", p. 15282; Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16651; Exhibit P—178A "TF1-125,
RUF Transcript 12 May 2005", p. 15316; Adesanya Hyde, Transcript 23 September 2008. p. 17004.
*360 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May 2005" pp. 15312-15316.
*36* Tongo Fields is a diamond mining area located in Kenema District about 27 miles from Kenema Town and is
made up of over ten villages spread out over an eight square kilometre area. See testimony of Abdul Conteh,
Transcript 29 September 2001, pp. 17495-17496 and 30 September 2008, p. 17560.
*363 Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14912-14918; Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122,
AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15055-15056; TF1-062, Transcript 27 January 2009, pp. 23632-23633;
Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17511; Exhibit D-063, "Lower Bambura Chiefdom Situation
Reports Prepared by Abdul Conteh", p. 1. See also TF1-567, Transcript 2 July 2008, p. 12884
*363 Exhibit P-173, "TFl—l22, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 1505545056; Exhibit P—l74, "TF1—122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15159.
*363 Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14953, 14960-14961.
*363 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 12 November 2008, pp. 20139, 20141, 20153.
*366 Exhibit P-278, "TFl-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14928—l4929, 14956—l4957.
*367 Exhibit P-174, "TF1—122, RUF riaiisciipt 7 Juiy 2005*; p. 15159.

---- End of Page 208 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T rrg_,,.. —’/I mg 18 May 2012
_//%

38 50 1
ocr-068, ocr-146 and Exhibits P-078,*368 P-173,l369 P-174,*370 P-175,*37* P-17sA,‘"2 P-
278,*373 P-366*374 and D-063.*375
(a) Kenema Town
(i) Killing of Mr Dowei
588. Witness Alex Baomb testified that for the period of nine months from about the end
of Ma 1997 to Febma 1998 when the AFRC/RUF forces were based in Kenema Town,
Y YY
he was working as a station sergeant based at Kenema Town Police Station.m7 He stated
that "right after the takeover"m8 in Kenema Town a civilian housewife called Mrs. Dowei
filed a comprehensive report with Kenema Police Station to the effect that AFRC/RUF
forces had attacked her home, looted all her property and shot her husband in the head and
stomach when he interyened to revent them from takin a dee freezer from his house. Mr
P S P
Dowei consequently died from the gunshot woundsmg In his prior testimony, Bao stated
that althou he was not resent when Mrs Dowei made her statement to the Kenema Police,
P
he subsequently went to Mrs Dowei's house to investigate the incident and saw the corpse of
lm Amnesty International Report entitled "Sierra Leone — 1998 — A year of Atrocities against Civilians"
(SCSL/ERN/88).
Bw The Prosecutor v. Brima et al., SCSL-04-16-T, Transcript 24 June 2005, testimony of Witness TFl-122, pp.
14985-15113.
mo The Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., SCSL-04- 15-T, Transcript 7-8 July 2005, testimony of Witness TFl-122, pp.
15114-15303.
ml Copy ofa Diary dated 13/1/98 to 7/2/98 tendered by Witness TF1-122 (APRC Exhibit P24 and RUF Exhibit
28), pp. 15507-15705.
mz The Prosecutor v. Sesay et al., SCSL-04-15-T, Transcript 12 May 2005, testimony of Witness TF1-125, pp.
15304-15342.
lm The Prosecutor v. Brirna et al., SCSL-04-16-T, Transcript 27 June 2005, testimony of Witness TF1-062, pp.
14908—14984 (SCSL/ERN/366).
W4 Sierra Leone Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998, US Department of State, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, 26 February 1999; pp. 00025071-para 4, 00025072-para 6, 00025073-
aras 3-4, 00025074-para 9, 00025075- para 2, 00025077-para 5, 00025072-para 3 (CMS pp. 22798-22802,
P
22804).
ms Reports of the Lower Bambara Chiefdom prepared by Witness TF1-060 Abdul Otonjo Conteh in September,
October and November 1997.
W6 Alex Bao (TF1-122) gave evidence for the Prosecution in the AFRC and RUF trials which was admitted into
evidence in the Taylor Trial pursuant to Rule 92bis as Prosecution Exhibits P-173 and P-174, respectively ("prior
testimony"). Alex Bao was cross-examined by the Defence in this trial regarding his prior testimony. Alex Bao,
Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16758.
lm Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16758. See also Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, APRC Transcript 24
June 2005", pp 14991, 15101, 15108.
lm Exhibit P-173, "TFl-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15087.
mg Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, APRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15011; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF
Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15141-15412; See also Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16656.

---- End of Page 209 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T nd 18 May 2012 E
%

Mr Dowei with two bullet wounds. However, he could not conduct a proper investigation as
"the area was tense and there was shooting all over the place". BSO
Findings
589. The Trial Chamber finds Bao's account of this killing in the three trials, namely, the
RUF, AF RC and the current trial, to be consistent and credible. His testimony is based on an
official complaint filed by Mrs. Dowei, an eye witness to the killing. Although he could not
carry out a thorough investigation due to the shooting going on in the area, Bao visited the
Dowei residence and saw the body of the deceased bearing two bullet wounds as described
by Mrs. Dowei in her Police Statement. The Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that the AF RC/ RUF forces, intentionally shot and killed Mr
Dowei, a civilian taking no active part in the hostilities, in order to steal his property. Given
that Mr Dowei was killed while trying to protect his property from being looted, the Trial
Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators carried out this killing with the
primary purpose of instilling terror in other civilians who would similarly attempt to resist
the looting.
(ii) Killing of three civilians near Mambu Street
590. ln his prior testimony, Alex Bao further stated that during the entire Junta period,l38l
both the RUF rebels and AF RC juntas looted excessively in Kenema Town. On one
occasion they went to Mambu Street to loot, and for the rest of the day were shooting in the
area}382 Later, Bao saw the RUF/AF RC fighters, including Commanders Akim and
Bockarie, with looted property, singing that "they had driven the Kamajors out of the
area".l383 That evening Bao went to a house on Mambu Street that belonged to one Pa
Mansaray. When he arrived, the house was on fire. M4 Bao testified that the house had
1380 Exhibit P-174, "TFl-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15141.
ml Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15047.
1382 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15047. Bao testified that "[t]hey take patrol,
every day they go with their pickup from village to village and when they are coming back we see them with
looted property. And most of the properties contained blood stains", and that he knew this because "The police
have more than 50 reports. Even above hundreds of looting and killing from village to village .... reports that they
attacked their village, killed their people, looted their properties. A hundred of cases reported of widespread
looting and killing of innocent people". Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15049-
15050.
lm Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15048-15049.
1384 Exhibit P-173, "TFl-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15048, 15050.

---- End of Page 210 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T gj 18 May 2012

38 Eoé
supposedly been occupied by Kamajors, but by the time he went there, there were no
Kamajors at the house.l385 On cross-examination in this trial, Bao clarified that the AFRC
and RUF fighters burned down Pa Mansaray's house because the Kamajors were using it as
a base.l386 Bao testified that he went down to the swamp behind Pa Mansaray's house where
he saw three dead bodies lying in the street.l387 He described the bodies as two elderly men
and one young man, all wearing "civilian plain cloth".l388 Bao testified that the attack on
Mambu Street was plarmed by AFRC and RUF fighters including Sam Bockarie and Akim,
and that he had seen Akim riding around Kenema Town that day on the bonnet of a
Mercedes with an AK-47 rifle in his hand}389
Findings
591. Bao's testimony regarding his discovery of three corpses behind the house of Pa
Mansaray is circumstantial and uncorroborated. Bao did not witness the actual killing of the
three persons and is therefore unaware of the specific circumstances of their death. He
merely assumed that the three victims were killed by the AFRC/RUF forces that were
engaged in the looting of civilian property. The Prosecution did not adduce any evidence
connecting those deaths in any way to the looting spree that had been taking place earlier
that day or to the burning of Pa Mansaray's house. Given Bao's testimony that fighting
between the AFRC/RUF fighters and the Kamajors was ongoing around the area and that Pa
Mansaray's house was being used as a base for the Kamajors, it is possible that the three
people could have been killed in the cross fire by either group. In the circumstances, the
Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the
death of the three persons behind Pa Mansaray's house was unlawfully caused by the
AFRC/RUF as alleged.
(iii) Killing of Bonnie Wailer and other suspected burglars
[385 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15051-15052; Exhibit P-174, p. 15135.
H86 Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16658.
B87 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15048, 15052; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15136.
. [388 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15048, 15042. "[t]hey were in civilian plain
cloth [...].They were not in Kamajor uniform at all". Exhibit P-173, "TF 1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005",
pp. 15048, 15042.
mg Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15136.

---- End of Page 211 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T "`£ 18 May 2012
/ \l

592. Alex Bao further testified that one moming in late June 1997,*390 upon his arrival at
the Police station, he found a man whom he knew well called Bonnie Wailer who had been
taken into custody for alleged "house-breaking and larceny".*39* Bao described Wailer as
wearing "combat trousers and plain cloth" at the time of his detention.*392 VVhen Bao asked
Wailer why he was dressed in combat trousers, Wailer explained that he and his colleagues
"went to run a mission" but he ran out of luck and was caught, beaten and then taken to the
Police Station.*393 Bao further testified that later on that day, RUF Commander Sam
Bockarie accompanied by an AFRC Lieutenant and several RUF and AF RC men came to
the Police Station and took away Bonnie Wailer, supposedly for him to show them where
they could find Wailer's "colleagues". The group returned two hours later with Wailer and
two other men.*394 Bao knew one of the two men to be a "notorious criminal" but did not
know the other one.*395 Bonnie Wailer and the two men were lined up in front of the police
officers and many civilians who had gathered and Bao heard Sam Bockarie order his men to
kill the three suspects.*3% The AFRC juntas publicly executed the three suspects and left
their bodies on display for the rest of the day.*397 Later on at night, the three corpses were
loaded onto a military pickup vehicle and taken away.*398
*390 Exhibit P-17}, "TE1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15002.
*3°* Exhibit P—17}, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15002-1500}; Exhibit P—174, "TF1—122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 151}1; Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16684.
*393 Exhibit P-17}, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15002-1500}.
*3°3 Exhibit P—173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15002-1500}; Exhibit P—174, "TF1—122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 151}1; Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16684. Under cross-
examination in the RUF trial the witness further explained that "[a]ccording to what Bonnie Wailer told me, he
was arrested by civilian, right in the house where they went and broke into. The civilian beat him up and brought
him to the police station, where he was detained". Exhibit P-174, "TE1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p.
15201.
*394 Exhibit P-17}, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 1500}-15004; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 151}2-151}}; Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16685.
*3°5 Exhibit P-17}, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15003; Exhibit P-174, "TF1—122, RUF
Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 151}2; Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16686.
*3% Exhibit P—173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15006; Exhibit P—174, "TF1—122, RUF
Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 151}}.
*397 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15006; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF
Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 151}}; Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, p. 16689.
*333 Exhibit P-17}, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15006-15007; Exhibit P—l74, "TF1—122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", 7 July 2005", p. 151}4.

---- End of Page 212 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T 2/ 18 May 2012

593. Adesanya Hyde,l399 a colleague of Alex Bao's who was a police officer and the
second-in-command at the Kenema District Criminal lnvestigation Department in 1997 and
19981400, also gave evidence regarding these killings. He stated in his prior testimonymm that
in the first week of the coup in May 1997,1402 Bonnie Wailer, Sydney Cole, Mr Bangura,
and an unknown man were brought to the police station by civilians on suspicion of
"burglary and larceny" charges.l4O3 Hyde stated that he was one of the police officers who
escorted Wailer to look for the other suspects. According to Hyde, the four men had
impersonated the AFRC/RUF rebels by dressing up in military unifonn and robbing
civilians at gun point. Hyde testified that the AFRC/RUF fighters who arrested the suspects
shot each suspect "more than ten times" in the legs before taking them to the police station.
1404
594. According to Hyde, the AFRC/RUF rebels were upset because "the suspects were
impersonating the juntas by wearing military fatigues and robbing civilians. As the
revolution was in its early stages, the rebels did not want this incident to tarnish the Junta's
— image".l4O5 After arresting the four suspects, the AFRC/RUF fighters sent word to the
citizens of Kenema Town that they should come to the Police compound to witness the
public executions.l4O6 The AFRC hierarchy including Eddie Kanneh and Massaquoi were
also present to witness the executions}407 Hyde stated that the four suspects were made to
lie down on the floor of the Police station and an RUF man shot each of the men at close
range on the orders of an AFRC officer.l4O8 Hyde stated that he left the scene after the first
shooting as he was too traumatised to watch and instead observed the scene from the safety
of his office window. MO9
mg Adesanya Hyde gave evidence for the Prosecution in the RUF trial which was admitted into evidence in the
Taylor Trial pursuant to Rule 92bis as Prosecution Exhibits P-178A and P-178B ("prior testimony"). Adesanya
Hyde, Transcript 23 September 2008, p. 17032. Hyde was cross-examined by the Defence in this trial regarding
his prior testimony. Adesanya Hyde, Transcript 23 September 2008, p. 16980.
Mm Exhibit P-178B (confidential), p. 15348; See also Adesanya Hyde, Transcript 23 September 2008, p. 16995.
ml Exhibit P-178B, (confidential); Adesanya Hyde, Transcript 23 September 2008, p. 16995.
lm Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May 2005", pp. 15315-15316, 15375.
1403 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May 2005", pp. 15314-15315; Exhibit P-178B
(confidential)., p. 15355
Mm Exhibit P-178B (confidential), p. 15371.
MOS Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May 2005", pp. 15314-15315.
"‘"° Eianbir P-178B, RUF Transcript p. 15365.
Mm Exhibit P-178B, RUF Transcript p. 15365.
MOB Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, RUF Transcript 12 May 2005", pp. 15314-15315.
"‘°" Eranbir 1>-17813, nur Transcript p. 15370.

---- End of Page 213 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T // QB. 18 May 2012

Same
Findings
595. Although there are differences between the accounts of Bao and Hyde regarding the
number of suspects arrested and as to the person that pulled the trigger, their accounts
corroborate each other in many important respects. First, both witnesses testified that the
event happened soon after the coup of May 1997. Second, both witnesses stated that the
suspects were arrested by a combined team of AFRC/RUF fighters on allegations of
burglary and theft. Third, they both described at least one of the suspects as being a
"notorious criminal". Fourth, both witnesses stated that the execution of the suspects was
public and witnessedby the citizens of Kenema Town. Fifth, both witnesses stated that
although Bonnie Wailer was dressed in combat uniform he was, in fact, a civilian who was
impersonating the rebels. Sixth, according to both witnesses, the suspects had not officially
been charged in a court of law when they were executed. Lastly, the suspects were shot dead
by one of the AFRC/RUF fighters present on the orders of a superior commander.
596. Given that Hyde was traumatised and left the scene soon after the first shot, the Trial
Chamber relies more on the evidence of Bao who stayed and who testified that he heard Sam
Bockarie give the order to shoot the suspects. Accordingly, based on the above evidence, the
Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in late
May or June 1997 at Kenema Town Police Station, a group of AFRC/RUF fighters acting
under the orders of Sam Bockarie and in the presence of senior AFRC commander Eddie ~
Karmeh, intentionally killed three persons. Bao testified that it was three persons suspected
of burglary, including Bonnie Wailer, Sydney Cole and Bangura, all civilians who were not
taking an active part in hostilities.
597. In this instance, the evidence establishes that the AFRC/RUF commanders, including
Sam Bockarie and Eddie Kanneh, gathered the citizens of Kenema Town whom they
specifically wanted to witness the punishment meted out to civilians who would dare to
impersonate the rebels or bring their name into disrepute. These executions took place at the
police station and in full view of the police personnel and members of the public, and the
bodies were left at the scene on display for the rest of the day as an example to the residents
of Kenema Town. The Trial Chamber accordingly finds beyond reasonable doubt that the
perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such violence with the primary purpose
of instilling terror in the civilian population in Kenema.
(iv) Killing of a farmer at the NIC Building

---- End of Page 214 ---------------------------


Case No.: sCsL-03-01-T QM.; 18 May 2012

598. In his prior testimony, Alex Bao testified that at the end of the rainy season in 1997,
which is in September,W0 a group of RUF rebels caught a civilian man who was "brushing a
swamp" which is a colloquial way to describe preparing a field for farming.Wl Bao first saw
the man when the RUF rebels were marching him up Maxwell Khobe Street in Kenema
Town.W2 The man was wearing a "working cloth", had mud all over his body and was
carrying a cutlass in his hand.W3 Based on the man's appearance, Bao concluded that he
was a farmer who had been apprehended by his captors while he was working on his fields
in the swamp.W4 The rebels were dancing and singing that they had "captured a Kamajor,
and that they would take him to Sam Bockarie".W5 Bao followed them out of curiosityW6
but before he could catch up with them, he heard two gunshots from a pistol as he was
approaching the NIC building. On arrival at the scene he saw Sam Bockarie brandishing a
pistol in the air, standing over the f`a1rner's body which had bullet wounds in the head and
stomach.W7 The other onlookers confirmed to Bao that Bockarie had shot the f3I'1'I'1€1'.l4l8
Bao heard Bockarie say that he "must finish all of them", meaning Kamajors, and ordering
his "boys" to dump the farmer's body into a hole behind the NIC building. W9
Findings
599. The Trial Chamber finds Bao's account of this killing in the three trials, namely, the
RUF trial, AFRC trial and the current trial, to be detailed, consistent and credible. Based on
that evidence, the Trial Chamber finds that the victim was a civilian farmer taking no active
part in the hostilities when he met his death. Although Bao's account of who actually shot
WO Exhibit P-173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15096, 15099—15100; Exhibit P—l74, "TF1—
122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15140.
Wl Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15007—15010.
W2 Exhibit P-173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15007—15009, 15086; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-
122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15140, 15226.
W3 Exhibit P—173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15095—15096; Exhibit P—l74, "TF1-122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15140.
W4 Exhibit P—173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15007—15008; 15095—15096; Exhibit P—l74,
"TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15140.
W5 Exhibit P—173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15010; Exhibit P—l74, "TF1-122, RUF
Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15140, 15228.
W6 Exhibit P-173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15009; 15095-15096; Exhibit P-174, "TF1—
122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15140, 15227—15228.
W7 Exhibit P—173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15009, 15085, 15097-15098; Exhibit P—l74,
"TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15141, 15228.
"'8 Exhibit P-173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 Jrrrir-> 2005**, p. 15098.
Wo Exhibit P—173, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15010; Exhibit P-174, "TF1—122, RUF
Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15141, 15228.

---- End of Page 215 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T QR 18 May 2012

2>8$o8
the farmer is based partly on circumstantial evidence and partly on hearsay from the
bystanders, the Trial Chamber finds that the circumstances relating to the arrest and shooting
of the victim, including: 1) the rebels dancing and singing while referring to the victim as "a
Kamajor, that they had captured and would take to Sam Bockarie", 2) the statements Sam
Bockarie made at the scene of crime that he must finish all the Kamajors and his brandishing
of the smoking gun over the victim's body; and 3) the statements of bystanders implicating
Bockarie in the killing, all lead to one reasonable inference that Sam Bockarie intentionally
shot and killed a captured farmer in cold blood because he suspected that he was a Kamajor.
The Trial Chamber accordingly finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that around September 1997 in front of the NIC building then housing the RUF rebels,
Sam Bockarie intentionally shot and killed a farmer that was not taking an active part in
hostilities.
600. In this instance, the AFRC/RUF fighters accused the farmer of being a Kamajor (i.e.
a perceived enemy of the Junta forces) prior to handing him over to Bockarie. After killing
the farmer in full view of the public, Bockarie announced that he would do the same to all
Kamajors, thereby sending a clear and unequivocal message to the civilian population not to
associate with the Junta's enemies. The Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that
Sam Bockarie wilfully made the victim the object of such violence with the primary purpose
of instilling terror in the civilian population of Kenema Town.
(v) Killing of Santos and an alleged thief
601. In his prior testimony, Alex Bao testified that during the rainy season in November
1997,1420 an NGOMH filed a report with Kenema Police Station that thieves had broken into
the NGO's warehouse and stolen a large quantity of expensive drugs.1422 No sooner had the
police started investigating the complaint than Sam Bockarie came to the police station
asking how far the investigation had gone. Bockarie told the police officers, including Bao,
that he had information about the suspects and that he was going to "help the Police by
M20 Exhibit P-173, "24 June 2005, AFRC Transcript ofTF1-122", pp. 15012, 15092.
‘*2‘ Witness explained that he cannot remember whether this NGO was Medicines Sans Frontier (MSF) or the
Intemational Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) as both were based in Kenema Town. See Exhibit P—173,
"TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15093; Exhibit P-174, ‘"TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005",
%2;5E;l?ibit P-173, ‘"TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15012; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF
Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15143.

---- End of Page 216 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / arg I 18 May 2012

sssza **1
looking for the suspects". Bao stated that shortly thereaHer there was a widespread rumour
that Bockarie had arrested and killed the alleged thief and a boy named Santos in front of
Capital Cinema, where Santos worked}423 Bao stated that he knew Santos very well. Bao
stated that the corpses of the two people were 1eH in front of his house, opposite the Cinema
for three days before Sam Bockarie and "his boys" loaded the bodies onto their vehicle and
took them away. M4
Findings
602. The Trial Chamber finds Bao's account of these killings in the three trials, namely,
the RUF, AFRC and the current trial, to be consistent and credible. Although Bao's evidence
as to who killed the two people is partly circumstantial and partly based on hearsay or
"widespread rumour", the Trial Chamber finds that the circumstances surrounding these
deaths, including the inquiry by Sam Bockarie about the progress of the police investigation
into the alleged theH, his unsolicited offer to help the police by looking for the suspects, and
his collection of the bodies from the scene of crime three days later, all lead to one
reasonable inference that Sam Bockarie intentionally killed these two people, neither of
whom had properly been tried by a court of law. This circumstantial evidence corroborates
the hearsay evidence implicating Sam Bockarie in these killings. Accordingly, the Trial
Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in November
1997 in front of Capital Cinema in Kenema Town, Sam Bockarie intentionally shot and
killed two civilians, including one Santos, that were not taking an active part in hostilities.
603. Given that perpetrators summarily executed the civilian suspects without trial and
1eH their bodies lying in full public view for three days before taking them away, the Trial
Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that Sam Bockarie wilfully made the victim the
object of such violence with the primary purpose of the killings to instil terror in the civilian
population in Kenema Town.
(vi) Killing of an alleged "Kamajor Boss" on Hangha Road
"23 Exhibit P—173, "AFRC Transcript bf TF1—122, 24 June 2005", p. 15013, 15092; Exhibit P—174, "RUF
Transcript ofTF1—122, 7 July 2005"’, p. 15143.
'"" Exhibit P-173, "AFRC Transcript bf TF1-122, 24 June 2005", pp. 15012—15015; Exhibit P—174, **RUE
Transcript ofTF1—122, 7 July 2005", p. 15144.

---- End of Page 217 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T (LQ 18 May 2012

604. In his prior testimony, Alex Bao testitied that in late December 1997, AFRC/RUF
tighters launched an attack against the residents of Kenema Town which they named
"Operation No Living Thing".l425 One morning during that operation, Bao saw the body of
"a fat man dressed in plain clothes and not Kamajor uniform" lying motionless along
Hangha Road by the Sierra Leone Telecommunications building in Kenema Town.l426 Bao
saw the RUF/AFRC juntas dancing and singing aloud that "they had captured and killed the
Kamajor boss".l"m Bao saw one of the rebels split open the dead man's belly with a
bayonet, remove the intestines and stretch them across the street, using it as a checkpoint}428
The disembowelled body of the man remained at the "checkpoint" which was manned by the
AFRC/RUF tighters, for three days after which the AFRC/RUF tighters took the corpse
away}429 During cross-examination in this trial, Bao testified that "[t]he man is no Kamajor.
When they want to kill innocent people, they brand you as a Kamajor. That man was just a
peaceful citizen". 1430
Findings
605. The Trial Chamber tinds Bao's account of this killing in the three trials, namely, the
RUF, AFRC and the current trial, to be consistent and credible. Based on that evidence, the
Trial Chamber is satistied beyond reasonable doubt that the man described by the witness as
"a peaceful citizen" and as wearing "plain clothes and not a Kamajor uniform" was a
civilian not taking an active part in the hostilities when he was killed. Although Bao's
evidence as to who killed this man is circumstantial, the Trial Chamber tinds that the
circumstances surrounding that death, including the bizarre conduct of the AFRC/RUF
fighters in dancing and singing aloud that "they had captured and killed the Kamajor boss",
and disembowelling his body and using the entrails as a "check point", all reasonably lead to
one inference that the AFRC/RUF tighters intentionally killed this civilian suspecting him of
M25 Exhibit P-173, "AFRC Transcript of TF1-122, 24 June 2005", pp. 15016, 15019; Exhibit P-174, "RUF
Transcript of TF 1-122, 7 July 2005", p. 15144. Bao explained that during this "Operation" the AFRC/RUF
routinely harassed civilians, stopping and searching them and looting their property under the pretext that the
AFRC/RUF were "looking for Kamajors".
1426 Exhibit P-173, "AFRC Transcript of TF1-122, 24 June 2005", p. 15017-15018; Exhibit P-174, "RUF
Transcript ofTF1-122, 7 July 2005", pp. 15145-15146.
1427 Exhibit P-173, "AFRC Transcript of TF1-122, 24 June 2005", p. 15017; Exhibit P-174, "RUF Transcript of
TF1-122, 7 July 2005", pp. 15145-15146,
bm Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15018; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF
Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15145-15146.
1429 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15018.
""° Alex Bao, Trarreerrpt 18 September 201 1, p. 16657. ‘

---- End of Page 218 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T // I 18 May 2012 M

being a member of the Civil Defence Force, a perceived enemy of the AF RC/RUF forces.
Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that in December 1997 on Hangha Street near the Sierra Leone Telecommunication
house, the AF RC/RUF fighters intentionally killed a civilian that was not taking an active
part in hostilities.
606. Given that this killing was part of the operation code-named "Operation No living
thing", the AFRC/RUF fighters’ bizarre conduct in disembowelling the man's body and
using the entrails as a "check point", and in leaving his body on public display for three days
before removing it, the Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators
wilfi1lly made the victim the object of such violence with the primary purpose of the killing
to instil terror in the civilian population in Kenema Town.
(vii) Killing of Mohamed F ityia
607. Witness Karmoh Kanneh (a.k.a. Captain Eagle) a former civilian captured and
enlisted as a fighter by the RUF in 19911431 stated that his RUF contingent led by Sam
Bockarie was based at the NIC compound in Kenema Town for three to four months before
the ECOMOG Intervention took place in Freetown,1432 rrpm where the RUF routinely
conducted operations, including the capture of Tongo Fields.1433 When Kanneh was in
Kenema Town, members of the RUF and AF RC were looting civilian property. This led to
Sam Bockarie issuing an order to put the looting under control.1434 During the looting
outbreak Kanneh investigated an allegation by a Mandingo man that Mohamed Fityia, a
businessman, had driven soldiers in his car to loot the Mandingo man's house.1435 Kanneh
found out that F ityia had only offered to drive his car hoping that the soldiers would not
steal it.143 6 Kanneh told this to Bockarie, but the latter did not believe the story and became
very angry with Kanneh. Bockarie then shot and killed F ityia in front of Kanneh.l437
143 I Kamioh Kanneh, Transcript, 8 May 2008, p. 9312.
lm Kannoh Kanneh, Transcript, 8 May 2008, p. 9388. Since the ECOMOG intervention took place in February
1998, the Trial Chamber estimates that Karmeh was in Kenema Town from about October 1997 onwards.
lim Kannoh Karmeh, Transcript, 8 May 2008, pp. 9367-9369.
1434 Kamioh Kanneh, Transcript 8 May 2008, p. 9411. The timing of the event is prior to the killing of BS
Massaquoi. Kannoh Kanneh, Transcript 8 May 2008, p. 9411.
1435 Karmoh Karmeh, Transcript 9 May 2008, pp. 9409-9411.
*43** Kannoh Kaapah, rrapppppr 9 May 2008, pp. 9409-9410. .
lm Kannoh Kanneh, Transcript 9 May 2008, p. 9411.

---- End of Page 219 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / (N 18 May 2012
N

3 531 1
608. Another witness, Alex Sheku Bao, testified in this trial regarding what he had heard
about the death of one businessman called Fityia in Kenema Town. Although Bao had said
nothing about Fityia's death in his prior testimony in the AFRC and RUF trials, Bao testified
in cross-examination in this trial, that sometime between 25 May 1997 and January 1998 he
heard from people in Kenema that a businessman called Fityia hired two AFRC and two
RUF fighters to rob a large amount of money from one Shekuna, a Lebanese diamond dealer
in Kenema Town.l438 Bao later heard rumoursthat Bockarie had killed Fityia because he
was suspected of this crime.l439 He went to the scene to investigate and found Fityia's dead
body lying on Sombo Street.l44O \Vhen asked by the Defence why his version of events
differed from that given by Karmoh Kanneh, Bao admitted that his version of events based
on hearsay was not as accurate as Kanneh's direct evidence, but that he had seen Fityia's
body lying in Sombo Street.
Findings
609. The Trial Chamber finds Karmoh Kanneh's eyewitness account of the killing of
Fityia credible and consistent. Kanneh was based at the RUF base at the NIC compound in
Kenema Town and was personally involved in investigating the complaint against Fityia. He
was also present when Sam Bockarie shot Fityia. The Trial Chamber accepts Bao's evidence
that he saw Fityia's body lying in Sombo Street but finds his evidence as to Fityia's alleged
involvement in the robbery of a Lebanese diamond dealer unreliable as it is based on
uncorroborated hearsay. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that a few months before the ECOMOG intervention, in
Sombo Street, Kenema Town, Sam Bockarie intentionally shot and killed Mohamed Fityia,
a civilian not taking active part in the hostilities.
610. Given the summary execution of a civilian suspect without trial, including
Bockarie's conduct in publicly exhibiting the corpse on Sombo Street, the Trial Chamber
finds beyond reasonable doubt that Sam Bockarie wilfully made the victim the object of
such violence with primary purpose of this killing to instil terror in the civilian population in
Kenema Town.
Im Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, pp. 16662-16664.
*439 Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, pp. 16664, 16669, 16671; Alex Bao, Transcript 19 September
2008, 16681.
M40 Alex Bao, Transcript 18 September 2008, pp. 16664, 16669, 16671.

---- End of Page 220 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 4/ \K·' 18 May 2012

(viii) The killing of Brima S. Massaguoi and others
61 1. In his prior testimony, Witness Alex Bao provides the most detailed account on the
circumstances surrounding the killing of Brima S. Massaquoi, the Chairman of Kenema
Town Council and other prominent residents in January 1998. Bao testihed that in late
January 1998, six prominent individuals, namely, Brima S. Massaquoi, the Chairman of
Kenema Town Council,l44l Brima Kpaka a prominent businessman in Kenema,l442 Andrew
Quee, a civil servant,l443 Issa Ansumana, Abdulai Bockarie and John Swanay were arrested
by the AFRC/RUF forces in Kenema Town and detained at the AFRC Secretariat located at
14 Hangha Road, on suspicion of being "Kamajor supporters".l444 Bao visited the AFRC
Secretariat and saw the prisoners lying on a wet floor with their hands tied tightly behind
their backs and with bruises on their bodies. The ropes had "eaten" into their flesh.l445 Bao
saw the RUF commander Sam Bockarie (a.k.a. Mosquito) brandishing his pistol in the air
and heard him say that the detainees were "supporters of Kamajors and he was going to kill
all of them". The AFRC Lieutenant in charge of the Secretariat was also present.l446 After
being detained at the AFRC Secretariat for three or four days, the prisoners were on 28
January 19981447 transferred to the Kenema Police Station where Bao was deployed to be
investigated on charges that they were supporting the Kamajors against the AFRC/RUF4444
612. Bao stated that the Police found no evidence supporting the allegations that any of
the six men were Kamajor collaborators and released them on bail.l449 Three or four days
later, when Bockarie learned that the six suspects had been released, he openly threatened
the Police Commissioner with death if the men were not returned within two hours.l45O As a
l44l According to the police log book or Diary admitted in this trial as Exhibit P-175 his formal name is Brima S.
Massaquoi, but he was commonly known as BS Massaquoi. Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June
2005", pp. 15020, 15044.
I442 Exhibit P·173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15020 ’
*444 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15020; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF
Transcript of, 7 July 2005", p. 15148; Alex Bao, Transcript 19 September 2008, pp. 16689-16690.
4444 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15021.
'445 Exhibit P—l73, "TF1—122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15021-15022.
4444 Bao stated that he does not remember the AFRC comrrrander's name. Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC
Transcript 24 June 2005", p. 15021.
I447 Exhibit P-175, "Copy ofDiary", p. 15621.
4448 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15019-15021; 15042-15043; Exhibit P-174,
"TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15147-15148.
1444 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15023-15025; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15150; Alex Bao, Transcript 19 September 2008, p. 16702—l6703.
'45° Exhibit P-174, "TF1—122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15151; Exhibit P-173, "TF1—122, AFRC
Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15026-15027, 15043-15044, 15288; Alex Bao, Transcript 19 September 2008, pp.

---- End of Page 221 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T /7/ QM 18 May 2012 M

result five of the suspects were re-arrested and detained at the Kenema Police Station1451 on
the orders of the Police Commissioner, with the exception of Brima Kpaka who had been
admitted to the Kenema hospital for treatment.1452 On 6 February 19981455 a lot of armed
AFRC/RUF forces led by AFRC Lieutenant A.B. Turay came to Kenema Police Station in
two military vehicles and took away five of the prisoners, namely, B.S. Massaquoi, Andrew
Quee, 1ssa Ansumana, Abdulai Bockarie and Jolm Swanay.1454 Bao heard Lt. Turay tell the
police that he was taking the prisoners to the AFRC Brigade headquarters on orders of the
Secretary of State East.1455
613. Bao further stated that two da s after the AFRC/RUF had taken the five risoners
Y P
into custody,1456 there were widespread rumours in Kenema Town that the AFRC/RUF
forces had killed the five prisoners and dumped their bodies in a river.1457 Bao searched in
vain for the five prisoners at the AFRC Brigade headquarters and Guinea Base. 1458 He found
the dead bodies of the five prisoners lying in a stream at Dorwala, on the outskirts of
Kenema Town.1455 Bao described the bodies as having gunshot wounds all over. Also there
was large cement block lying on Massaquoi's head.1460
614. Bao's testimony is to a large extent, corroborated by that of Adesanya Sanya Hyde
who was a police officer, and the second in command at the Kenema District Criminal
16704-16705. 1
1451 Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15151-15152; Exhibit P-173, "AFRC Transcript
ofTF1-122, 24 June 2005", pp. 15027, 15085.
1452 Exhibit P-173, "AFRC Transcript of TF1-122, 24 June 2005", pp. 15027, 15079. The police log book
records this as happening on 4 February 1998; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005",, p.
15152.
1455 Exhibit P-175, "Copy of Diary", p. 15690.
1454 Exhibit P-173, "AFRC Transcript of TF1-122, 24 June 2005", pp. 15027; Exhibit P-175, "Copy of Diary", p.
15690.
1455 Exhibit P-173, "AFRC Transcript of TF1-122, 24 June 2005", pp. 15027-15029, 15045; Exhibit P-174,
"TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15152, 15290.
14515 Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122, RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15154.
1457 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15030-15031; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", p. 15154.
14515 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15030-15031; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15154-15155, 15243-15244; Alex Bao, Transcript 19 September 2008, p.
16710-16711.
1455 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15031-15032; Exhibit P-174, "TF1-122,
RUF Transcript 7 July 2005", pp. 15155-15156, 15244-15245; Alex Bao, Transcript 19 September 2008, p.
16710-16711.
14514 Exhibit P-173, "TF1-122, AFRC Transcript 24 June 2005", pp. 15031-15032; Exhibit P-174, "RUF
Transcript of TF1-122, 7 July 2005", pp. 15155-15156; Alex Bao, Transcript 19 September 2008, pp. 16711-
16712.

---- End of Page 222 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / GTA 18 May 2012

A!/»/L

Investigation Department in 1997 and 1998. Hyde testified that close to the time of the
Intervention, the "AF RC hierarchy", including Eddie Kanneh and Sam Bockarie, ordered the
arrest of seven suspected Kamajor collaborators including B.S. Massaquoi, the Chairman of
the Kenema Town Council, Brima Kpaka, a prominent businessman, and Andrew Quee.4464
Hyde stated that the prisoners were detained at the AF RC Secretariat for six days, and then
transferred to the Kenema Town Police station for liirther investigation. 4462
615. As the Police could not find any evidence to support charges against the men, and
because of their injuries, the Chief of Police received permission from Eddie Kanneh to
release the suspects on bail, and BS Massaquoi and Brima Kpaka were released.l463
However, shortly afier the ECOMOG Intervention, Sam Bockarie ordered that they be re-
arrested.4464 Kpaka was not taken back as he had been admitted to the hospital, but B.S.
Massaquoi was returned to the station.4466
616. The next morning there was a rumour that the Kamajors and ECOMOG were five
miles away from Kenema.4466 At 6.30am the same day the AFRC forces, led by Lieutenant
A.B. Turay, removed the suspects from the Police Station and took them to the AFRC
Brigade Headquarters.6464 Hyde later heard from other residents of Kenema that Sam
Bockarie and his men had killed the suspects and that BS Massaquoi had been beheaded and
that his head had been tied to a wooden pole and paraded around Kenema. 4466 Hyde testified
however, that he never saw the dead bodies of any of the deceased. 4469
617. Another witness, Karmoh Kanneh, (a.k.a. Captain Eagle)1476 testified that Sam
Bockarie arrested B.S. Massaquoi, the City Council Chainnan, Ibrahim Gbacka, a motor-
spares dealer, and Dr Momoh, a medical doctor, and detained them at the Secretariat,
4464 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, AFRC Transcript 12 May 2005", pp. 15316-15317.
4462 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, AFRC Transcript 12 May 2005", p. 15317.
4463 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, AFRC Transcript 12 May 2005", p. 15318.
4464 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, AFRC Transcript 12 May 2005", pp. 15318-15319.
4465 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, AFRC Transcript 12 May 2005", p. 15319.
4466 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, AFRC Transcript 12 May 2005", p. 15320.
4464 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, AFRC Transcript 12 May 2005", pp. 15320-15321, 15334; See also Exhibit P-
175, "Copy of Diary", p. 15691.
4466 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, AFRC Transcript 12 May 2005", p. 15321.
4466 Exhibit P-178A, "TF1-125, AFRC Transcript 12 May 2005", p. 15321.
4446 This witness is a former civilian captured and enlisted as a fighter by the RUF in 1991. Karmoh K&I1H€h4S
RUF contingent led by Sam Bockarie was based at NIC compound in Kenema Town for three to four months
before the ECOMOG Intervention took place in Freetown.

---- End of Page 223 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T // G1); 18 May 2012
//

accusing them of collaborating with the Kamajors.l47l Kanneh and his colleague Manowai
visited the suspects in detention and observed that they were badly beaten and bruised.
Gbacka, who hailed from the same region as Kanneh, confirmed to the latter that they had
been severely tortured.l472 Kanneh persuaded Bockarie to allow him to transfer Gbacka and
Dr Momoh to the hospital for treatment and while there, he assisted the two men to escape
and hide because he was concerned for their safety. Kanneh stated that as ECOMOG
advanced towards Kenema, Kanneh heard Bockarie say that "if the situations went out of
control the prisoners would not be spared".l473 Upon leaming that two of the prisoners had
escaped while in the hospital, Bockarie ordered that B.S. Massaquoi be put under "tight
custody". 1474
618. Karmeh testified that on the day that ECOMOG forces entered Kenema Town and as
the AFRC retreated,m5 he saw Bockarie put B.S. Massaquoi into a car and heard Bockarie
say he was going to execute Massaquoi.l476 Karmoh Karmeh and others including Eddie
Kamieh, followed Bockarie as he took Massaquoi to the Government reservation. While
there Kamieh saw Bockarie's securities take Massaquoi out of the car and shoot him.l477
Kamieh stated that after Massaquoi died, all of the men followed Bockarie back to the
brigade but were not happy with him for having carried out the killings.l478
619. A number of other Prosecution and Defence witnesses testified of hearing of the
death of B.S. Massaquoi as he was a key figure in Kenema Town. Prosecution Witness TF1-
590 heard that Sam Bockarie and his men arrested and killed B.S. Massaquoi.l479 However,
TF 1-590 did not see the corpse of B.S. Massaquoi, but only referred to the "widespread
rumour" that Massaquoi's body was lying in Hangha Road.l480 Defence witness Issa Sesay
testified that he heard from Major Gua and others that Sam Bockarie had, prior to the RUF
retreat from Kenema Town, arrested and killed B.S. Massaquoi and others on suspicion of
ml Karmoh Kanneh, Transcript 9 May 2008, pp. 9403-9404.
1472 Karmoh Kanneh, Transcript 9 May 2008, p. 9405.
*4*4 Karmoh Kanneh, Transcript 9 May 2008, p. 9406.
*474 Karmoh Kanneh, Transcript 9 May 2008, p. 9407.
*4*4 Karmoh Kalman, Transcript 9 May 2008, p. 9407.
*4*4 Karmoh Kapaah, Transcript 9 May 2008, pp. 9406-9407.
*4** Karmoh Kapaah, Transcript 9 May 2008, pp. 9406-9408.
*4** Karmoh Kanneh, Transcript 9 May 2008, p. 9408.
W9 Witness TF1—590, Transcript 17 June 2008, p. 12021.
MSO TF1-590, Transcript 17 June 2008, pp. 11917-11918, 12021.

---- End of Page 224 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T (pk 18 May 2012

sending ammunition and food to the Kamajors.1181 Defence Witness Sam Kolleh (DCT-
102), a commanding officer in the RUF who was stationed in Kenema in February 1998,11182
also heard that Sam Bockarie had arrested B.S. Massaquoi and killed him on the day after r
the Ecomoc rm€rv€mrrm.'4*"
620. In addition to witness testimony, the Trial Chamber admitted into evidence two
independent reports on the unlawful killings that took place in Sierra Leone in the year 1998.
An Amnesty International report states:
[O1n 13 and 14 January 1998 several prominent members of the community in Kenema
were arrested by members of the RUF under the supervision of Sam Bockarie. They
included B.S. Massaquoi, the chairman of the Town Council, Dr P.B. Momoh, a medical
doctor, Paramount Chief Moinama Karrnor, a traditional leader and Ibrahim Kpaka, a
businessman. They were arrested at a time of fierce fighting between the Kamajors and the
AFRC and RUF forces around Kenema and were accused of supporting the Kamajors.
They were held at the AFRC Secretariat building in Kenema, which had been the local
SLPP headquarters, and some were later moved to the police station and army brigade
headquarters. They were stripped and repeatedly beaten with sticks, electric cables and
strips of tyres and were threatened with death. Their arms were tied tightly behind them.
One of those detained sustained a serious head wound and injury to his eye after being
beaten on his head with a gun. At least one of those detained died as a result of beatings.
Some of those arrested were released on 26 January 1998 and escaped to safety. B.S.
Massaquoi, however, was among those who remained held at army brigade headquarters.
He was killed by members of the RUF on 8 February 1998 as news arrived of ECOMOG's
offensive on Freetown and as Kamajors entered Kenema. Dozens of other people were also
reported to have been killed. The mutilated body of B.S. Massaquoi and 35 other people
were reported to have been found in mass grave near Kenema on 23 March 1998.11184
621. A 1998 Human Rights report `on Sierra Leone states:
[T]hroughout the year, AFRC and RUF rebels committed numerous egregious abuses,
including brutal killings, severe mutilations and deliberate dismemberments, in a
widespread campaign of terror against the civilian population known as "Operation No
Living Thjng" .... Many of the hundreds, if not thousands, of civilians killed by AF RC and
RUF insurgent forces in the conflict were executed deliberately for political motives. In
March RUF leader Sam Bockarie summarily executed 10 prominent residents of Kenema,
including former cabinet minister Bockarie S. Massaquoi and Paramount Chief Momoh
Tarawalie, for opposing the rebels. 1485
Findings
111111 Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, p. 44006.
11182 Sam Kolleh, Transcript 1 November 2010, pp. 48440-48442.
11183 Sam Kolleh, Transcript 1 November 2010, pp. 48786.
11181 Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone — 1998 — A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", pp. 9-10.
11185 Exhibit P-366, "Sierra Leone Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998, US Department of State,
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 26 February 1999", pp. 2-3, ERN 22798-22799.

---- End of Page 225 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T /·/ Ok 18 May 2012
/·’$ /·/'

3% Sl G
622. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of the two policemen, Alex Baol486 and
Adesanya Sanya Hyde regarding the circumstances surrounding the death of B.S.
Massaquoi, Andrew Quee, Issa Ansumana, Abdulai Bockarie and John Swanay, credible
and reliable. Both witnesses were deployed as policemen at Kenema Police Station during
the period of May 1997-February 1996 when the arrests, detention and killing of the
prisoners took place. Their testimony is corroborated by the Kenema Police Diary
documenting the arrest, detention and release of the prisoners by the police into the custody
of the AFRC/RUF, which information was not challenged. Although the evidence of these
two witnesses as to who killed the prisoners is partly circumstantial and partly based on
hearsay or 1"widespread rumour", the Trial Chamber finds that the circumstances
surrounding these deaths, including the initial arrest, detention and torture of the prisoners
by the AFRC/RUF fighters in Kenema, the unsubstantiated accusations by Sam Bockarie
that the prisoners were "Kamajor supporters" and his threat to execute them; Bockarie's
furious conduct upon learning that the police had released the prisoners and his ordering
their re-detention and repeated threat to execute them immediately prior to the ECOMOG
Intervention; and the dumping of the prisoners’ bullet-riddled bodies in a river, all lead to
one reasonable inference that the AFRC/RUF juntas led by Sam Bockarie intentionally
killed the prisoners on suspicion that they were Kamajor supporters.
623. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber has considered the evidence of Karmoh Kanneh an
RUF insider closely associated with Sam Bockarie and based at the RUF headquarters in
Kenema Town at the material time, and finds it credible. His evidence relating to the arrest,
detention and torture of the prisoners on the orders of Sam Bockarie, is consistent with other
Prosecution evidence. More importantly, his eye-witness account of the killing of Massaquoi
by Bockarie's security men corroborates the earlier circumstantial evidence discussed above.
The hearsay evidence of other Prosecution and Defence witnesses referred to above and the
content of the two reports quoted above are further corroboration of these killings. Although
there are variations in the names of the prisoners as given by the various witnesses, the Trial
Chamber is of the view that a number of prominent civilians were executed on this occasion
but that most witnesses recall the most prominent of the deceased persons, namely B.S.
Massaquoi. Other witnesses including Kanneh recall particular prisoners like Dr Momoh
1486 In particular, the Trial Chamber notes that Bao's account was consistent in each of the three trials in which
he testified, namely: Prosecutor v. Brima et. al. (AFRC) trial; Prosecutor v. Sesay et. al. (RUF) trial and the
Prosecutor v. Taylor.

---- End of Page 226 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-O3-Ol-T / Om 18 May 2012

and Ibrahim Gbacka having known them before. The Trial Chamber also finds the timing of
the arrest, detention and killing of these civilians relevant. These events took place
immediately after the AFRC/RUF forces had been driven out of Freetown by the ECOMOG
forces and at a time when the AFRC/RUF forces in Kenema were anticipating a similar
attack and defeat by ECOMOG and Kamajor forces in Kenema. The victims, suspected or
perceived by the AFRC/RUF forces in Kenema to have been supporters of "the enemy
forces" (albeit without proof), were thus killed in revenge or reprisal for perceived support
of the Junta's enemies.
624. Based on the above oral and documentary evidence, the Trial Chamber finds that the
Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in early February 1998 in Kenema
Town, AFRC/RUF forces led by Sam Bockarie intentionally killed a number of civilians not
taking an active part in hostilities, including B.S. Massaquoi, Andrew Quee, Issa Ansumana,
Abdulai Bockarie and John Swanay. Given the timing and circumstances of these deaths
described above, the Trial Chamber ii1rther finds beyond reasonable doubt that Bockarie
wiliiilly made the victims the object of such violence with the primary purpose of these
killings to instil terror in the civilian population.
(b) Tongo Fields area
(i) Killing of three persons in a residential house
625. In his prior testimony from the AFRC trial admitted in this trial as Prosecution
Exhibit P-278, Witness TF1-062 testified that he was a trader and a diamond miner living in
a town called Tongo Fields in Lower Bambara Chiefdom about 27 miles from Kenema
Town when armed AFRC/RUF rebelsl487 led by Sam Bockariel488 took control of the area
on 11 August 1997.1489 Upon their arrival in Tongo Fields, the AFRC/RUF rebels carried
out widespread looting and indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population for three
days 1490
M87 The witness stated that the group comprised a combination of ex—SLA soldiers wearing combat uniform and
others that wore civilian clothing. See Exhibit P—278, "TF1—062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14915.
lm Witness stated that Sam Bockarie introduced himself to the civilians. See Exhibit P—278, "TF1—062, AFRC
Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14916, 14949, 14960.
1484 Exhibit P—278, "TF1—062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14910—l4916.
1440 Exhibit P—278, "TF1—062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14916—149l8. Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29
September 2008, pp. 17496—17497.

---- End of Page 227 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T my 18 May 2012

Es; ze
626. Witness TF1-062 testified that one morning during this three day period, he was
sitting in his house in Tongo Fields when armed soldiers came to a residential house
opposite his.l49l The soldiers ordered the occupants of the house to open the door. When the
occupants declined to do so, the soldiers broke down the door and started shooting randomly
into the room, killing the three occupants.l492 The witness heard the soldiers refer to the
deceased as Kamajors. The witness however, did not believe this as he knew that there were
no Kamajors in Tongo Fields at that time}493 After the soldiers left the scene Witness TF1-
062 helped some civilians to take the corpses away.l494
Findings
627. The Trial Chamber finds the eye-witness account of Witness TF1-062 credible. The
evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators carried out these killings
in reprisal against persons they perceived or suspected to be enemies of the Junta forces.
Based on that evidence, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that in August 1997 in Tongo Fields, RUF/AFRC fighters intentionally
shot to death three civilians that were not taking an active part in the hostilities. Given that
the perpetrators accused the victims of being "Kamajors" at a time when the AFRC/RUF
forces were under threat of attack from ECOMOG and the Kamajors, the Trial Chamber
further finds beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the
object of such violence with primary purpose of these killings to instil terror in the civilian
population by making an example of would-be enemies of the Junta forces, thereby
guaranteeing civilian loyalty.
(ii) Killing of 15 civilians at Bumpe near Tongo Fields around September 1997
628. Abdul Otonjo Conteh (TF1-060), who was a Secondary School teacher, part-time
miner and resident of Lalehunl495 in Tongo Fields testified that the AFRC/RUF Junta forces
under Eddie Kanneh and Sam Bockarie arrived in Kenema Town three days after the 25
M9! Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", p. 14919.
lm Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14919-14920; TF1-062, Transcript 27
January 2009, p. 23640.
lim Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14919-14920.
N94 Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14919.
"°5 Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17512. Witness stated that this location is two miles on the
outskirts of Tongo Town.

---- End of Page 228 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Gb 18 May 2012

May 1997 coupl496 and entered Tongo Fields on 11 August 1997 amid heavy shooting and
rampant looting of civilian property.l497 Abdul Conteh testified that in the days following
the arrival of the AFRC/RUF forces in Tongo, the paramount Chief of Lower Bambara
Chiefdom appointed a 13 man Committee known as the Lower Bambara Advisory
Committee, to oversee the welfare of the citizens of the Chiefdom. The mandate of this
committee was to receive reports from the citizens regarding any problems encountered and
in turn to relay these complaints to the Paramount Chief and the AFRC/RUF
administration.l498 Conteh was appointed Secretary of that Committee and was resident in
Tongo Fields from 1 1 August to 10 November 1997.1499
629. Conteh testified that in his capacity as committee member, he received a report from
some citizens of Bumpe on 16 September 1997,1500 that fifteen people had been killed at
Bumpe, located about one mile on the outskirts of Tongo.l50l He went to Bumpe to
investigate and saw fifteen corpses of both men and women in civilian clothes, including
two girls aged 14 and 18 years, respectively, lying in the open. All the bodies bore bullet
wounds.l5O2 Bumpe was deserted as everyone had 1un away. Conteh testified that some of
the survivors of Bumpe told him that RUF fighters went to fight the Kamajors in Dodo
Chiefdom on 16 September 1997 and lost. Out of frustration the returning RUF fighters
killed whoever crossed their path during their retreat.l5O3 Those reportedly killed by the RUF
included the fifteen civilians at Bumpe; Chief Vandi Sei and a retired Policeman called John
Dakowah at Panguma}504 Conteh further testified that the civilians who returned to their
home from the bush were harassed, beaten or raped by the AF RC/RUF fighters who accused
them of being "relatives of the Kamajors".l5O5
14% Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17496-1751 1
l"‘" Abdui Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17496-17512
y lm Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17525-17528
1499 Abdul Conteh, Transc1ipt 29 September 2008, p. 17547
*500 Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17531;
1501 Abdul Conteh, Transc1ipt 29 September 2008, p. 17529.
1502 Abdul Conteh, Transc1ipt 29 September 2008, pp. 17529-17530.
1503 Abdul Conteh, Transcnpt 29 September 2008, pp. 17531; Exhibit D-063, "Lower Bambura Chiefdom
Situation Report prepared by Abdul Conteh", ERN 101408.
1504 Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17531; Abdul Conteh, Transcnpt 30 September 2008, p.
17555; Exhibit D-063, "Lower Bambura Chiefdom Situation Report prepared by Abdul Conteh", ERN 101406.
1505 Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17532.

---- End of Page 229 ---------------------------


Case No,: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012

ESE 12
630. In addition, the Trial Chamber admitted into evidence several reports authored by
Abdul Conteh as "Secretary General of the Lower Bambara Care—Taking Committee".l5O6
According to one of the reports, Col. Sam Bockarie (a.k.a. Mosquito) on 8 September 1997
led a group of about 300 RUF/AF RC combatants to Dodo Chiefdom to confront Kamajors.
The group suffered heavy casualties and the survivors, on their return to Tongo Fields, killed
a retired Policeman called John Dakowa claiming that he was a Kamajor.l5O7 According to
another report, on 16 September 1997 the O/C Secretariat Tongolm led a group of about
800 RUF/AFRC combatants to Dodo Chiefdom to conrront Kamajors. The RUF/AFRC
combatants suffered heavy casualties and only 100 returned to Tongo. On their way back,
the RUF/AF RC combatants killed 15 civilians at Bumpe including one Saffa Balie, a
P prominent youth leader, and Pa Vandi Sei, the Town Chief of Panguma. The Lower
Bambara Care—Taking Committee reported these deaths to the O/C Secretariat Tongo who
A dismissed the report remarking that "all those killed were either Kamajors or collaborators
of Kamaj ors" and threatening to kill anyone found in Bumpe trying to bury the dead. 1509
Findings
631. The Trial Chamber finds Conteh's testimony credible. As a prominent member of
the Lower Bambara Care—Taking Committee that was charged with overseeing the welfare
of the citizens of the Chiefdom, he was privy to vital information regarding the treatment of
these citizens by the AF RC/RUF administration. Oftentimes he not only documented the
complaints received but also personally investigated some of them. The reports cited above
corroborate his oral testimony with regard to the 15 deaths in Bumpe and the two deaths in
Panguma. Based on that evidence the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that around 8 September 1997, at Bumpe on the outskirts of
Tongo Fields, AFRC/RUF fighters retreating from battle intentionally shot and killed 15
civilians including one Saffa Balie, who were not taking an active part in the hostilities. In
addition, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that around 16 September 1997 at Panguma, AFRC/RUF fighters retreating from battle
*5% Exhibit D-063, "Lower Bambura Chiefdom Situation Report prepared by Abdul Conteh".
'SO7 Exhibit D-063 "Lower Barnbura Chiefdom Situation Report prepared by Abdul Conteh", ERN101406.
mg Conteh testified that the Officer in charge of the AFRC Secretariat in Tongo during the Junta period was Lt.
Sakou Kunnateh, a former SLA soldier who joined the AFCR governrnent. See Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29
September 2008, pp. 17520-17521.
‘5°(’ Exhibit P-063 "A Confidential Report Against the Military Junta at Tongo (2) dated 17 September 1997".

---- End of Page 230 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-O3-01-T 6u 18 May 2012 E

33395
intentionally shot and killed Pa Vandi Sei, the Town Chief and John Dakowah, a retired
Policeman, both of whom were civilians not taking an active part in the hostilities. However
since the Prosecution did not specifically plead Panguma as a crime base in the Indictment,
the evidence in relation to the two deaths at Panguma serves only to prove the Chapeau
requirements of murder within Kenema District.*5*O
632. The above evidence establishes that the AFRC/RUF forces carried out revenge
killings after suffering heavy casualties during a previous military operation against the
Kamajors Civil Defence force. In this instance, the perpetrators, including Lt. Sekou
Kunnateh, the O/C of the AFRC Secretariat at Tongo, justified the killing of innocent
civilians by branding them "Kamajors or Kamajor collaborators" and preventing the other
civilians from burying the dead by threatening them with death. The Trial Chamber finds
beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such
violence with the primary purpose of these killings to instil terror in the civilian population,
thereby guaranteeing their loyalty.
(iii) Killing of civilians engaged in mining at Pandembu, Sandeyeima and Wuima
in Tongo Fields Area
633. Witness Abdul Conteh testified that during the Junta period, the RUF/AF RC fighters
forbade civilians to cany out any private or personal mining of diamonds in Tongo Fields
and that any civilian caught mining for himself was severely punished. He also stated that
the RUF/AFRC fighters would abduct civilians and force them to mine diamonds for the
Junta Government.*5** Conteh further testified that while serving on the Lower Bambara
Care-Taking Committee, he received a report*5*2 that Sam Bockarie sent RUF child
combatants*5*5 to Pandembu, a village in the Tongo Fields area,*5*4 with orders to kill
civilians who were carrying out personal mining instead of mining for the AFRC/RUF
Government.*5*5 The child soldiers shot and killed three civilians who were mining by a
*5 *0 Preliminary Issues: Issues relating to the Pleading in the Indictment. According to the Map of Sierra Leone
Exhibit P-176, Panguma is not part of the Tongo Fields Area.
*5** Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17532-17538.
*5*2 Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17538.
*5 *5 Conteh described the ages of the RUF child combatants as being between 12 to 15 years old. Abdul Conteh,
Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17536.
*5 *4 Conteh stated that Pandembu was just 300 yards from the offices of the Lower Bambara Care-Taking
Committee. See Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008 p. 17538.
*5*5 Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17537-17538.

---- End of Page 231 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T * V M 18 May 2012

Samet
church in Pandembu.l5l6 Conteh and the other Caretaker Committee members went to
investigate, and saw the three bullet-riddled corpses of the civilians as well as other people
who had sustained bullet wounds.l5 17
634. Abdul Conteh testified that he received another report that RUF child soldiers killed
two civilians who were doing private mining at Sandeyeima and wounded several others.l5l8
He further testified that he received yet another report that RUF child soldiers killed three
civilians who were doing private mining at Wuima and wounded several others. The
Caretaker. Committee reported these three incidents to Lieutenant Sekou Kunnateh, the O/C
of the AFRC Secretariat in Tongo, who responded that "he was not going to take any action
as he had confirmed that the child combatants were acting in accordance with Sam
Bockarie's orders", and that "no civilian was allowed to mine privately in Lower Bambara
Chiefdom except for the AFRC Government".l5l9
Findings
635. Conteh's evidence, although partly circumstantial, and partly based on the reports
that he received from citizens of Tongo in his capacity as a member of the Care-Taker
Committee, is credible. He and other members of the Lower Bambara Care-Taking
Committee visited the scene of the shooting at Pandembu and saw the bullet riddled corpses
as well as the wounded survivors. Although Conteh did not see the child combatants in
action and was merely told about it, the response of Lt. Sekou Kunnateh, the O/C of the
AFRC Secretariat in Tongo confirms the report that Conteh received, namely, that Sam
Bockarie sent the child combatants to kill those civilians that were mining diamonds for
themselves. The Trial Chamber therefore finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that during the Junta's occupation of Tongo Fields,l52O AFRC/RUF child A
combatants acting under the orders of Sam Bockarie and with the approval of Lt. Sekou
Kunnateh, intentionally shot and killed three civilians at Pandembu, two civilians at
Sandeyeima and three civilians at Wuima, all of whom were not taking an active part in
hostilities.
1516 Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17537-17538.
lm Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17538.
lm Abdul Conteh, Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17538.
1519 Abdul Conteh, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17555-17556.
*520 Conteh stated that the Junta forces entered Tongo on 11 August 1997, while Witness TF1-062 testified that

---- End of Page 232 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T % QL 18 May 2012

636. Given the slave—like conditions under which the AF RC/RUF Junta forced civilians to
mine for them and forbade them from mining for personal benefit, the Trial Chamber finds
beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such
violence with the primary purpose of the killing of the civilian miners in Tongo Fields to
instil terror in the civilian population, thereby guaranteeing their continued servitude and
continuing to control the mining activities in the District.
(iv) Killing of civilian miners at Cyborg Pit
637. In his prior testimony admitted as an exhibit in this trial,l5 21 protected Prosecution
Witness TF 1-062 testified that he was living in Tongo Fields, Lower Bambara chiefdom
during the AFRC/RUF Junta's occupation of Tongo Fields. He and his family had been
carrying on private mining of diamonds in Tongo Fields for 20 years before the AFRC/RUF
forces arrived}522 After the AFRC/RUF forces took over control of Tongo Fields, the
witness and other civilians were forced to mine for the AFRC/RUF forces using his
equipment and employees. Although he himself would not physically mine, he always made
sure that he personally supervised his workers on a daily basis and that any diamonds found
were surrendered to the AF RC/RUF commanders}523 The AFRC/RUF forces referred to this
forced mining as "Government work" but civilians were never compensated for work done
or diamonds produced}524 TF 1-062 testified that Sam Bockarie assigned an ex—SLA soldier
called Set Marah to oversee the mining activities of the AFRC/RUF forces in Tongo Fields
and that civilians were not allowed to mine without the permission of this commander}525
TF 1-062 also testified that any diamonds retrieved by the civilians were supposed to be
handed to the AF RC/RUF commanders who in turn would hand them over to Sam Bockarie.
Civilians who disobeyed this practice were severely punished or even killed. TF 1-062
the junta forces left Tongo Fields in January 1998. See Transcript 27 January 2009 p. 23634.
ml Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14910-14916. In the present trial, the witness
was cross-examined on his prior testimony. See TF1-062, Transcript 27 January 2009.
i.e. TF1-062 gave evidence concerning the killing of the child in Cyborg Pit in the AFRC trial, which was
admitted as prior testimony under Rule 92bis. He was also cross-examined by the Defence concerning the Rule
92bis evidence in this trial.
lm Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", p. 14911; See also TF1-062 Transcript 27
January 2009, p. 23618.
lm Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14933-14945.
lm Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", p. 14938-14940.
lm Exhibit P-278, "TF1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", p. 14928.

---- End of Page 233 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T // ··d-ik 18 May 2012

witnessed a number of civilian miners killed for this reason by the AFRC/RUF soldiers at
Cyborg Pit, a mining area operated by the AFRC/RUP forces. 1526
638. TF1-062 testified that on one occasion he was standing by watching his workers
mining at Cyborg Pit when he saw an AFRC/RUF soldier try to take a bag of gravel, by
force, from a child miner. The child was preparing to "wash" the gravel in order to sort out
any diamonds therein. However, when the child refused to turn over his bag of gravel to the
soldier, the latter became angry and shot and killed the child.1527 On another occasion at
Cyborg Pit, an AFRC/RUF soldier who was guarding the civilian miners temporarily left his
bag of gravel by the river side where the civilians used to "wash" their own gravel. When
the soldier returned he found the bag missing and was very angry vowing that he would set
an example by killing a civilian.1528 The soldier then randomly fired into the crowd where
TF1-062 was, killing one civilian in the process. 1529
639. TF1-062 further testified that on many occasions when he went to supervise his
workers as they were mining, he would see two to three corpses of dead miners who were
brought out of the pit to the surface where he was standing. TF1-062 observed that the
corpses were always "oozing blood".15311 TF1-062 concluded that the victims must have been
shot and killed by the AFRC/RUF fighters guarding the miners Cyborg Pit, as they were the
only people who were armed.1531
Findings
640. The testimony of Witness TF1-062 regarding the various killings at Cyborg Pit is an
eyewitness account. His role as supervisor of his miners accorded him a rare opportunity to
observe the manner in which the AFRC/RUF commanders and guards were treating the
civilian miners on site. His testimony in relation to the death of the child miner and that of
the civilian killed by an angry soldier are therefore credible and reliable. As regards the two
or three corpses that he observed being brought out of the pit on a regular basis, the Witness’
1526 Exhibit P—278, "TF1—062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14932—14945.
1527 Exhibit P—278, "TF1—062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14942.
*52* Exhibit P-278, ‘·Tr¤1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", p. 14942.
*529 Exh1bitP—278, ··rr1-062, AFRC Transcript 27 Juni: 2005", p. 14942.
1530 Exhibit P—278, "TF1—062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14943-14944. See also TF1—062, Transcript
27 January 2009, p. 23634.
1531 Exhibit P—278, "TF1—062, AFRC Transcript 27 June 2005", pp. 14943—14944. See also Witness TF1—062,
Transcript 27 January 2009, p. 23634.

---- End of Page 234 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T Gln 18 May 2012

3%% 23
account is based on circumstantial evidence. Although he could not say whether the oozing
of blood on these corpses was the result of bullet wounds or knife stabbings, nor attest to
hearing any gunshots inside the pit, the Trial Chamber is of the view that these miners did
not die from natural causes and must have met their death violently inside the pit. Secondly,
since the only people armed at Cyborg Pit were the AFRC/RUF guards and since they were
at liberty to mete out punishment or even death to disobedient or uncooperative miners, the
only reasonable inference is that these civilians were killed by these guards. Accordingly,
the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
between 11 August 1997 and January 1998 at Cyborg Pit in the Tongo Fields area,
RUF/AF RC guards intentionally killed an unknown number of civilian miners including a
child, all of whom were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
641. Given the slave—like conditions under which the AFRC/RUF Junta forced civilians to
mine for them and forbade them from mining forpersonal benefit, the Trial Chamber finds
beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such
violence with the primary purpose of the killing of the civilian miners at Cyborg Pit to instil
terror in the civilian population, thereby guaranteeing their continued servitude and
continuing to control the mining activities in the District.
(c) Alleged unlawful killings in locations in Kenema District not pleaded in the Indictment
642. The Trial Chamber received credible evidence of murder of civilians in a number of
locations within Kenema District not specifically pleaded in the Indictment including,
Mendekelema, Neama and Sandaru}532 As previously held, this evidence will only be taken
into account in relation to the chapeau requirements of the alleged crimes and not for proof
Or gu11t.‘5"
Conclusions
1532 In Exhibit P-078, Amnesty International reported at p. 14 that "attacks by rebel forces also escalated in
Kenema District from August 1998. Among the villages affected were Mendekelema, Neama and Sandam,
which was completely destroyed, less than 30 kilometres from the town of Kenema. One of the victims of the
.attack on Mendekelema in late August 1998 had both his hands amputated. Survivors of attacks consistently
described mutilation, rape, torture, killing and burning of houses. Entire local communities were displaced from
the area, many fleeing to the towns of`Kenema, Segbwema and Dam".
lm See Preliminary Issues, Issues Relating to the Pleading in the Indictment.

---- End of Page 235 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 2%/ hl 18 May 2012
/%~~ °

$83 2%
643. In conclusion, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that between about 25 May 1997 and about 31 March 1998, in various
locations in Kenema District including Kenema Town and the Tongo Fields area, members
of the AF RC/RUF murdered an unknown number of civilians in Kenema District, as
charged in the Indictmentl534 and as shown in the above evidence.
644. The Trial Chamber recalls that the Prosecution has established beyond reasonable
doubt that at all times relevant to the Indictment, the RUF and/or AFRC forces directed a
widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population of Sierra Leone. [535 The Trial
Chamber is satisfied that each of the killings proved by the Prosecution in respect of
Kenema District formed part of the said attack and that the perpetrators were aware of this
fact. The Trial Chamber also recalls that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
doubt that there was an armed conflict in Sierra Leone at all times relevant to the Indictment,
involving among others, members of the RUF, AFRC and CDF .I536 The Trial Chamber is
satisfied that for all of the aforementioned killings in Kenema District there was a nexus
between the killings and the armed conflict, that each of the victims was not taking an active
part in the hostilities at the time of death, and that the perpetrators knew this fact. Therefore,
the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the aforementioned killings in Kenema District constitute
murder as both a crime against humanity under Article 2 of the Statute and a war crime
under Article 3 of the Statute.
2. Alleged unlawful killings in Kono District {Between about 1 F ebruag; 1998 and 31
December 1998)
645. The Trial Chamber heard the following evidence, namely, that after the ECOMG
Intervention in Freetown in February 1998, the AFRC/RUF forces that were driven out of
Freetown fled northwards, trekking through a number of locations including Tombo, Fogbo
and Newton,l537 Masiaka, Lunsar, Makeni, Magbonkineh, Binkolo, Kabala, Matotoka,
Makali, and Sewafe and were finally based in Kono District. Senior AFRC commanders in
this group included Johnny Paul Koroma, Chairman of the AF RC, SAI Musa, SFY Koroma, A
Col. Foday, Ibrahim Bazzy Kamara a.k.a. "Bazzy", Capt. Akim Turay, Moses Kabia a.k.a.
IS34 Indictment, para. 10
I535 See Law and Findings on the General Requirements: Article 2: Crimes Against Humanity, para. 559 supra.
lm See Law and Findings on the General Requirements: Article 3: War Crimes, para. 573 supra.
lm These three places are in Koya rural District: Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7929.

---- End of Page 236 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T J '5(L 18 May 2012

"CSO Rambo",|538 Santigie Borbor Kanu a.k.a. "Five-Five", Col. Avivo Kamara and Hassan
Papa Bangura a.k.a. "Bomb-blast".|539 Senior RUF commanders in this group included Issa
Sesay, Denis Mingo a.k.a. "Superman", Morris Kallon, Mike Lamin and S.O. Williams.|540
Other AFRC commanders that were involved in military operations in Kono District during
this period included Colonels Foday Kallay, Franklyn Conteh a.k.a. "Woyoh", Idrissa
Kamara a.k.a. "Leatherboot", Idrissa Kamara a.k.a. "Rambo Red Goat", Ibrahim Bioh
Sesay, Abdul Sesay, Momoh Bangura a.k.a. "Do1ty" and Adams, and Lieutenants Tito,
Amara Kallay, Mohamed Savage a.k.a. "Changa-Bulanga", Mosquito,1541 Junior, Staff
Alhaji,l542 and Alex Tamba Brima a.k.a. "Gullit".l543 Other RUF commanders involved in
milita operations within Kono District durin this eriod included Emmanuel Williams
a.k.a. "Rocky", Isaac Mongor’, Komba Gbundema,1544 Gogomeh, RUF Rambo a.k.a.
"Premo"1545 and Gibril Massaquoi}546
646. The Trial Chamber heard further evidence that as the AFRC/RUF forces trekked
towards Kono District they were under the overall command of Johnny Paul Koroma.1547
Along the way, SAJ Musa addressed the AFRC/RUF forces at Kabala and ordered them to
recapture Kono District and to establish a new base there. He said "Kono would serve as a
strong base, since it was a diamondiferous area, and we will serve as a force to reckon with
by the Government of Sierra Leone and the international community". 1548 This order was
endorsed and reinforced by Johnny Paul Koroma at Magbonkinehmgand at Makenimo
where he told the AFRC/RUF forces to "capture the able bodied civilians in Kono and to
execute the rest". 1ssa Sesay of the RUF also endorsed the order, remarking that "civilians
Im Moses Kabia was the Chief security Officer for Johnny Paul Koroma. See Alimamy Bobson Sesay,
Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7875; Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8383.
I539 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7927-7949.
mo Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7927-7949.
I5 41 Witness explained that this was an ex-SLA soldier different from RUF Sam Bockarie whose alias was also
"Mosquito". Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7965.
Im Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7960-7972.
'543 wimsss TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12504.
1544 Alimamy Bobson Sesay ,Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7969-7971.
mj RUF Rambo was a Liberian Mandingo by tribe and the RUF Deputy Operations Commander, Kono. Witness
TF1-375, Transcript 23 January 2008, p. 2003; Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7947;
Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8357.
Im TF1-189, Transcript 17 September 2008, p.1 6520.
Im Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7933.
Im Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7939.
mq Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7942.
1550 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7943; Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7980.

---- End of Page 237 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T / Ju 18 May 2012 EE
V"'?

were very dangerous to the Junta forces and the only way to ensure that they don’t base in
Kono is to bum down their houses and execute them".l55l Sam Bockarie a.k.a. "Mosquito"
of the RUF also endorsed this order amongst his forces and sent messages to all RUF bases
to "make Kono District Fearful so that ECOMOG would not base there". B52 Making an area
fearful, one witness explained, entailed "destruction of life and property, where there will be
killings, amputations, burning of houses, destruction of bridges, setting up road blocks. A11
those things would happen and that will have made the area fearful".l553 After this order the
AFRC troops led by Hassan Papa Bangura and the RUF forces led by Superman,
reorganised themselves into a single fighting force to attack Kono.1554 On arrival in Kono
District around early March 1998, the AFRC/RUF forces captured a village called Sewafe
and burnt down all civilian houses on the orders of Johnny Paul Koroma who called Sewafe
"a Kamajor strongho1d".l555 Thereafter, AFRC/RUF forces led by Superman captured Koidu
Town, the provincial capital of Kono District and executed the orders of their
commanders. 1556
647. While in Koidu, Johnny Paul Koroma reiterated his earlier order to the forces to
establish a strong Junta base there and declared Kono a "civi1ian no go area". He also ‘
reiterated his orders to bum down any civilian homes so as to discourage civilians retuming
to live there, and to kill any civilians that attempted to retum to the area, accusing them of
being Kamajor supporters. 1557 After Johnny Paul Koroma and his wife left Kono District and
went to Kailahun, the junta forces that remained in Koidu Town reorganised themselves. 1558
Ibrahim Bazzy Kamara a.k.a. "Five Five" was the commander of the AFRC/RUF forces that
went towards Bumpe, Yengema, Tombudu and Sewafe along the Masingbi Road axis while
Hassan Papa Bangura a.k.a. "Bomb-Blast" was the Deputy Commander and Operations
Commander. mg
ISM Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7952-7954; Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7980.
I552 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3150.
ISS} Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3150.
Im Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7943.
I555 Bobson Sesay testified that Sewafe is located about 22 miles from Koidu Town, the provincial capital of
Kono district.
556 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7954.
Im Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7950-7954.
I558 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7958.
mq Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7960.

---- End of Page 238 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSI.-03-01-T / » 18 May 2012
61%

648. In relation to unlawful killings alleged to have taken place in Kono District between
1 February 1998 and 31 January 2000, the Trial Chamber has considered the testimony of
Prosecution witnesses F inda Gbamanja, Isaac Mongor, Alhaji Tejan Cole, Alimamy Bobson
Sesay, Tamba.Yomba Nbekia, Mustapha Mansaray, Emmanuel Bull, protected Prosecution
Witnesses TF1-189, TF1-375, TF1-371, and Exhibit P-366,1560 Exhibit P-077 and Exhibit P-
(a) Koidu Town
(i) Killing of civilians at Yardo Road, Hill Station and Superman Ground in
F ebrua;y/ March 1998
649. Alimamy Bobson Sesay1562 testified that after the 25 May 1997 coup, he joined the
AF RC and was assigned as Military Transport Officer and security to Hassan Papa Bangura
(a.k.a. Bomb-Blast), a member of the AF RC Supreme Council.1563 Bobson Sesay stated that
after the ECOMOG Intervention in February 1998, he along with Hassan Papa Bangura and
the AFRC/RUF forces fled Freetown and trekked towards Kono District where they were to
establish a new Junta base.1564 As the AF RC/RUF forces approached Kono District around
March 1998, a number of Junta commanders including Johnny Paul Koroma, the AFRC
Chairman, SAJ Musa and Issa Sesay, ordered the forces to recapture Kono as it was "a
diamondiferous area", to abduct able-bodied civilians who would assist the forces and serve
as recruits, to burn down all civilian houses in order to discourage civilians moving back
into the area, to establish a strong Junta base in Kono against any Kamajor or ECOMOG
attacks and to execute any civilians that attempted to return to the area.1565
650. Bobson Sesay testified that after receiving the orders, he and the AFRC forces under
Hassan Papa Bangura together with RUF forces under Denis Mingo (a.k.a Superman),
captured Koidu Town.1566 Bobson Sesay told the court that in execution of the said orders,
1560 Sierra Leone Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998, US Department of State, Bureau of
Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, 26 February 1999; pp. 00025071-para 4, 00025072-para 6, 00025073-
paras 3-4, 00025074-para 9, 00025075- para 2, 00025077-para 5, 00025072-para 3.
1561 Amnesty International Report entitled "Sierra Leone — 1998 — A year of Atrocities against Civilians".
1562 He is an ex-SLA soldier that joined the AFRC after the May 1997 coup.
1563 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7860.
1564 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7927-7949.
1565 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7939, 7943, 7943, 7952, 7954.
15% Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7954.

---- End of Page 239 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T ·* 18 May 2012
Z QL

3% 3% YL
he together with Hassan Papa Bangura and the RUF forces went to Yardo Road where they
met a group of civilians coming towards them. The AFRC/RUF forces opened fire on the
civilians and killed all of them. Sesay testified that in order to comply with the orders given
by their commanders to make the area "fear"ful", the AFRC/RUF forces displayed the
corpses of the civilians at the various junctions around Yardo Road in order to frighten off
any other civilians that might have wanted to come to or remain in Koidu Town.l567 Sesay
did not recall how many civilians were killed at Yardo Road. mg
651. Another Prosecution witness, Isaac Mongor, testified about the operations of the
AFRC/RUF forces in Koidu Town after the ECOMOG Intervention in February 19983569
Mongor stated that he was part of the retreating RUF forces that advanced from Sewafe to
Koidu Town, and that as they approached Koidu Town, they found many houses already
burnt down.l570 Mongor stated that he spoke to Moriis Kallon who explained that Sam
Bockarie had ordered the RUF forces "to burn down Koidu Town so that ECOMOG would
not be able to enter there and occupy the town". ml Mongor explained that the RUF in Kono
District adopted a policy of "making the area fearful" which meant that "they would kill,
burn down houses so that they make sure that the people who were living in the areas when
there was those things going on they would be afraid and that even the enemies against
whom they were fighting would also be afi·aid". mz Morris Kallon and other RUF forces that
carried out this order were promoted by Sam Bockarie as a reward.l573 Mongor iirriher
testified that he went around Koidu Town and saw many houses that were burnt, and on
looking inside the houses he saw property and an unspecified number of corpses of people
that were burnt inside those houses. lm
652. Mongor testified that soon after the AFRC/RUF forces captured Koidu Town, an
RUF commander called Denis Mingo (a.k.a. Superman) arrested a group of 13 civilians.
Mongor stated that this group was composed of men, women and children and came from
the direction of the Guinea border, the same direction that the Kamajors had fled to prior to
IW Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, pp. 7954-7955.
lm Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7955.
lm Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, p. 6216.
lm Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, p. 6216.
ml Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, p. 6218.
lm Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, p. 6224.
lm Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, p. 6219.
1574 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, pp. 6218-6219.

---- End of Page 240 ---------------------------


Case No.. SCSL-03-01-T Pm 18 May 2012

the AFRC/RUF capturing Koidu Town. 1575 The children amongst the group carried loads on
their heads.1576 Mongor stated that on seeing the civilians coming from the same direction
that the Kamajors had retreated, the AFRC/RUF forces suspected the civilians of being
enemy spies, and Superman shot all 13 civilians to death. Mongor was present when the
executions took place at a location called Hill Station. 1577
653. Prosecution Witness TF1-189 testified that after the ECOMOG Intervention in
February 1998, she and her whole family along with hundreds of other civilians, fled from
Yengema1578 and sought refuge at a location in Kono District.1579 In March 1998 while at
this location, TF1-189 heard gunshots and suddenly saw the community centre on fire.15811
AF RC/RUF rebel forces gathered all the civilians in one location at which the civilians were
held prisoner for a number of days. TF1-189 testified that rebels would routinely rape the
women and young girls at this location. On one occasion in early March 1998, the witness
saw the rebels light a candle and put it under an old man's scrotum. The old man screamed
with pain and died later that day.1581
654. TF1-189 further testified that on 12 March 1998 the AFRC/RUF rebel forces who
had captured her brought her to a location they called "Superman's compound" in Koidu
Town.1582 The rebels first offered her as a "wife" to CO Superman but the latter remarked
that "he did not want a wife". TF1-189 testified that she was taken into a big house or hall
filled with other captured civilians.1583 The witness heard one of the rebels saying that "since
Superman doesn’t want any wife, they are going to kill all of us".1584 One of the rebels took
a woman from amongst the group, put her against the wall and shot her to death in the
presence of the witness and the other people.1585 TF1-189 stated that she managed to escape
1515 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, p. 6216.
1516 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, p. 6216.
1577 Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, pp. 6215-6217.
1578 Witness TF 1-198 stated that in February 1998 she and her family fled because they heard bombardment and
saw people running away with loads on their heads.
1519 TF1-189, Transcript 17 September 2008, pp. 16482-16487.
1581) TF1-189, Transcript 17 September 2008, p. 16497.
1581 TF1-189 Transcript 17 September 2008, pp. 16497-16507.
1582 TF1-189, Transcript 17 September 2008, pp. 16512-16513.
1583 TF 1-189, Transcript 17 September 2008, pp. 16513-16514. The witness said there were men and women in
the hall.
1584 TF1-189, Transcript 17 September 2008, p. 16514.
1585 TF1-189, Transcript 17 September 2008, pp. 16513-1651.4.

---- End of Page 241 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T @5 18 May 2012

from captivity but that all the other civilians at Superrnan's compound were killed by the
Arrzc/RUF rebe1s.‘5"6
655. Prosecution Witness TF 1-375, who was a security to RUF commander Denis Mingo
(a.k.a Superman), and who took part in the attack on Koidu Town by the AF RC/RUF forces
during this period, also described the attack. 1587 According to this witness, the first junta
forces to attack Koidu Town led by Isaac Mongor and RUF Rambo were repelled by the
Kamajors.l588 The AF RC/RUF forces then planned a second attack led by Supennan, which
succeeded. AF RC Commanders involved in this joint attack included Gullit, Bazzy, Adams
and Sava e.l589 After takin control of Koidu Town the AFRC/RUF forces burnt houses,
E E
looted private property and captured and raped women and girls.l590 TF 1-375 explained that
the forces burnt houses where they suspected that Kamajors were hiding and stated that
"when we set the houses on fire, we would hear people shouting inside, screaming, "Oh we
are inside. We are inside" and sometimes the houses would burn down and we would see
their skulls and their bones".l5 91
656. The Trial Chamber also considered the following documentary evidence. A Human
Rights Report (Exhibit P-366) states:
[I]n March 1998, RUF forces executed 32 youths in Koidu for supporting Kamajor CDF
forces that previously had taken the town". 1 92
657. A report by Amnesty International (Exhibit P-078) states:
[I]n the days immediately after their removal from power by ECOMOG, AFRC and RUF
forces indiscriminately killed unarrned civilians, looted and burned houses, both in
Freetown and other towns. As the rebel forces were pursued eastwards by ECOMOG forces
through towns such as Bo in Southem Province, Kenema and Koidu in Eastem Province,
and Makeni in Northem Province during February, March and April 1998, they were
responsible for widespread killings, torture and ill treatment, including rape and other forrns
of sexual assault and abduction. Villages and towns were burnt to the ground, destroying
thousands of homes. Koidu, a major town in the diamond-rich Kono District, was almost
1586 TF1-189, Transcript 17 September 2008, p. 16520. The Witness explained in a closed session that she was
told about the murder of these civilians by the rebel who had captured and enslaved her. See TF1-189, Transcript
18 September 2008, p. 16558.
’5’" Witness TF1-375, rrnnseript 23 June 2008, pp. 12503-12504.
*5** Witness Tri-375, Transcript 23 June 2008,p. 12503.
’"" Witness TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12504. _
1590 Witness TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12505.
1591 Witness TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12505.
1592 Exhibit P-366, "Sierra Leone Country Report on Human Rights Practices for 1998, US Department of State,
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, 26 February 1999", p. 4, ERN25073.

---- End of Page 242 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012
/

38 EEST
totally destroyed by AFRC and RUF forces and villages between Njaiama-Sewafe and
Koidu repeatedly attacked. ‘5°3
Findings
658. Alimamy Bobson Sesay was part of the AF RC forces that fled from Freetown after
the February 1998 ECOMOG Intervention who were based in Koidu Town. He not only
participated in the meetings at which certain operational orders were given by senior
commanders but he also participated in the carrying out of those orders. The Trial Chamber
finds Bobson Sesay's above evidence reliable and credible. Isaac Mongor was also part of
the RUF forces that were based in Koidu Town after the ECOMOG Intervention. Like
Bobson Sesay, Mongor too was privy to operational orders that were issued by senior RUF
or AFRC commanders. The Trial Chamber finds his above evidence credible and reliable,
and that it corroborates the account of Bobson Sesay. Witness TF 1-189 was captured by the
AF RC/RUF rebels and her testimony is based on her experience in captivity and on what she
saw and heard. The Trial Chamber finds her above evidence reliable and credible. The Trial
Chamber also finds the evidence of Witness TF 1-375 reliable and credible. His eye—witness
account is based on his participation in the operations of the AFRC/RUF forces that
captured Koidu Town. Furthermore, the Trial Chamber finds that the accounts related by
each of the four witnesses relating to the attacks by the AFRC/RUF on civilians in Koidu
Town in the months following the ECOMOG Intervention, are consistent and accord with
the documentary evidence contained in Exhibits P—366 and P—078.
659. Based on the evidence of Alimamy Bobson Sesay, the Trial Chamber finds that the
Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in early March 1998 at Yardo Road in
Koidu Town, AFRC/RUF forces acting on the orders of SAJ Musa, Johnny Paul Koroma
and Issa Sesay, intentionally shot and killed an unknown number of civilians, all of whom
were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
660. Based on the evidence of Isaac Mongor, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in early March 1998 at Hill Station in Koidu
Town, an RUF commander called Denis Mingo (a.k.a. Superman) intentionally shot and
killed 13 civilians including men, women and children, all of whom were not taking an
active part in the hostilities.
'5°3 Exhibit P-078, "Siena Leone — 1998 — A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty lntemational

---- End of Page 243 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-Ol-T ,q(iQ 18 May 2012


38 33 6
661. Based on the evidence of Prosecution Witness TF1-189, the Trial Chamber finds that
the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in early March 1998 at a location
named "Superman compound" in Koidu Town, AFRC/RUF forces acting under the orders
of Superman, intentionally shot and killed a woman, tortured to death an elderly man, and
executed an unknown number of abducted civilians, all of whom were not taking an active
part in the hostilities.
662. Based on the evidence of Witness TF1-3 75 and the documentary evidence above, the
Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in early
March 1998 AFRC/RUF forces acting under the command of Denis Mingo (a.k.a.
Superman), deliberately burned to death an unknown number of civilians who were hiding
in their houses and who were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
663. The above oral and documentary evidence clearly establishes that the perpetrators
acting in accordance with orders given by their commanders, deliberately targeted civilians
in Koidu Town in order to prevent them from staying in or returning to Koidu Town and in
order to maintain the diamond-rich Kono District as a strong Junta base from which the
AFRC/RUF fighters would finance and mount further attacks upon their enemies including
ECOMOG and the CDF or Kamajors. In light of that evidence, the Trial Chamber finds
beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such
violence and the primary purpose of these killings to instil terror in the civilian population.
(ii) Killing of civilians in and around Koidu Town between April and May 1998
664. Witness Alex Tamba Teh, a church minister resident in Koidu Town, testified that in
1 April 1998 fighting broke out between the Civil Defence Forces (a.k.a. Kamajors) and
AFRC/RUF rebels,1594 forcing the witness, his family and large numbers of civilians to flee
to Tongoro bush.1595 Wrhile in hiding, Teh, along with 250 civilians including men, women
and children, were captured by a group of 5 armed AFRC/RUF rebels15% and taken to Sunna
Report", p. 1 1.
‘5°" The witness stated that he heard that by this time (April 1998) ECOMOG had taken ever control of Kono
from the AFRC/RUF. Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, p. 687.
15115 Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 680-686.
15% The witness described some of the rebels as wearing soldier uniforms worn by Sierra Leone army and others
as plain clothed. Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, p. 687.

---- End of Page 244 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / (AL 18 May 2012

Mosque in Koidu Town.l597 At Sunna Mosque three other rebels singled out one Aiah Abu
amongst the civilian abductees and immediately shot him to death, remarking that the
deceased had ‘"escaped from them before".l598
665. Teh further testified that at Sunna Mosque, AFRC/RUF rebels,l599 pretending to be
ECOMOG soldiers tricked the captives into "cheering and welcoming ECOMOG for saving
the civilians from the rebels".l6O0 The rebels then led the civilians to a secluded place called
"the Igbaleh" on Kamachende Street.l60l On the way, Teh counted "up to 50" corpses}602 At
the Igbaleh, Emmanuel Williams (a.k.a. Rocky) ordered the rebels to separate the captured
men from the women and children.l6O3 Teh heard Rocky saying to the civilians, "Today
those of you who were saying thanks to us and you were saying thanks to the ECOMOG,
now I want to tell you that we are not ECOMOG. We are the junta rebels, we are here .... "
After this, Rocky singled Teh out of the crowd because he was a pastor, and told him to pray
for everybody.l6O4 Rocky then asked one of the rebels to bring out his big gun called
"Bargege" and shot all the civilian men to death.l6O5 Afterwards, the deceased were all
decapitated by the SBUs on orders of commander Rocky.16O6 Later, Teh was taken back to
Sunna Mosque, where he heard Rocky tell Rambo that he had killed 101 men.l607
666. Teh further testified that while at the Igbaleh, he saw a young boy who was killed by
the SBUs after they amputated his arms and legs and then threw him in a pit latrine. The
young boy was screaming and pleading with the SBUs asking them why they were doing
this to him.l6O8
IW Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, p. 690.
I598Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 688-689.
mg The witness explained that in fact these were AFRC/RUF rebels led by Rambo the AFRC Brigade
commander and an RUF commander called Emmanuel Williams a.k.a. "Rocky". There were also a number of
child soldiers or SBUs the witness describes as being 15-16 years of age and under. Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript
8 January 2008, pp. 691-698.
mm Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 691-696.
MOI Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, p. 693. Teh explained that lgbaleh was about a half` mile away
from Sunna Mosque.
moz Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 693-694.
mo} Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, p. 694.
IGO4 Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 695-699.
MOS Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 696-697.
N6 Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 697-698.
Ibm Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, p. 700.
Im Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 699-700.

---- End of Page 245 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012

667. Another Prosecution witness, Isaac Mongor testified that in April 1998 after
ECOMOG pushed the AFRC/RUF forces out of Koidu Town, the latter occupied a place
code—named "Supe1nran Ground" from where they canied out their operations. One such
operation was the attack on Kissy Town, behind Koidu Town on the road leading towards
the Guinea border.l6O9 Mongor told the court that the rebel group to which he belonged went
to attack the Kamajors in Kissy Town and in the process also killed all the civilians that they
found there because they suspected everybody to be a Kamajor. Amongst those killed were
men, women and children. 1610
668. Confidential Exhibit P-077, a report documenting rebel actions from May 1998 to
January 1999 states:
[A] teenage boy described an attack close to Koidu, in early May by "junta". He had gone
there with his family because they thought that ECOMG had arrived..They were wrong and
instead encountered rebels. The boy reported that he was the only survivor in a group of 50.
He had a deep laceration to the foot which doctors said was a clear case of a failed
amputation. The boy was taken to Makeni by ECOMOG.l6ll
669. Exhibit P-078, a report by Amnesty International states:
[A]n even more grotesque pattern of killing, rape and mutilation became evident in April
1998 and the numbers of victims increased dramatically. Rebel forces called their campaign
of terror against civilians "Operation no living thing". As fighting continued between
ECOMOG and rebel forces around Koidu, attacks on civilians in villages in the area
persisted and then spread west and north .... Unarnred civilians who were taking no active
part in the conflict were killed, their homes burned and their villages destroyed .... More
than 650 bodies, many of them women and children, were reported to have been buried
following fighting in the area around Koidu in mid-June 1998.l6l2
An Amnesty international delegation which visited Sierra Leone in May 1998 met some of
the victims of these atrocities at Connaught Hospital .... Another victim, a 15—year-old
schoolboy from Koidu who had arrived at Connaught Hospital on 10 May 1998, had
suffered severe lacerations to his right ankle in an attempted amputation. He and his family
- his parents and six brothers and sisters- had been hiding in the bush for more than two
months after being driven from Koidu after it was attacked by rebel forces. They had no
food throughout that time other than bananas. On 1 May 1998 the family had heard reports
that ECOMOG had arrived in Koidu and they went to enter the eastern part of the town.
They and those with them were attacked by rebel forces who accused them of supporting
President Kabbah. Almost 50 people were killed. The young boy stayed for four days in a
house without food or treatment of his severely injured leg". M3
_ mg Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008 p, 6219.
mm Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008 pp. 6219-6220,
'6" Eiiriibir 1=·-077 raiiiiiaciiiiiir), para. 19.
M2 Exhibit P-078, "Sierra Leone — 1998 — A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", p. 11
M3 Exhibit P-078, "‘Sierra Leone — 1998 — A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", p.12 This report seems to refer to the same incident referred to in paragraph 19 of Exhibit P-077

---- End of Page 246 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T M QQ 18 May 2012
Z//if 2//

SX 3 E9
Findings
670. Teh spent some time with the AFRC/RUF forces while in captivity and witnessed
some of their activities first hand. His evidence is based on an eye-witness account of what
he saw and heard. The Trial Chamber finds his evidence in relation to the killing of civilians
in Koidu Town between March and April 1998, reliable and credible. His evidence of how
civilians were sometimes tricked by the AFRC/RUF forces into believing that the latter were
ECOMOG, Only to be killed by the rebels, is corroborated by the account given in Exhibit P-
078 and confidential Exhibit P-077. Based on the ab0ve evidence, the Trial Chamber finds
that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that between April and May 1998
during an attack on Koidu Town: 1) AFRC/RUF forces intentionally sh0t and killed one
Aiah Abu at Sunna Mosque in Koidu Town; 2) an RUF C0mmander Ennnanuel Williams
a.k.a. "R0cky" acting under the orders of an AFRC Brigade commander called "Ramb0", 1
intentionally executed 101 captured men and had their b0dies decapitated at a place called
the lgbaleh in Koidu Town, and 3) child soldiers known as SBUs acting under the orders of
C0mmander Emmanuel Williams a.k.a. "R0cky" intentionally dismembered and killed a
y0ung b0y and threw his b0dy in a pit latrine at the lgbaleh in Koidu Town. The Trial
Chamber further Hnds that all the victims of the ab0ve-mentioned killings were civilians not
. taking an active part in the hostilities.
671. However, in relation to the 50 corpses that Teh saw on his way to lgbaleh, the
Prosecution did not provide evidence as to whether the victims were active combatants 0r
civilians, nor of who had killed them. Given Teh's testimony that heavyifighting was
reportedly going on between ECOMOG and the Junta forces in the area at the time,l6l4 the
Trial Chamber is unable to make a conclusive finding as to who these 50 people were 0r
how they died.
672. The ab0ve 0ral and d0cumentary evidence clearly establishes that the perpetrators,
acting in accordance with orders given by their commanders, deliberately targeted civilians
in Koidu Town in order to prevent them from staying in or returning to Koidu Town. The
deliberate tricking of civilians into showing their support for ECOMOG f`0llowed by mass
execution of those civilians by the AFRC/RUF forces underlines the campaign of reprisal
against the civilian p0pulation. The Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that the
(confidential), albeit in greater detail,

---- End of Page 247 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T / 6% 18 May 2012

e etrators wilfull made the victims the ob`ect of such violence and the rimar u ose
P YP Y J P Y P YP
of these killings was to instil terror in the civilian population.
(iii) Other killings around Koidu Town between December 1999 and the
disannament1615
673. In his prior testimony,1616 Prosecution Witness TF1—077 testified that in early 1998 in
a month he does not recall, the whole of Kono District was attacked and he and his family
moved from Tombodu to the Guinea border for refuge. He described the attack on Kono
District at that time as "Operation No Living Thing". 1617 The witness said he and his family
stayed at the Guinea border "for a little whi1e" and then they heard that ECOMOG had
arrived in Kono District.1618 The witness testified that following the ECOMOG Intervention
and on hearing that ECOMOG had "c1eared Koidu Town", he left the Guinea border "in the
dry season"1619 in 1998 and retumed to Koidu Town. 16211 The witness further testified that on
16 December 1999 after he had retumed to Koidu Town,1621 as he was sleeping he heard
heavy gunfire. The gunfire went on for a long time. He went outside and heard shouting and
wailing. He ran and hid behind his house until daybreak. At dawn, he saw many corpses of
people that had been killed, including three children one of whom was his own child. 1622 The
witness further told the court that an armed RUF man dressed in military uniform1623
captured the witness and other civilians totalling 50 people in number and marched them to
Tombodu with loads of looted property on their heads.1°24 On the way to Tombudu, the
armed captors dressed in combat uniforms told the witness "We are the RUF. You are now
‘°"‘ Aiax rarnba ran, Transcript 8 January 2008, pp. 683-694.
1615 The disarmament in Sierra Leone was from approximately January 2001 to July 2001. See Transcript, 7
February 2008, p. 3391; Transcript 5 March 2008, pp. 5368; Transcript 9 June 2008, p. 11330; Transcript 8 April
2008, p. 6883.
1616 Witness TF1-077 testified in the RUF trial and the transcript of his testimony was admitted in this trial
pursuant to Rule 92bis as Prosecution Exhibit P-196 ("prior testimony"). In the present trial he was cross-
examined on his prior testimon . See Witness TF1-077, Transcript, 14 October 2008, pp. 18232-18259.
Y
1617 Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, pp. 18641, 18651.
*6*** Errinbn P-196, Witness rm-077, RUF Transcript, p. 18642.
1619 The Court took judicial notice of the fact that the dry season in Sierra Leone was in December. Exhibit P-
196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, p. 18652,
‘"" Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF rrannnrrpr, p. 18642. 1
1621 Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, pp.18629-18631, 18651.
1622 Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, p. 18629; See also Witness TF1-077 Transcript 14
October 2008, p. 18236.
1623 The witness explained that on their way to Tombodu, armed men wearing combat uniforms told the civilian
captives that the RUF was now in control of Koidu Town and ECOMOG was driven out. Exhibit P-196, Witness
TF1-077, RUF Transcript, p. 18630.

---- End of Page 248 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T /% 18 May 2012

38 3 Lt I
in our control. You are no longer in ECOMOG control".l625 ln Tombudu Town the captives
met other RUF commanders including Officer Med, Colonel Gibbo and Major Tactical who
told the captives that Issa Sesay had ordered that the abductees be taken to Tombudu Bridge
to mine}626 The witness testified that subsequently, he and many other civilians were forced p 1
to mine diamonds for the RUF at Tombudu Bridge ‘"until the disannament".l627 The witness
testified that throughout this period, civilians forced to mine were heavily guarded by RUF
child soldiers known as SBUs, mistreated and often died from disease for lack of medical
treatment or were killed for refusing to mine for the RUF.l°28 The witness saw one S.E.
Sogbeh who was summarily executed by an SBU for refusing to work and whose body was
thrown into the river with a warning from the RUF that "anybody who refused to do this
work, this will be your end". [629
Findings
674. The account by Witness TF1·077 of civilian deaths, including that of one of his
children, is based on circumstantial evidence. From his evidence it is clear that there was
exchange of fire between ECOMOG and the RUF forces the previous night. He was
fortunate enough to survive by hiding behind his house, but the presence of many corpses
the next morning is proof that a lot of civilians died during this exchange. His own child
was amongst the casualties. Based on this evidence however, the Trial Chamber cannot rule
out the possibility that the civilians were accidentally caught in the cross fire, nor can the
Trial Chamber rule out the possibility that some were killed by ECOMOG forces. The Trial
Chamber however, finds the witness's evidence regarding the death of civilians forced by
the RUF to mine at Tombudu Bridge, credible. Based on that evidence, the Trial Chamber
finds that the Prosecution has proved that from December 1999 until the disarmament, RUF
forces intentionally killed an unknown number of civilians who refused to mine for the
AFRC/RUF at Tombudu Bridge or who were denied medical treatment.
M4 Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, p. 18629.
M25 Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, p. 18630.
lm Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, p. 18630.
1627 Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, pp. 18631-18633.
1628 Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, p. 18632-18634.
*629 Exhibit P-196, Witness TF1-077, RUF Transcript, p. 18633.

---- End of Page 249 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Gtk 18 May 2012

675. Given the slave—like conditions under which the AFRC/RUF Junta forced civilians to
mine for them and forbade them from mining for personal benefit, the Trial Chamber finds
beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such
violence and the primary purpose of the killing of the civilians who refused to carry out
forced mining at Tombodu Bridge was to instil terror in the civilian population and thereby
to continue controlling the mining activities in Kono District.
(b) Bumpe
(i) Killings in Bumpe between March and June 1998 A
676. Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that the AFRC/RUF continued their campaign of
terror against the citizens of Kono District from March right through to June 1998 when he
and Commander Hassan Papa Bangura (a.k.a. Bomb Blast) withdrew from Kono. He stated
that the junta forces continued routinely attacking civilian homes and buming houses in
Bumpe even when there was no enemy in sight, with the aim of discouraging civilians and
ECOMOG from staying in or retuming to Bumpe}630 Apart from the area where the
battalion occupied, the whole of Bumpe was bumt down.l63 I Sesay further told the court that
during the attack on Bumpe in March or April 1998, the SLA battalion commander at
Bumpe,l°32 Lt. Amara Kallay and the AFRC/RUF troops that were present, decapitated
several captured civilians, put their heads on sticks and fixed the sticks on guard posts.l°33
The witness stated that this was done to create fear amongst the civilians and ECOMOG}634
Bobson Sesay also told the court that this display of human heads on sticks at checkpoints
was routinely done by the AFRC/RUF forces in other locations within Kono District
p including Tombodu,l635 Njaiama Sewafe,l636 and Yengema}637
677. Bobson Sesay further testified that AFRC/RUF forces engaged in burning houses in
Bumpe would lock and set houses on fire withcivilians inside. Despite the cries, the Junta
forces would guard the buming buildings at gun point to prevent anyone escaping. After the
mo Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7984.
Hm Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7985.
M2 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7964.
my Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7984-7985.
M4 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7984-7985.
M5 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7984-7985.
M6 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7987.
`637 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7988.

---- End of Page 250 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 7 618 18 May 2012

building was completely destroyed, the Junta forces "would not bother... to go and watch
whether anything was in there because we knew the houses were completely burnt
dOWn»~1638
678. Alimamy Bobson Sesay's account is corroborated by the hearsay evidence of Alice
Pyne, a former radio operator for the RUF forces, who testified that she heard from Foday
Lansana on the radio that the AFRC/RUF forces that attacked Bumpe killed many civilians
in the process. 1639
679. In addition Prosecution Witness TF1-375 who took part in the AFRC/RUF attack on
Bumpe testified that the junta forces asked the civilians to leave Bumpe so that the junta
forces would be based there and that those civilians who resisted were shot dead. The
witness himself admitted that he participated in the killing of these civilians and in
decapitating their heads and displaying them on sticks at various check points. He explained
that this was done in accordance with the orders of their commanders to "make the area
fearful" in order to scare off ECOMOG and other civilians.1640 The witness also explained
that the RUF slogan that "civilians have no blood" meant that the lives of civilians did not
matter to the junta forces.l641
680. Another witness who was a victim of the rebel attacks in Bumpe after the ECOMOG
Intervention is Witness TF1-218.1642 Witness TF1-218 narrated how after the ECOMOG
Intervention of February 1998,1643 four rebelsl644 dressed in combat uniforms and black
boots and armed with guns and knivesl645 attacked her home in Bumpe at night. She stated
that the rebels captured her and locked her in a house at Cookery junction with other
Im Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp, 7985-7987.
M9 Alice Pyne, Transcript 18 June 2008, p. 12201.
lm TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12511-12514.
M rrr-375, rmsmpt 23 June 2008, p. 12513-12514.
M42 Witness TF1-218 testified in the RUF trial and the transcript of her testimony was admitted in this trial
pursuant to Rule 92bis as Prosecution Exhibit P-198 ("prior testimony"). In the present trial she was cross-
examined on his prior testimony. See Witness TF1-218, Transcript 14 October 2008, pp. 18346-18359.
M3 Although this witness was illiterate, she clearly explained in her prior testimony and in cross-examination
that the rebels attacked Bumpe after ECOMOG had restored President Tej an Kabbah to power in Freetown and
after the rebels had been driven away from Freetown. See Exhibit P-198, "TF1-218, RUF Transcript 1 February
2005", pp. 18876 & 18887; and Witness TF1-218, Transcript 14 October 2008, pp. 18351-18352.
[644 The witness described how after she was taken to the house at Cookery junction, one of the captors asked the
civilians who they thought he was and when the civilians could not say he said "we are the rebels". Exhibit P-
198 , "TF1-218, RUF Transcript 1 February 2005, p. 18879.
M45 Witness TF1-218, Transcript 14 October 2008, pp.18353, 18355, 18358.

---- End of Page 251 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T // Glas 18 May 2012

captured civilians.l646 The witness described how two rebels stripped her naked and raped
her.l647 She testified that she managed to escape from the house after a rebel had threatened
to kill all the civilians with an axe and shot the witness’ left hand.l648 She later returned to
the house to look for her son the next morning and found her son alive but covered in blood.
mg TF 1-218 testified that her son, who was present during the attack, told her that all of the
civilians she left in the house were killed in the room from which TF 1-21 8 had escaped the
night before. M50 Her son explained to the witness that he escaped death only because "as the
rebels were shooting these people, he was lying flat on the ground and most of the people
who were shot fell on top of him". MSI
681. Perry Kamara, a radio operator who was based at Superman ground after the
ECOMOG Intervention in 1998, told the court that sometime before June 1998,l652 the RUF
forces under the command of Sam Bockarie, Morris Kallon and CO Rocky attacked Bumpe
and its surrounding areas. Upon their return to Superman Ground after the operation, the
RUF forces reported that they had killed civilians, amputated others and burnt most of the
town in accordance with Bockarie's orders to "make the area fearful". M3
Findings
682. Based on his aforesaid position within the AFRC/RUF and his participation in their
operations in Kono District, the Trial Chamber finds Bobson Sesay's above evidence
reliable and credible. The Trial Chamber also finds that Sesay's evidence is amply
corroborated by the evidence of Alice Pyne and Witness TF 1-375. Further, the Trial
Chamber finds the account given by Witness TF 1-218 credible. Although her account of the
civilian deaths is based partly on her ordeal while in captivity and partly on the report by her
son who witnessed the killings, the Trial Chamber finds the evidence compelling and draws
the one reasonable inference that the rebels shot and killed many civilians in this house at
Cookery Junction. The Trial Chamber also found the evidence of Perry Kamara credible and
1646 Exhibit P-198, "TF1-218, RUF Transcript 1 February 2005", pp. 18878-18881.
HM Exhibit P-198, "TF1-218, RUF Transcript 1 February 2005", pp. 18878-18881.
1648 Exhibit P-198, "TF1-218, RUF Transcript 1 February 2005", p. 18883.
1649 Exhibit P-198, "TF1-218, RUF Transcript 1 February 2005", pp. 18884-18885.
M50 Exhibit P-198, "TF1-218, RUF Transcript 1 February 2005", pp. 18885-18887.
ml Exhibit P-198, "TF1-218, RUF Transcript 1 February 2005", p. 18885.
lm Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3154-3155.
M5} Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3152.

---- End of Page 252 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T QL 18 May 2012

T $8 BL! S
reliable, given his position within the RUF at that time. His description of the orders by the
various RUF commanders to "make Kono District fearful" is consistent with the evidence of
Bobson Sesay.
683. Thus while the actual number of civilian deaths in Bumpe is unknown, the Trial
Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that between March
and June 1998, during an attack on Bumpe, the AFRC/RUF forces acting under the orders of
several commanders including Lt. Amara Kallay, Hassan Papa Bangura, Superman, Sam
Bockarie, Morris Kallon, CO Rocky and others, intentionally killed an unknown number of
civilians, all of whom were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
684. The above evidence clearly establishes that the perpetrators acting in accordance
with orders given by their commanders to "make Kono fearful", deliberately targeted
civilians in Bumpe in order to prevent them from staying in or returning to Bumpe. That
campaign of terror entailed not only murders but also the burning down of homes; mass
amputations and the bizarre display of human heads on sticks at various checkpoints. The
Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims
the object of such violence and the primary purpose of these killings was to instil terror in
the civilian population.
(c) Tombudu p
(i) Massacre of more than 20 civilians in Tombodu around March or April 1998
685. Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that he participated in an attack on Tombodu
around March or April 19981654 along with other RUF forces and commanders Bomb Blast
and Savage}655 The witness explained that when the AFRC/RUF forces first arrived in
Tombodu, they were dressed in military uniforms and arrived in vehicles. Pretending to be
government forces that had come to rescue the citizens, the AFRC/RUF forces gestured to
the fleeing civilians to stop running and to approach the fighters, saying "we are government
troops. We have come to reinforce and protect you".l656 The civilians stopped running and
1654 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8002.
1655 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7992.
1656 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7992-7993.

---- End of Page 253 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T (Pg 18 May 2012

38 3 we
as s00n as the civilians approached within firing range, the AFRC/RUF forces 0pened fire
0n the civilians, killing over 20 of them. 1657
Findings
686. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of Alimamy Bobson Sesay, a participant in
this attack, credible and reliable. The Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved
1 beyond reasonable doubt that around March or April 1998 the AFRC/RUF forces that
attacked T0mb0du intentionally massacred m0re than 20 civilians in T0mb0du, all of whom
were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
687. The ab0ve evidence clearly establishes that the pe1petrators, acting in accordance
with orders given by their commanders to "make Kono f`earful", deliberately targeted
civilians in T0mbudu in order to prevent them from staying in or returning to T0mb0du. The
deliberate tricking of civilians into showing their support for what they believed were
"Government forces", f`0llowed by mass execution of those civilians by the AFRC/RUF
forces, demonstrates the Juntas’ reprisal against the civilian p0pulation. The Trial Chamber A
finds beyond reasonable doubt that the pe1petrators wilfully made the victims the 0bject of`
such vi0lence and the primary pu1pose of these killings was to instil terr0r in the civilian
p0pulation.
(ii) Second Massacre at T0mbudu involving 77-78 civilians around April 1998
688. Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that T0mb0du was attacked again one month after
Savage was based there as battalion commander.1658 After capturing about 77-78 civilians,
Savage sent a message to Masingbi headquarters inviting commanders B0mb-Blast, Bazzy
and Alimamy Bobson Sesay to come and meet the "civilian visitors".1659 Savage explained
to the commanders and the witness that he had tricked the civilians into believing that
ECOMOG had come to save them. The civilians had rej0iced at the news Only to be
captured by Savage.161’O The witness described how Savage assembled and paraded the 78 ’
1657 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7992-7993.
1651* Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7994. From the context of the witness's testimony, this
event ooourred approximately one month after the AFRC and RUF took oontro1 of T0mb0du after Koidu Town
had been captured. The attack was likely in March or April 1998. See Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7995, 8002.
11159 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7995-7997.
1111111 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7996.

---- End of Page 254 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-O1-T // (LQ 18 May 2012

civilians before the commanders and the witness.1661 Fifteen of these civilians were locked
up in a building by Savage and burned alive.1662 The witness heard them scream and saw
their charred skeletons afterwards. Another 15 civilians were amputated by Savage and his
subordinates including Guitar Boy and Staff Alhaji and some SBUs.1666 The witness heard
Savage telling the amputees to "go and tell ECOMOG that Savage was now the battalion
commander in Tombodu".1664 The rest of the civilians were decapitated by Savage and their
bodies thrown into a pit known as the "Savage pit".1666 Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that
after this incident, Commander Savage was nick-named "Changa Bulanga" because he was
"very good at using machete. He was very good at amputating people". *666 Bobson Sesay
further testified that Superman came to Tombodu just after this incident had taken place and
that Savage showed Superman the decapitated bodies in the pit as well as the charred bodies
of the civilians that he had burnt. Superman was reportedly shocked and warned Savage that
what he had done amounted to crimes against humanity. However, Superman did not punish
Savage and instead joined everybody in drinking palm wine to celebrate the incident.1667
689. Prosecution Witness TF 1 -375, a subordinate of Superman during this period, told the
court that Savage led an attack on Tombodu.1666 The witness travelled to Tombodu shortly
after this attack and accompanied Superman whom Savage had invited to drink palm
wine.1666 On anival, Savage showed Superman and the witness a big pit where he had
dum ed the co ses of executed civilians.1676 Witness TF 1-375 described the it as a former
P YP P
diamond mining pit where he saw corpses of old people, young people and children and
severed limbs. 1671
*66* Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7995-7997.
*662 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7995-7997.
*666 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7995-7997.
*666 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7997.
*666 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7995-7997.
*666 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 17 April 2008, p. 7966 and Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7999.
*667 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7999.
*666 TF1—375, Trrrrrscript 23 Jrrrrc 2008, p. 12514.
*666 TF1—375, Transcript 23 Jrrrrc 2008, p. 12514.
1676 TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, pp. 12514-12515.
*67* T1¤1-375, Trrrrrscript 23 June 2008, pp. 12514-12515.

---- End of Page 255 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T ~ [TU. 18 May 2012

E8 3%
690. Perry Kamara, a radio operator with the RUF at Superman's headquarters known as
Superman Ground, confirmed in his testimony that he received reports in 1998 that Savage
had killed more than 30 civilians in Tombodu}672
Findings
691. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of Alimamy Bobson Sesay credible as he was
A an eye—witness to the killings. Furthermore, his evidence is corroborated by that of Witness
TF1—375, who saw the large pit containing bodies of civilians and severed limbs, and of
Perry Kamara who received reports of the civilian killings. Based on the above evidence, the
Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that around
April 1998, AFRC/RUF forces led by Savage, and with the approval of commanders
Superman and Bomb Blast, intentionally killed about 63 civilians in Tombodu, that were not
taking an active part in the hostilities.
692. The evidence establishes that the AFRC/RUF Juntas acting in accordance with
orders earlier given by their commanders to "make Kono fearful", deliberately targeted the
civilian population in order to prevent them from staying in or returning to Tombodu.
Furthermore, the circumstances surrounding these killings, including the deliberate tricking
of civilians into believing that the rebels were ECOMOG forces that had come to their
rescue only to then massacre those civilians; the indiscriminate amputations accompanied by
sarcastic messages to the ruling Government; as well as the public disposal of numerous
dead bodies into an open pit, demonstrate the rebel campaign of reprisal and terror against
the civilian population. The Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that the
perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such violence and the primary purpose
of these killings was to instil terror in the civilian population.
(iii) Third Massacre of over 53 civilians in Tombudu in April 1998
693. Mustapha Mansaray and Ibrahim Fofana, two civilians that were captured by the
AFRC/RUF forces and taken together to Tombudu around April 1998, testified before the
Trial Chamber. Mustapha Mansaray was captured by "rebels and soldiers"l673 from Wordu
W2 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3159.
lm Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, p. 19592 (where witness describes his captors as "soldiers
and rebels").

---- End of Page 256 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T GQ 18 May 2012 M

Sandor,l674 while Ibrahim Fofana was ca tured b soldiers wearin milita uniforms in
P Y 8 YY
Paema}675 Both men walked for three days carrying looted goods belonging to the captors
and were taken to Tombodu where they met 53 other civilians that were also captured by the
Junta forces}676 Mansaray, Fofana and the other captured persons were taken to Staff
Alhaji's headquartersl677 where they were stripped naked and forced to sit on the ground. [678
Staff Alhaji, who the witness was told was the rebel commander, asked for a mortar to be
brought and amputated the hands of six men including Mansaray and Fofana}679 Staff
Alhaji told the amputees that "now they would never be able to vote for President Kabbah
again and that they should keep their hands out of politics".l68O Mansaray told the court that
four of the amputees later died from their wounds and that only he and Fofana survived. ml
694. Mansaray testified that Staff Alhaji ordered the rebels to lock the 53 civilians in a
building and to bum them alive. Aiier locking the 53 civilians in a building, the rebels
s rinkled etrol on the buildin and set it ali t bumin everyone inside to death}682
P P 8 8
Mansaray heard the people inside, including women and children, crying.l683 Mansaray
explained that the people inside the building could not escape because the doors and
windows were locked with nails and soldiers stood guard with guns}684 Mansaray and
Fofana leii before the house finished burning. [685
695. Witness Ibrahim Fofana was captured by soldiers wearing military uniforms in
Paema.l°86 He testified that he was with five persons who carried loads for the captors to
Tombodu at gunpoint}687 All five persons reached Tombodu on 5 April 1998l688 and were
taken to a person called Staff Alhaji. Fofana stated that while he and the others were tied to
M4 Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, pp. 19592-19593.
M5 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19334.
I676 Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, pp. 19597, 19599; Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October
2008,PD. 19334, 19336-19337.
M7 Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, pp. 19601-19602.
lm Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, pp. 19602-19603.
mg Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, pp. 19603-19605.
mm Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, p. 19607.
msi Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, pp. 19606-19607.
lm Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, p. 19609.
lm Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, p. 19608.
M4 Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, p. 19609.
lm Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 30 October 2008, p. 19609.
M6 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19334.
M7 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, pp. 19334, 19336-19337.
1688 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19343.

---- End of Page 257 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T V @,5 18 May 2012

an orange tree in the compound, the rebel soldiers brought 53 other captives from a village
called Masundu and locked them in a big house}689 Fofana heard a soldier report to Staff
Alhaji that the 53 civilians had been captured and Staff Alhaji gave an order that they be
locked up in a house and the house be set on fire.l69O The rebels locked the 53 civilians in the
house, sprinkled petrol on it and set it on fire.l°9l Fofana testified that he heard people
screaming until the house bumed down completely. 1692
696. Fofana said that aHer the house had been completely bumt, that he and the others in
the group of five had their hands amputated by Rambo who was dressed in a military
uniforrn}693 Fofana testified that only he and Mustapha Mansaray survived the
amputations,l694 as the other three were elderly and were bleeding profusely.l695 The three
fell down somewhere on the way to Lebanon and died}696
Findings
697. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of both Mustapha Mansaray and Ibrahim
Fofana reliable and credible. Although Mansaray's account of the events differs in a number
of respects from that of Fofana,l697 the Trial Chamber finds that their story is consistent and
corroborated and is satisfied that the discrepancies in the witnesses’ testimonies can be
reasonably accounted for by the passage of time and the physical and emotional trauma
suffered by both witnesses. Based on the evidence, the Trial Chamber finds that the
Prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that in April 1998, AFRC/RUF forces
under the orders of Staff Alhaji intentionally caused the deaths of 56 civilians in Tombodu,
including 53 who were bumed inside a building and 3 who subsequently died from
amputations.
1689 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19338.
1690 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19340. ,
ml Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19340.
1692 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19340.
1693 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19341.
[694 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19341.
1695 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19342.
M6 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, pp. l9342·l9343.
1697 For example, Mansaray said they were captured on 12 April 1998 while Fofana said it was on 5 April 1998.
Mansaray said he found the 53 civilians already in Tombodu while Fofana said the civilians were brought after
he had aready arrived in Tombudu. Mansaray said that Staff Alhaji himself carried out the amputations while
Fofana said it was an officer called Rambo.

---- End of Page 258 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL·O3—O1—T 7/% @0 18 May 2012 %

698. The circumstances under which the AFRC/RUF forces captured and collected in a
single place such a large number of civilians, as well as the cruel manner in which their
death was executed, demonstrate the campaign of terror unleashed by the Junta forces. The
Trial Chamber further tinds that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such
violence and the primary purpose of these killings was to instil terror in the civilian
population.
(iv) Killings of civilians in and around Tombodu between March and May 1998
699. The Trial Chamber heard evidence of other killings of civilians in Tombodu during
the period April to May 1998. Prosecution Witness TFl—064 told court that "during the dry
season",l698 while residing in Foendor, Kono District, civilians who fled from Koidu and
Tombodu came and told her that "rebels have started killing people".l699 The witness and r
her family hid in the bush outside of Foendor. While in hiding, rebelsmo claiming to be
"ECOMOG soldiers", including one she knew before named Tamba Joe,l7Ol captured a
group of civilians including the witness and her family members, and took them back to
Foendor Town.l702 Once in Foendor Town, the rebels killed all of the civilians including her
family and her young children}703 TFl—064 testitied that only she and a Temne man
survived. The rebels forced her and the Temne man to carry a bag containing human heads
to Tombodu.l7O4 On the way, the rebels ordered the witness to laugh as she carried the bag
dripping with blood. TFl—064 testified that when they arrived at Tombodu, the bag was
emptied and she saw the heads of her children.l705 ln Tombudu, TFl—064 saw a commander
called Capay cut the Temne man's throat, killing him.l706 The Temne man's corpse was
lm TF1-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17636, 17638.
‘6"" TFl-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, p. 17636.
mo The witness said at that "some of the rebels were dressed in combat fatigues while some wore civilian
c1othing". TFl-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, p. 17642.
ml TF1-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17641-17644.
lm TFl-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17647-17648.
lm TFl-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17649, 17652-17653.
1704 TFl-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17656-17657. The children were killed in Foendor and their
heads were taken to Tombodu. See TFl-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17 652-17653.
lm TFl-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17657.
HO6 TF1-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17658.

---- End of Page 259 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T [ `6\l 18 May 2012

taken to a pit of water.11111 The witness escaped from the rebels at night and went to
Kokuima where ECOMOG was stationed. 111111
700. Another Prosecution witness Sahr Bindi testified that AFRC/RUF forces first came
to Tombodu sometime "between the rainy and dry seasons".11119 After addressing the citizens
and telling them that the AFRC and RUF were in Koidu and that the civilians should not be
afraid, the juntas retumed to Koidu.11111 Less than a month later, the rebels returned to
Tombodu amidst heavy gunfire.1111 Bindi said that some of the men had red cloth tied
around their heads.1112 The witness fled and hid in the bush.1113 The shooting did not subside
until almost evenin .1114 When Bindi returned rrcm the bush, he saw two co ses of men
S YP
who had been shot.1115 One man was wearing civilian clothing.1116 The other man was
known to the witness to be a civilian. 1111
70l. After this incident Sahr Bindi fled to Guinea with his famil and 0nl returned to
Y Y
Tombodu a month later when they heard on the radio that ECOMOG had come to Kono
, District.1118 On his way back rrcm Guinea, Bindi was captured by RUF/AFRC fighters1119
and taken to their commander called Staff Alhaji in Tombodu.11211 Staff Alhaji ordered his
men to lock u the witness and his brother sa `n that the 0u would be killed the next
P Y1 S SY P
day. 1121 Towards the evening, Bindi heard people being beaten and pleading on the veranda
not to be killed1m but at some point the screaming and pleading subsided.1123 When the
1707 TF1-064, Transcript 30 September 2008, pp. 17657, 17658.
17011 Because the witness refers to ECOMOG being stationed in Kokuima, it can be inferred that the killing of the
Ternne man occurred around April or May 1998. Other witnesses have testified that ECOMOG was in Koikuma
in February to May 1998. See Kumba Bindi, Transcript 29 October 2008, p. 19506; Sheku Bah Kuyateh,
Transcript 31 October 2008, p. 19715.
"°" Sahr Brrrdr, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18465-18466.
1710 Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18464-18466.
'"' Sahr Brrrdr, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18466-18467.
"'2 srtrrr Brrrdr, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18466.
1713 Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18467.
""‘ Sahr Brrrdr, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18467.
"'5 Sahr Brrrdr, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18467-18468.
1716 Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18468-18469.
1717 Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18468-1 8469.
17111 Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18480-18481. 1
1719 Describing his captors the witness said that "They had military clothes and a mixed uniform. Some would
have the trousers and the civilian clothes and there were others who had the full uniform". Sahr Bindi, Transcript
16 October 2008, p. 18483.
1720 Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18482-18485, 18490-18491.
1721 Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18491-18492.
1722 Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18492.

---- End of Page 260 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / GIA 18 May 2012

3835 5
witness came out of the cell, he saw three corpses lying on the ground with ropes tied around
their waists and rocks attached to the ropes.m4 The corpses were dressed in civilian clothing
and appeared to have been beaten.l725 Bindi and the others taken out of the cell were told to
carry the bodies and dump them in an old mining pit that had a large quantity of water in
it.m6 Bindi later learnt that the pit was called "Savage pit".m7 The witness managed to
escape from captivity in the night. mg
Findings
702. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of both witnesses above credible and reliable
as they each give an eye-witness account of what they saw and heard. Based on the evidence
of Witness TF1-064, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that between April and May 1998 in Foendor near Tombodu, AFRC/RUF
fighters pretending to be ECOMOG, beheaded an unknown number of civilians including
two of the witnesses' children and that soon thereafter, an AFRC/RUF fighter named Capay
intentionally killed a Temne man in Tombodu by slitting his throat. The Trial Chamber also
finds that all the civilians murdered were not taking an active part in the hostilities. The Trial
Chamber notes however, that since Foender is a location not pleaded in the Indictment, the
evidence relating to the civilian deaths there can only be used to prove the chapeau
requirements of the crime of murder and not for guilt.l729
703. Although Bindi's account of the death of three civilians at Staff Alhaji's veranda is
based on circumstantial evidence, the Trial Chamber finds, based on the screams and
pleading that Bindi heard; the threats of death made against him; the state of the corpses and
the method of their disposal; that the only reasonable inference is that these civilians were
murdered by the AFRC/RUF forces under the command of Staff Alhaji, who as the Trial
Chamber has noted above, routinely killed civilians and threw their bodies into a pit named
the "Savage pit". Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that between April and May 1998 in Tombodu, AFRC/RUF forces
Im Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18492.
Im Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18493—18497.
Im Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18497.
Im Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18496, 18498.
Im Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18499
mg Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18501
Im See Preliminary Issues: Issues Relating to the Pleading in the Indictment supra.

---- End of Page 261 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T QQ 18 May 2012

3339+
under the command of Staff Alhaji, intentionally killed three civilians who were not taking
an active part in the hostilities.
704. The above evidence further illustrates the campaign of terror waged by the
AFRC/RUF forces in carrying out indiscriminate abductions and killings of innocent
civilians in Kono District around this time. The bizarre practice of beheading victims and
forcing civilians to carry the heads in a bag from one place to another, as well as the cruelty
of forcing a mother to "laugh" at her own children's beheading, are acts that demonstrate the
brutality of the AFRC/RUF forces. The Trial Chamber finds beyond reasonable doubt that
the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such violence and the primary
purpose of these killings was to instil terror in the civilian population.
(d) Koidu Geiya or Koidu Gieya
(i) Killings of civilians at Koidu Geiya around May to June 1998
705. The Trial Chamber heard the evidence of several witnesses regarding the killing of
civilians in Koidu Geiya around the period of May to June 1998. These witnesses include
Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Alice Pyne and Prosecution Witness TFl—375.
706. Witness Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that the AFRC/RUF forces based in
Gandorhun attacked Koidu Geiya around May or June 1998 and successfully captured it
from Kamajors.173 0 Sesay testified that these forces comprising RUF and SLA members
were commanded by an RUF commander called Rambo.1731 In Koidu Geiya, the
AFRC/RUF forces captured two Kamajors. Sesay testified that one of the AFRC/RUF forces
. called Ahchebe slit open one of the Kamajor's stomach, removed the heart and ate it raw.1732
Because of this, the other AFRC/RUF forces nicknamed Ahchebe "Charma—Raw", a Krio
word meaning "one who eats raw meat". Sesay told the court that this was done in the
presence of Commanders Hassan Papa Bangura, Dennins Mingo (a.k.a. Superman) and two
other senior commanders, none of whom reprimanded Ahchebe for the killing of the
mo Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8014.
ml Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 21 April 2008, p. 8060.
lm Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8014.

---- End of Page 262 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL~03-01—T ... 18 May 2012
6\>·>

Kamajor. Mingo merely reprimanded Charma-raw for cannibalism but not for killing the
Kamajor. I 733
707. Witness TF1-375 confirmed that during the period May/June 1998, the AFRC/RUF
forces fought against the Kamajors in Koidu Geiya and overpowered them.m4 According to
TF1-375, the AFRC/RUF forces needed to take control of Koidu Geiya from the Kamajors
in order to enable Johrmy Paul Koroma to cross through this area on his way to Kailahun}735
After defeating the Kamajors and taking control of the area, Superman designated an RUF
commander called Rambo to be based in Koidu Geiya. Witness TF1-375 told the court that
Rambo ordered his troops to burn down civilian homes, kill civilians and amputate others in
order to "make the area fearful".m6 TF1-375 was not present when the civilians were
allegedly killed, but he learnt of Rambo's orders being carried out from some of Rambo's
bodyguards including CO Bakarr and one of the AFRC commanders, who came from
"Rambo's ground".m7 Soon afterwards, Superman sent the witness to Koidu Geiya to take
ammunition to Rambo and that is when TF1-375 saw corpses of civilians, burnt houses and
cars and a lot of destruction in Koidu Geiyamg
708. Alice Pyne, a radio operator working for the RUF throughout the conflict testified
that the RUF used to carry out attacks on civilians, especially in areas where ECOMOG
troops were based and where the civilians thought they were safe. When the RUF attacked,
the civilians were unable to escape as quickly as ECOMOG}739 Pyne told the court that
Koidu Geiya was a location where the RUF would run such an operation in 1998 "while the
witness was at PC ground and before the death of Sani Abacha". M40 Pyne further told the
court that the RUF sent a message to her to the effect that they attacked Koidu Geiya, but the
message made no mention of any civilian deaths.l74l Pyne told the court that the attack was
Im Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 8014-8015.
Im TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, pp. 12518-12519.
"35 TF1-375, Transcript 23 Jump 2008, p. 12518.
'"° TF1-375, Transcript 23 Jupp 2008,p. 12519.
"37 TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, pp. 12519-12520.
mg TF1—375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p.12519.
mg Alice Pyne, Transcript 18 June 2008, p. 12198.
mo Alice Pyne, Transcript 18 June 2008, p. 12198. The Trial Chamber notes according to Agreed Fact No. 11,
"1n June 1998, Sani Abacha died and was succeeded by Major General Abdulsalami Abubakar". Prosecutor v.
T ay/or, SCSL-03-1-PT-227, Joint Filing by the Prosecution and Defence Admitted Facts and Law, 26 April
2007, Agreed Fact 11. The Trial Chamber Ends accordingly that Pyne's evidence relates to the period after
ECOMOG had arrived in Kono following the Intervention in February 1998 but before June 1998.
ml Alice Pyne, Transcript 18 June 2008, pp. 12199.

---- End of Page 263 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Ok 18 May 2012

38'$S`t¤
led by RUF commanders Rambo and Banya because they were the commanders in
Gandorhun from where the radio message came}742 Pyne stated that later she heard from
Claris, another radio operator based in Gandorhun where the attacking RUF forces had come
from, that the forces had indiscriminately killed a lot of civilians in Koidu Geiya, including
children. 1743
Findings
709. The Trial Chamber finds the testimony of Alimamy Bobson Sesay more reliable with
regard to the attack on Koidu Gieya as it is based on first—hand knowledge of the attack. The
testimony of TF1—375 although based partly on hearsay and partly on circumstantial
evidence, is also credible and reliable given his aforesaid position in the RUF at that time.
Moreover, the destruction of Koidu Geiya that he described seeing, including corpses of
civilians, accords with evidence that the Trial Chamber has considered above of the
campaign of terror that the AFRC/RUF routinely carried out whenever they wanted to scare
off the civilian population. The irresistible inference to be drawn is that the RUF forces that
had carried out the attack on Koidu Geiya had deliberately killed these civilians. Pyne's
evidence although based largely on hearsay, is corroborated by that of Bobson Sesay and
TFl—375. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that during their attack on Koidu Geiya around May/June 1998,
AFRC/RUF fighters intentionally caused the deaths of an unknown number of civilians
including children and one Kamajor, all of whom were not taking an active part in the
hostilities.
710. The evidence establishes that consistent with the rebel Commanders’ orders to
"make the area fearful", the rebel perpetrators targeted civilians by buming their homes,
killing many indiscriminately and amputating others in Koidu Geiya. The bizarre act by one
of the rebels ("Charma—Raw") of publicly eating a raw human heart demonstrates the
campaign of terror that served as a waming to the civilian population not to oppose the Junta
forces. The Trial Chamber finds that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of
such violence and the primary purpose of the killings in Koidu Geiya was to instil terror in
the civilian population there.
mz Alice Pyne, Transcript 18 June 2008, pp. 12199.
W3 Alice Pyne, Transcript 18 June 2008, pp. 12198-12200.

---- End of Page 264 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / @5 18 May 2012

(e) Koidu Buma Q-
(i) Killings of civilians at Koidu Buma around May to June 1998
711. Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that in May or June 19981744 the AFRC/ RUF forces
in Kono District heard on the radio that ECOMOG forces were in Makeni and were coming
to recapture Kono.1745 Immediately after this the AFRC forces under the command of
Hassan Papa Bangura and Bazzy travelled from Masingbi and joined Superman's RUF
forces at Dabundeh Street. The combined AFRC/RUF forces took the Gandorhun route to
go to Koidu Geiya to attack the town.1746 On the way to Koidu Gieya, the group met RUF
Rambo, the Deputy Commander of Operations in Koidu Buma.1747 Alimamy Bobson Sesay
testified that he saw the corpses of 15 civilians who had been "hacked to death" by RUF
Rambo, but he did not witness the actual killings.17411 The witness explained that RUF
Rambo had gone ahead of the other fighters and was waiting for them at Koidu Buma.1749
RUF Rambo explained to the witness and the other commanders including Hassan Papa
Bangura and Superman, that he killed the civilians and displayed their bodies in the street in
order "to create fear so that no civilians would come to that area".1i750
Findings
712. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of Alimamy Bobson Sesay regarding the
deaths of the 15 civilians in Koidu Buma, credible and reliable, as it is based on the corpses
of civilians he saw and the explanation given by Rambo. The Trial Chamber finds that the
Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in May/June 1998, and with the
approval of Commanders Hassan Papa Bangura, Bazzy and Superman, RUF Rambo
intentionally caused the death of 15 civilians during an attack on Koidu Buma, all of whom
were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
713. The evidence establishes that, consistent with the rebel Commanders’orders to
"make the area fearfi1l", the aim of the rebel commander known as RUF Rambo in targeting
1714 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8059.
1745 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8012.
1746 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8012, 8014.
1747 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 8012-8013.
17411 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 8012-8013.
1719 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8013.
1750 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 8013.

---- End of Page 265 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI,-03-Ol-T / Ga 18 May 2012

ESBS8
these 15 civilians and displaying their corpses in the street was "to create fear so that no
civilian would come to that area". The Trial Chamber finds that the perpetrator wilfiilly
made the victims the object of such violence and the primary purpose of the killings in
Koidu Buma was to instil terror in the civilian population there.
(f) Yengema
(i) Killings of civilians at Yengema around March/April 1998
714. Witness Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that in March or April 19981751
AFRC/RUF forces led by a commander called Tito attacked Yengema and completely
burned the town down, killed every civilian they found there, and displayed the corpses and
human heads on sticks at various checkpoints.1752 Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that he
learned of the attack and killings while on patrol in Yengema with Commander Bomb
Blast.1753 Commander Tito explained to the Witness and Bomb Blast that some civilians
escaped and had their houses set on fire, while others were captured and those amongst the
captives who were "not strong enough" were killed.17511 The witness also told the court that
whenever he would go on patrol with this commander throughout Kono District, the
AF RC/RUF forces would tell them that the buming of houses and killing of civilians was "a
daily affair" and "an organised command". 1755
Findings
715. Based on his aforesaid position within the AFRC/RUF forces; what he was told
during the patrols and the explanation he was given by Commander Tito, the Trial Chamber
finds the evidence of Alimamy Bobson Sesay credible and reliable. The Trial Chamber finds
that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in March/April 1998 during an
attack on Yengema, AF RC/RUF forces under the command of Tito and with the approval of
patrol commander Hassan Papa Bangura (a.k.a. Bomb Blast), intentionally caused the death
of an unknown number of civilians, all of whom were not taking an active part in the
hostilities.
1751 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 21 April 2008, p. 8058. T A
1752 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7988, 7991—7992
1753 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7988.
1751 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, p. 7990.
1755 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 18 April 2008, pp. 7988—7989. `

---- End of Page 266 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01·T / du 18 May 2012

716. The evidence establishes that consistent with the orders of their superior
commanders to "make the area fearfu1", the AFRC/RUF forces routinely mounted attacks
upon civilians in many towns within Kono District including Yengema, which attacks
involved burning of houses and killing of civilians, and the macabre practice of displaying
dead bodies and human heads on sticks was an integral part of these attacks. The Trial
Chamber Ends that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such violence
and the primary purpose of the killings in Yengema was to instil terror in the civilian
population there.
(ii) Killing of civilians at the Yengema Training base between December 1998
and January 2000
717. Prosecution Witness TF1-362, testiHed that the more than 100 trainees at the
Yengema Base comprised civilian recruits transferred from the Bunumbu base as well as
civilians captured by Superman, Morris Kallon and Rambo around Koidu Town.1756 Other
commanders at the Yengema Base included 1ssa Sesay, Denis Mingo, Richard Cooper,
David Kanneh and a "Black guard" called Mohammed.1757 TF1-362 told the court that
civilian deaths were a regular occurrence at the base and that reports of the deaths were
regularly made to General Issa Sesay, usually through radio communication and written
records thereof kept.1758 Recruits of all ages died during the rigorous physical training
known as "halaka"1759 or "crawling" and other recruits who attempted to escape from the
training base were captured and either killed or had the letters "RUF" carved on their
foreheads or chests using a knife or broken bottle.1760 TF1-362 explained that 1ssa Sesay
gave the order that any civilian recruit attempting to escape should be killed in order to deter
the others from escaping.1761 She further explained that recruits were "marked" with the
letters "RUF" so that wherever they went, they would be easily identiHed, and also to scare
off others from attempting to escape. 1762
"5° T1¤1-362, Trsrtscrrpt 27 February 2008, p. 4917.
"57 T1¤1-262, Trsrrscrrpt 27 February 2008, pp. 4917-4919.
"SS T1¤1-262, Trsrtscrrpt 27 February 2008, p. 4923.
1759 Describing the training called "ha1aka" the witness told the court that the trainres would shoot live bullets
over the heads of the recruits as the latter crawled and that many recruits were accidentally shot to death in this
way. TF1—362, Transcript 27 February 2008, p. 4846 (CS).
17611 TF1—362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp. 4927-4929.
"°' TF1—362, Transcript 27 February 2008, p. 4929.
1762 TF1—362, Transcript 27 February 2008, p. 4927.

---- End of Page 267 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T Z (iq 18 May 2012 g

718. TF1-362 testified that on one occasion when General Issa Sesay was the over all
commander of the RUF, six recruits including a child soldier or SBU, were caught
attempting to escape from Yengema base. Upon receiving the witness's report of the
attempted escape, Issa Sesay ordered the witness to kill all six recruits but the witness
hesitated, pleading that the younger ones amongst them should be spared. The Black Guards
at the training base reported the witness to Issa Sesay who took her to task for disobeying his
orders. Issa Sesay's bodyguards summarily executed three of the errant recruits and the
Black Guards killed the other two. One child soldier (SBU) was spared because of his tender
age. After this incident, the SBU was nicknamed "Long life". 1763
719. Witness TF1-362 also testified that the RUF forces at Yengema Training base would
go on "food-finding missions" in surrounding villages whereby they would attack civilians
and rob them of their food. Civilians who would resist were shot or beaten to death and their
food taken. N64
720. Mustapha Mansaray, a member of the Internal Defence Unit of the RUF from 1994
to 1999, testified that while serving at Ngaiya in Kono District,1765 he heard from miners
who used to go to Yengema that Issa Sesay killed recruits at the Yengema training base.l766
Mansaray stated that his colleague, Pa Kosia, a general security officer for the RUF,1767
investi ated the alle ations and asked Issa Sesa about the deaths of recruits at Yen ema. Pa
S S Y S
Kosia told Mansaray that Issa Sesay told him that if he pursued the questioning then he too
would be punished.17°8 Mansaray also testified that Pa Kosia told Mansaray that the training
commander at Yengema training base confirmed to Pa Kosia that Issa Sesay came to the
base and killed several recruits and that his bodyguards also shot some of the recruits.1769
Findings
721. Based on her position in the RUF and particularly at Yengema training base, the
Trial Chamber finds the evidence of Witness TF1-362 relating to the mistreatment and
*763 TF1-362, Transcript 27 rcbmary 2008,p. 4929.
N64 TF1-362, Transcript 27 February 2008, pp. 4904-4905. ‘
ms Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 4 March 2008, p. 5235 stated that he served as RUF mining commander in
Ngaiya from January to June 2001.
*766 Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, pp. 5354-5355.
lm Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, p. 5356.
1768 Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, pp. 5354-5355.
mq Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 5 March 2008, pp. 5355-5356.

---- End of Page 268 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T j @3. 18 May 2012

23 Ee I
killing of civilians at the training base, credible and reliable. That evidence establishes that
civilian recruits of all ages were regularly mistreated by the RUF trainers at the Yengema
base and that many died in the course of training as a result of this mistreatment. The
evidence of Mustapha Mansaray, although based on hearsay, confirms the account of TF 1-
362, who was present at Yengema training base when five civilian recmits were shot to
death for attempting to escape. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that between the end of 1998 and the disarmament in
2000 at Yengema training base, Issa Sesay and his body guards intentionally executed five
civilians. The Trial Chamber further finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that RUF forces under the command of Issa Sesay and Sam Bockarie
regularly intentionally killed civilian recmits at Yengema training base as a form of
punishment for attempting to escape or during food finding missions. The Trial Chamber
also finds that these civilians were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
722. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the execution of civilians caught trying to
escape from the training base, or those trying to protect their food from being looted by the
fighters, served as a warning to those who would dare to disobey the RUF fighters. The Trial
Chamber finds that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such violence
and the purpose of the killings at the Yengema Training base was to instil terror amongst the
civilian population, thereby ensuring the continued loyalty of the abducted trainees.
(g) Paema or Peygma
(i) Killings of civilians in Paema around March/April 1998
723. Witness Ibrahim Fofana lived with his family in Paema Town, Kono District in
February 1998.1770 Fofana testified that a "squad of soldiers"ml arrived in Paema Town in
Febmary 1998 and forcibly took people's property, in what the soldiers called "Operation
Pay Yourself".lm F ofana stated that the "soldiers" left Paema for Sefadu for an unspecified
period of time and later returnedlm When the soldierslm returned, Fofana heard them say
lm Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19316.
` ‘"‘ The witness stated that the soldiers who attacked Paema were armed with guns and were dressed in the
military uniform wom by the Sierra Leone Army. Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19319.
lm Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19318.
lm Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, pp. 19320-19322.
'"4 The witness stated at that the soldiers who retumed to Paema also wore military uniform and carried guns.

---- End of Page 269 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T f dh 18 May 2012

"Today there will not be any living thing". He heard the soldiers refer to "Operation No
Living Thing".m5 The witness stated that the soldiers killed three civilians whom he knew
well, namel , Ali Ban ali, Sori and Pa Jannehmé Fofana testified that Ali Ban ali was a
Y S S
farmer and that he was shot dead while making bricks for his house because he refused to
give the soldier money or diamonds.m7
724. After the burial of Ali Bangali, Fofana heard a gunshot from the market areamg and
when he went to check, he found the body of Sori, a caterpillar operator, lying in a pool of
bloodmg Fofana testified that as he and his famil were fleein from Paema, he saw the
Y S
corpse of Pa Janneh, a security man who used to guard the caterpillar, on the road going to
Sandor.I78O Fofana helped to bury all three "useful civilians" after the assailants had left the
Town 1781
725. F ofana further told the court that after the death of the three civilians, he fled with his
family towards the Guinea border where they took refuge for about a month and a halfm;2
He retumed with his family to Paema on hearing over the BBC that ECOMOG forces had
overcome the fighters and were calling all citizens of Paema to retum and to take care of
their property.l783 Fofana stated that when they retumed to Paema, they were ambushed by
soldiers wearing military uniforms. WM F ofana and four other men were captured by soldiers
and taken to Tombodu.l785 Fofana's children,l786 his Aunt Isatu Bangura, and his mother
called Mammy Isatu were also captured and bumt alive by the soldiers.l787
726. In cross-examination, the Defence tendered into evidence a video filmed at
Connaught Hospital in Freetown in 1998 wherein Ibrahim Fofana was interviewed about his
Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19323.
W5 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19322.
W6 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, pp. 19323-19324.
lm Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, pp. 19324-19325.
lm Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19325.
mq Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19325.
Im Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19326.
ml Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19326.
lm Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19328.
1783 Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19328.
lm Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19334.
lm Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19334.
H86 The witness stated that the children who died in the fire included a daughter Kadiatu Fofana and two sons,
Mohammed Fofana and Dauda Fofana. Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19350.
lm Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, pp. 19334-19336.

---- End of Page 270 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T g` 18 May 2012

experience during the war}788 In the interview, when asked by the interviewer what
happened to his wife and children, Fofana answered that he "left them in the bush when
those guys went and attacked us".l789 He did not mention his children or his aunt having
been burnt alive.l79O Explaining this apparent inconsistency in cross-examination, Fofana
stated that he forgot to mention the fate of his family because "he was not in a good state of
mind when he was being interviewed for the video". ml
727. Ibrahim Fofana was also featured in Exhibit P-014, an excerpt from the documentary
"Blood Diamonds". In this second interview, Fofana did say that his wife and children were
burnt alive, but indicated that he had learned this later. W2
728. The Trial Chamber has also taken into consideration the Amnesty International
Report Exhibit P-078 which describes "Operation No Living Thing". W9}
Findings
729. Ibrahim Fofana is a witness who suffered much physical and emotional trauma
during the conflict, arising from the double amputations he sustained and the loss of his
mother and children, amongst others. The Trial Chamber finds his evidence credible and
com ellin , notwithstandin the inconsistencies therein raised b the Defence. Those
P g g Y
inconsistencies were well explained by the witness in cross-examination. Fofana's
description of "Operation No Living Thing" is corroborated by the account given by
Amnesty International in their report cited previously. Based on that testimony, the Trial
Chamber Hnds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that around
March/April 1998, rebel soldiers of the AFRC/RUF who attacked Paema intentionally killed
a number of civilians including Ali Bangali, Sori, Pa J anneh, Mammy Isatu, Isatu Bangura,
Kadiatu Fofana, Mohammed Fofana and Dauda Fofana, all of whom were not taking an
active part in the hostilities.
lm Exhibit D—072, "Video File — Interview of TF1—216 Taken at Connaught Hospital".
lm Exhibit D—072B, "Witness TF1—216, 28 October 2008, English Interpretation of Exhibit D—72"; Ibrahim
Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, p. 19359.
N90 Exhibit D—072B, "Witness TF1—216, 28 October 2008, English Interpretation of Exhibit D—72"; Ibrahim
Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, pp. l9358—19359.
ml Ibrahim Fofana, Transcript 28 October 2008, pp. 19362—19363.
""2 Exhibit P-014, ··v1d€O cup NO. 4*1
*793 Exhibit P—078, "Sierra Leone — 1998 — A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International
Report", p. 1 1.

---- End of Page 271 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T Gl 18 May 2012

730. The above evidence establishes that the perpetrators went on a ramEnd of Page in the
villages, indiscriminately looting civilian property and killing innocent civilians, in
accordance with superior orders by rebel commanders to leave "no living thing" in the area.
The Trial Chamber accordingly finds that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the
object of such violence and the primary purpose of the murder of civilians at Paema was to
instil terror in the civilian population there.
(h) Bomboa Fuidu
(i) Killings of civilians in Bomboa Fuidu around March/April 1998
731. Prosecution witness Musa Koroma was living in Bomboafuidu, Kono District at the
start of the rainy season of 1998.1794 He testified that during the remainder of the rainy
season he and other civilians from Bomboafuidu hid in the bush after being warned that
rebels were approaching the village.1795 The warning was delivered by one Gbessey Sesay
who had just had one of his hands amputated by the rebels. 17% After spending two months in
hiding,1797 Koroma and about 20 other civilians went back to Bomboafuidu to "clear the
road for ECOMOG". While sleeping at night, the witness and his friend Sheku Mansaray
were awakened by two armed men, one of whom wore a combat uniform and the other,
native Kamajor dress. The two men described themselves as "saviours who had come to
save the civilians of Bomboafuidu".1798 The rebels, numbering about 50, gathered a number
of civilians includin the witness on the veranda of a house belon in to one Alhai Te`an
S S S J J
Cole and told the civilians that they were "going to perform a sacrifice for the civilians". 1799
732. Koroma testified that he and the other civilians were forced to watch as three rebels
laid a Limba woman on the floor, held her down and slit her throat until she died.18110
Koroma testiried that the Limba woman was "aged" and that he had known her for a long
time because they had lived together in the same village. 1801 He further testified that before
the rebels left, they ordered the civilians to strip naked and forced the men to have sexual
""" Musa Kprprrra, Transcript is February 2008, pp. 3959-3960.
1795 Musa Koroma, Transcript 15 February 2008, pp. 3960-3963.
17% Musa Koroma, Transcript 15 February 2008, pp. 3961-3962.
1197 Musa Koroma, Transcript 15 February 2008, p. 3962.
1198 Musa Koroma, Transcript 15 February 2008, p. 3964.
1799 Musa Koroma, Transcript 15 February 2008, pp. 3966-3968.
18011 Musa Koroma, Transcript 15 February 2008, pp. 3966-3969.
18111 Musa Koroma, Transcript 15 February 2008, p. 3967.

---- End of Page 272 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T GLX 18 May 2012
V ..

intercourse with the women as the rebels watched. The rebels then flogged the women and
amputated or mutilated approximately 20 civilians, including the witness. The rebels told the
amputees to "go and tell President Tejan Kabbah to give them new hands and feet".18112 The
rebels also told the civilians to leave the village and that "if they come back next time and
meet us in the villa re, the will kill all of us".111113 Koroma told the court that as he and the
2; Y
other amputees walked on foot for several days to Njiama Sewafe to seek medical help from
ECOMOG, two of the am utees died alon the wa from their in`uries.18114
P g Y J
733. The Trial Chamber also admitted in evidence the transcript of the testimony of Alhaji
Tejan Cole from the AFRC trial.18115 In his prior testimony Cole, who was a resident of
Bomboafuidu in April 1998, confirmed that he was present during the events described by
Musa Koroma. His prior testimony corroborates that of Koroma in all material respects. At
the veranda of his father's house the rebels gathered the civilians on the night of Saturday,
12 April 1998.18116 He testified that the rebels, numbered over 200,18111 were armed with guns
and RPGs and had boxes of ammunition carried by civilians for them. 18118 Some rebels wore
full combat uniform, while others wore a mixture of combat trousers and a civilian
"polo".18119 The rebels spoke in a variety of languages including Krio, Mende and "Liberian
accents".18111 They also had several child soldiers amongst their ranks. 1811
734. Alhaj i Tejan Cole confirmed how the rebels killed an old Limba woman calling it "a
sacrifice",1812 how the rebels forced seven civilian men to have sex with seven civilian
women,1813 and how the rebels amputated several civilians including the witness, Musa,
Mohammed, Sheku, Musa Marrah, Adama, Alfa Kabia, lbrahim, Mohamed Kanu, Abdul
111112 Musa Koroma, Transcript 15 February 2008, p. 3987.
1803 Musa Komma, Transcript 15 Febmary 2008, p. 3990.
1804 Musa Koroma, Transcript 15 February 2008, p. 3993.
_ 18115 Exhibit P-202, "A1haji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", pp. 19663-19737 ("prior testimony").
111116 Exhibit P-202, "A1haji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", p. 19673. It should be noted that 12
April 1998 was a Sunday.
18117 Exhibit P-202, "A1haji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", p. 19677.
18118 Exhibit P-202, "A1haji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", pp. 19673, 19677.
*801* Exhibit P-202, "A1haji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", pp. 19674, 19677.
18111 Exhibit P-202, "A1haji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", pp. 19675, 19678.
11111 The witness stated that he saw more than six small boys aged 12 years, dressed in combat and armed with
guns, amongst the rebels. Exhibit P-202, "A1haji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", p. 19692.
11112 Exhibit P-202, "A1haji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", pp. 19679-19681.
11113 Exhibit P-202, "A1haji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", pp. 19682-19684.

---- End of Page 273 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T jg; (Kb 18 May 2012

,583 66
Kargbo, Pa Osman, Abdul Rahan, Sahr Aruna, Sahr Lebbie and ldrissa Gborie.l8l4 He also
confirmed that the rebels told the amputees to "go and tell President Tejan Kabbah to give
them new hands". 1815 Cole testified that when the events occurred Cole stated that during the
amputations, a civilian named Pa Saiyo resisted and was immediately killed by the
rebels.l8l6
Findings
735. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of witnesses Musa Koroma and Alhaji Tejan
Cole credible and reliable. The witnesses corroborate each other in all material respects.
That evidence shows that the rebels deliberately targeted and killed a number of civilians
including an old Limba woman, one Pa Saiyo and two amputees who died on their way to
seek help. The Trial Chamber also finds that the victims were not taking an active part in the
hostilities. Based on the evidence of the manner of dress and languages spoken by the
rebels, the Trial Chamber finds that the perpetrators were a mixed group of AFRC/RUF
rebels. Accordingly, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that in April 1998 during an attack on Bomboa Fuidu, AFRC/RUF rebels
intentionally caused the death of several civilians including an old Limba woman, one Pa
Saiyo and two amputees, all of whom were not taking an active part in hostilities.
736. The Trial Chamber further finds that the manner of the rebel attack, often surprising
civilians at night when they were asleep in their homes, the indiscriminate killings,
including the ritualistic murder of a helpless old woman, and the indiscriminate amputation
of innocent civilians accompanied by sarcastic messages to "President Kabbah to give them
new arms", are all acts that demonstrate the campaign of terror waged by the rebel forces
against the civilian population. The Trial Chamber finds that the perpetrators wilfully made
the victims the object of such violence and the primary purpose of the murders in Bomboa
Fuidu was to instil terror in the civilian population there.
(i) Njaima Nimikoro or Nimikoro
(i) Killing of civilians in Nimikoro between F ebruag; and June 1998
lm Exhibit P-202, "Alhaji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", pp. l9685—19692.
lm Exhibit P—202, "Alhaji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June 2005", p. 19691.
W6 Exhibit P-202, "Alhaji Tejan Cole, AFRC Transcript 28 June ZOO5", pp. 19688.

---- End of Page 274 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL—O3—O1—T 7%/ gu 18 May 2012

737. The Trial Chamber considered the following evidence of civilian killings in
Nimikoro. Witness Perry Kamara, an RUF radio operator was with the RUF forces based at
"Superman ground"l 81 7 in Kono District from where they launched an attack on Nimikoro
and surrounding areas "sometime in 1998 before the death of President Sani Abacha of
Nigeria".m8 Kamara told court that while he was based at Superman ground, he attended a
parade where Morris Kallon addressed the RUF forces and gave them a message from Sam
Bockarie that "they should try and make Kono District fearful to ECOMOG so that they
could not base there".l8`9 Morris Kallon also appointed CO Rocky as commander over the
attack. Kamara explained that "making the area fearful" entailed "destruction of life and
property, where there will be killings, amputations, buming of houses, destruction of
bridges, setting up road blocks. All those things would happen and that will have made the
area fearful". `820 He further explained that the amputated civilians were to be sent to
ECOMOG with a message to "keep their hands off the war".`82` Kamara testified that the
RUF forces that attacked Nimikoro and its surrounding areas reportedthat they had killed
civilians, amputated others and bumt most of the town in accordance with Bockarie's
orders.1822 Kamara also told court that the RUF forces were based in Nimikoro "for some
timci, 1823
738. In April 1998,l824 Emmanuel Bull was abducted with other members of his family,
including his father, by members of the AFRC/RUF and taken to Njaima Nimikoro where he
stayed for approximately one week}825 ln Njaima Nimikoro, the AFRC/RUF set up a kind
of headquarters at the home of Emmanuel Bull's grandfatherl826 and reported to a
commander called Bai Bureh}827 One moming, the AFRC/RUF declared that they "did not
want any grandpa or old person at their headquarters and that everybody around must be
iw Perry Kamara Transcript, 5 February 2008, p. 3149.
lm Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3154-3155. Sani Abacha died in June 1998. Prosecutor v.
Taylor, SCSL-03-1-PT-227, Joint Filing by the Prosecution and Defence Admitted Facts & Law, 26 April 2007,
Agreed Fact 1 1.
lm Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3150.
lm Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3150.
ml The witness quoted a Krio expression frequently used by the rebels, namely, "Pul yu an pa di war", meaning
"take your hands off the war". Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3154.
lm Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3152.
lm Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, p. 3152.
my Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, pp. 17280-17281.
lm Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, p. 17289.
*826 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, p. 17281.
Hm Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008. pp. 17281-17283.

---- End of Page 275 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012

active".1828 The AFRC/RUF assembled the old men and women amongst the captured
civilians, stating that they were going to take them to Bumpe.1829 Bull leamed from an
AFRC/RUF member named Esther Koroma, who he had befriended, that this was a false
lan and that, in reali , the AFRC/RUF forces were oin to kill the older civilians
P 8 S
including the witness’ father.1g3O Esther helped Bull's father escape from the group.1831
About five AFRC/RUF members, including Cobra and Bobby, took about six or seven of
the older men, including Pa Mansaray, a friend of Bull's father, away in the direction
opposite to Bumpe.1832 After approximately three to five minutes, Bull heard two gun shots
and a roximatel five minutes later, Bobb and Cobra retumed.1833 The older men were
PP Y Y
never seen again.1834 Later the witness heard Cobra and Bobby bragging that they had lined
the old men in two straight lines and used a single bullet to shoot through each line.1835
Findings
739. The Trial Chamber is of the view that by virtue of his position as radio operator,
Perry Mohammed was in a position to receive regular reports on the activities of the RUF
forces that were based in Kono District after the ECOMOG Intervention. Thus although his
evidence is based on reports and messages that he received from the fighters rather than on
his own participation in the RUF operations in Nimikoro, the Trial Chamber finds that
evidence credible and reliable. That evidence shows that the RUF forces in Nimikoro, like
their colleagues elsewhere in Kono District, carried out a terror campaign against the civilian
population in Nimikoro which involved the killing of civilians. The Trial Chamber also
finds the evidence of Emmanuel Bull regarding the murder of seven old persons by the
AFRC/RUF forces at Njaima Nimikoro, also credible and reliable. Although essentially
circumstantial, his account leads to one reasonable conclusion that the seven senior citizens
were murdered. Based on this evidence, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has
roved be ond reasonable doubt that members of the AFRC/RUF that attacked N`aima
P Y J
Nimikoro around April 1998, acting in accordance with the orders of their commanders
1828 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, p. 17292.
1829 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, pp. 17291-17292.
1830 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, p. 17292.
1831 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, pp. 17292-17293.
1832 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, pp. 17293-17294.
1833 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, p. 17295.
1814 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, p. 17294.
1835 Emmanuel Bull, Transcript 25 September 2008, p. 17295

---- End of Page 276 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Gy 18 May 2012

38 3 écl
including Sam Bockarie, Morris Kallon, CO Rocky, Cobra and Bobby, intentionally killed
an unknown number of civilians, including seven senior citizens, all of whom were not
taking an active part in the hostilities.
740. The Trial Chamber further finds that in wantonly murdering innocent civilians,
carrying out amputations and destroying civilian property in Nimikoro, the perpetrators were
carrying out the orders of their superior commanders to "make the area fearful". The Trial
Chamber finds that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such violence
and the primary purpose of the murder of civilians at Nimikoro or Njaima Nimikoro was to
instil terror in the civilian population there.
Q) Mortema I
(i) Killing of civilians in Mortema gor Motemap between February and June 1998
741. The Trial Chamber has considered the following evidence relating to killings in
Mortema. Prosecution Witness TF1—375 estimates that it was about three months after the
ECOMOG Intervention in Freetown that the AFRC/RUF forces attacked Mortema.l836 The
witness told the court that the attack on Mortema was led by a commander called "Short Bai
Bureh" and that before the attack he was given orders by senior officers in Kono at that time,
including Superman, Gullit, Isaac Mongor and others]837 to "go and make the area
fearful".l838 The witness explained that to the RUF, making an area "fearfi1l" meant "to kill
civilians, burn houses and to instil fear into ECOMOG, or any other opposing troop that
would want to get into that area easily".l839 The witness testified that when the AFRC/RUF
attacked Mortema, there were only civilians there and no opposing force. 1840
742. Although he himself did not participate in the Mortema attack, Witness TF1—375
testified that after the AFRC/RUF forces returned from Mortema, Short Bai Bureh directly
called Superman over the RUF radio and gave him a report of the destmction that they had
carried out on Mortema. The witness was present in the radio room with Superman and
Im Witness TF1—375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12517.
1837 Witness TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12511.
mg Witness TF1-375, Tramcnpt 23 June 2008, p. 12510.
1839 Witness TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12510.
mo Witness TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12510.

---- End of Page 277 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 7%/ `AA 18 May 2012

heard the report.l84l The witness further told the court that when the RUF forces returned
from Mortema, some of his friends amongst them told the witness what had happened there
and even brought some girls with them as their "wives". [842 In his testimony, Witness TF1—
375 did not specifically attest to civilian killings in Mortema.
743. Another Prosecution witness, Samuel Bull, was in Mortema on 21 April 1998 when
the AFRC/RUF or "People's Army" attacked. [843 The witness and his family hid in Fakoyia
bush for almost two months.l844 On 5 May 1998 the witness and his family returned to
Mortema after hearing on the BBC Radio that ECOMOG had taken control of the area
including Njaiama Nimikoro, Sewafe and Mortema. The witness found a lot of houses burnt
in Mortema except one big building on the main Masingbi Highway where the witness and
his family settled along with approximately 50 civilians.l845 On the night of 12 June 1998,
"rebels" attacked Mortema again. IS46 Samuel Bull observed fighting between ECOMOG
troops and the rebels from the window of the house, and saw that the ECOMOG forces had
begun to retreat. [847 An RUF fighter entered the house where Bull was and shot dead an old
woman called Ma Gbojo.l848 The witness escaped through the window and hid in a banana
plantation approximately 45 feet from the house.l849 From the banana plantation, Samuel
Bull saw the rebels gather all the other civilians who had remained in the house, line them
outside and shoot them. {S50 The witness testified that in the morning he saw the bodies of 21
civilians killed in his neighbourhood including 17 who were killed at his house.l85l Amongst
the dead were six of his family members.l852 The witness participated in burying the 21
civilians in a mass grave after ECOMOG arrived and drove away the rebels. [853 The witness
Hm Witness TF1-375, Transcript 23 June 2008, p. 12510.
**42 warmers TF1-375, Transcript 23 Jurre 2008,p. 12510.
IS43 Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, pp. 17062-17063.
A I844 Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, p. 17064. The witness explained that Fakoiya is about 3 miles
from Mortema.
@45 Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, pp. 17113-17114.
IS46 Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, pp. 171 13-171 14.
IS47 Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, p. 17115.
lm Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, p. 171 16.
@49 Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, pp. 171 17, 171 19.
lm Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, pp. 17119-17124.
ml Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, p. 17124.
lm The witness named his family members as Aiah Sandy, Dorcos Sandy, Sia Sandy, Ma Gbojo, Komba
Modeneh and Kadiatu Lebbie.
lm Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, p. 17124

---- End of Page 278 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI.-03-01-T / 18 May 2012

later learned that the rebel commander who led the attack in which the 21 civilians were
iaiiea was mired Lt. car. Fixo Bm.'854
744. The testimony of Samuel Bull is corroborated by that of Tamba Mondeh, one of
many civilians who took refuge at Samuel Bull's house. Tamba Mondeh initially fled his
home village of Mortema and hid in the bush with his family1855 on hearing reports from
various villages in Kono District that "rebels were killing and mutilating people".185 8 While
in hiding he heard that "ECOMOG had gone to Freetown and they’ve come again to
Nimikoro up to Motema and from Motema they went to Yengema and from there they also
captured Koidu and were in Njaiama Nimikoro".1857 Encouraged by these reports, the
witness and his family returned to Mortema.1858 On arrival, the witness stayed in a storeyed
building that was incomplete and that belonged to one Samuel Bull.1859 He explained that
many other civilians including Samuel Bull (the owner's son) were staying in that house.1888
745. One night while everyone was asleep, rebels wearing uniforms and carrying guns
surrounded the storeyed house and told the occupants to gather outside, saying "You people
do not want us. You said that you want ECOMOG. You will know what will happen to you.
When our boss passes the command, we will kill all of you".1881 The witness told the court
that when he went outside he met the rebel "boss" face to face and recognised him to be
Fixo Bio, a person he knew before. 1882 One rebel entered the house and fired several shots in
order to force out the civilians. The shots killed a man called Aiah with his daughter and
in`ured the witness’ chin.1888 The rebels asked the civilians to ueue in front of the house
J Q
and shot at them, killing several and wounding others. The witness hid in a nearby bush until
1888 Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, pp. 17126-17127
1888 Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp.17438-17445.
1888 Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17439-17444.
1887 Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17445
188 8 Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17447-17448.
1889 The witness explained that the building belonged to Samuel Bull Senior and that the son, Samuel Bull Junior
also took shelter in this building and was in charge of the refugees. The witness also explained that many other
civilians took shelter at this house and that in the morning everybody would go to his respective place to find
food. Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17449.
1888 Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17449, 17456.
1881 Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17451-17452.
1888 Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, p. 17458.
1888 Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17454-17455.

---- End of Page 279 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T ST 18 May 2012

ECOMOG rescued him. Mondeh later learnt from Samuel Bull that the rebels killed 25
people during this incident and that the dead were buried in mass graves. *864
Findings
746. The Trial Chamber finds both Samuel Bull and Tamba Mondeh to be credible
witnesses. Their accounts are consistent, although at times diverged in details based on their
different vantage points. Although Mondeh was, due to illiteracy, unable to give the date of
the attack on Mortema, he made it clear that it was sometime after the ECOMOG
Intervention. Samuel Bull however, placed the time of this attack around at 12 June 1998.
The evidence also shows that these were reprisal killings against the civilians whom the
rebels perceived to support ECOMOG. Based on the evidence of these two witnesses the
Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that around 12
June 1998, AFRC/RUF rebels led by "Fixo Bio" intentionally executed 17-25 civilians at
the Bull residence in Mortema, all of whom were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
747. The evidence further shows that the perpetrators, in preying upon sleeping civilians
at night and wantonly shooting them, were carrying out the orders of their superior
commanders to "make the area fearful". Accordingly the Trial Chamber finds that the
perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such violence and the primary purpose
I of the murder of civilians in Mortema was to instil terror in the civilian population there.
(k) Alleged unlawful killings in Other Locations in Kono District not pleaded in the
Indictment
748. The Trial Chamber received credible evidence of the murder of civilians in a number
of locations within Kono District not specifically pleaded in the Indictment including,
Baima,l865 Goldtown}866 Yekeyor,l867 Kondeya,l868 Mambona,l869 and othersmo As
1864 Tamba Mondeh, Transcript 29 September 2008, pp. 17463- 17464.
1865 Sahr Bindi, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18502-18505 (The witness stated that he saw two corpses in
civilian clothing following the AFRC/RUF attack on Baima in 1998). Finda Gbamanja, Transcript 29 January
2009, pp. 23850-23857 (The witness stated that upon retuming to Baima after the ECOMOG Intervention, she
was captured by rebels. A rebel shot and killed the witness's father in her presence and then forced the witness
and her mother to laugh).
*866 Perry Kamara, Transcript 5 February 2008, pp. 3155-3156: The witness participated in an ambush of
vehicles in Goldtown (between Masingbi and Sewafe along the Kono-Makeni highway), in which the rebels
bumed vehicles and killed civilians.
1867 Komba Sumana, Transcript 6 October 2008, pp. 17891-17894, 17900-17903 (The witness stated that rebels
killed his uncle and sister and that he saw the decomposing corpses of two males in civilian clothing at a location

---- End of Page 280 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI,-03-01-T im 18 May 2012

previously held, this evidence is only taken into account in relation to the chapeau
requirements of the alleged crimes and not for proof of guilt. 1871
Conclusion
749. In conclusion, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that between about 1 February 1998 and about 31 January 2000, in various
locations in Kono District including Koidu Town, Tombudu, Koidu Geiya, Koidu Buma,
Yengema, Paema or Peyima, Bomboafuidu, Nimikoro or Njaiama Nimikoro and Mortema,
members of the AFRC/RUF murdered an unknown number of civilians, as charged in the
Indictmentlm and as shown by the evidence.
750. The Trial Chamber recalls that the Prosecution has established beyond reasonable
doubt that at all times relevant to the Indictment, the RUF and/or AFRC forces directed a
widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population of Sierra Leone.l873 The Trial
Chamber is satisfied that each of the killings proved by the Prosecution in respect of Kono
District formed part of the said attack and that the perpetrators were aware of this fact. The
Trial Chamber also recalls that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that
there was an armed conflict in Sierra Leone at all times relevant to the Indictment, involving
among others, members of the RUF, AFRC and CDF. W4 The Trial Chamber is satisfied that
for all of the aforementioned killings in Kono District there was a nexus between the killings
and the armed conflict, that each of the victims was not taking an active part in the hostilities
between Yekeyor and Dewawu).
ISGS In Exhibit P-078, Sierra Leone ~ A Year of Atrocities Against Civilians, Amnesty International Report, p. 12
(Amnesty International reported an incident in Kondeya in Kono District on 9 April 1998 when a group of about
50 rebels captured about 120 civilians; strangled one of the civilians and threw a crying baby into a river. Also
27 of the civilians were later attacked with machetes and some were decapitated.)
IW Samuel Bull, Transcript 24 September 2008, pp. 17093-17108 (The witness stated that in April 1998, RUF
rebels killed at least 5 civilians in Mambona including one ‘SK’ who was stabbed to death with a knife. The
witness saw all of the five corpses. The witness also described how the rebels killed a Kamajor called Kai Sandy
and displayed his head and private parts on a stick.)
mo Mustapha Mansaray, Transcript 20 October 2008, pp. 19610-19616 (The witness testified that he saw five
corpses of civilians on the road between Tombodu and Lebanon; Alex Tamba Teh, Transcript 8 January 2008,
pp. 688-690 (The witness testified that one man was killed by rebel forces between Kania and Koidu Town);
Isaac Mongor, Transcript 31 March 2008, pp. 6220-6221 (The witness testified that the RUF attacked a village
called Kissy Town, which is behind Koidu Town, in Kono District where they suspected Kamajors to be. The
RUF forces killed many civilians including men, women and children whom they suspected to be Kamajors or
Kamajor supporters.)
ml See Preliminary Issues: Issues Relating to the Pleading in the Indictment.
lm Indictment, para. 11.
W3 See Law and Findings on the General Requirements: Article 2: Crimes Against Humanity, para. 559 supra.

---- End of Page 281 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T GQ 18 May 2012
J U"}

at the time of death, and that the perpetrators knew this fact. Therefore, the Trial Chamber is
satisfied that the aforementioned killings in Kono District constitute murder as both a crime
against humanity under Article 2 of the Statute and a war crime under Article 3 of the
Statute.
3. Alleged unlawful killings in Kailahun District gbetween about 1 February 1998 and
about 30 June 1998)
751. The Trial Chamber has considered the evidence of Prosecution witnesses Varmuyan
Sheriit, Mohamed Kabbah, Augustine Mallah and Witness TF1—168; Defence witnesses
Fayia Musa, Issa Sesay, DCT—292 and DCT—068 as well as Exhibits P—277 and P—60lB.
(a) Kailahun Town
(i) Massacre of around 60-65 civilians in Kailahun Town in February 1998
752. Augustine Mallah a member of the RUFl875 testified that in February 1998, after
ECOMOG had dislodged the AFRC/RUF Juntas from Freetown, Sam Bockarie (a.k.a.
Mosquito) the RUF leader, assembled most of the RUF commanders in Daru and told them,
"This is Kailahun District, we are not going to let it be occupied by anybody else, be you
ECOMOG or Kamajors. You might resort to killing all of us, but we will not leave Kailahun
for anybody. We had been in Kailahun here when the soldiers plotted a coup against
Kabbah. They invited us, we went and joined them. Being that we have now returned to
Kailahun, we should defend the place".l876 Mallah stated that after this speech he travelled
from Daiu to Kailahun Town with Mosquito and over 100 ARFC and RUF soldiers whom
Bockarie had instructed to "go and defend Kailahun District". 1877
753. On their arrival in Kailahun Town, Mosquito went to Augustine Gbaomg to check
on the fate of 65 civilians who Mosquito had arrested and sent to Gbao for "investigation"
IW See Law and Findings on the General Requirements: Article 3: War Crimes, para. 573 supra.
M5 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 12 November 2008, pp. 20057-2006O (stating that he was abducted and
forcibly conscripted into the RUF at a very early age).
W6 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, pp. 20l85—20l86.
1877 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, p. 20177. The witness also stated that the AFRC/RUF
forces took more than 400 civilians with them to Kailahun as "manpower". Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13
November 2008, p. 20172.
1878 Mallah explained that Augustine Gbao was an RUF Vanguard who also served as the G5 (in charge of
civilians travelling with the RUF), the Agricultural Unit and the Intelligence Unit within the RUF.

---- End of Page 282 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03-0l-T / EQ 18 May 2012

because he suspected them of betraying the RUF by surrendering to the Government}879 On
arrival in Kailahun Town, Mosquito asked Gbao how the investigations went. Mallah heard
Gbao report to Mosquito that "Those people are all in the cell. They were about 65 in
number. With all the investigations we have conducted we have realised that these people
are Kamajors. They are not fit to live amongst us here as long as we are not satisfied with
them and with the present circumstances". 1880 On hearing Gbao's report, Mosquito ordered
Joe Fatomalggl to bring out the 65 civilians. Mosquito personally shot three of the civilians,
remarking that "We need to kill these people". Mallah told the court that up to 100 AFRC
and RUF including Mallah himselt, participated in the summary execution of those civilians
and that he counted 45 bodies. 1882 Mallah also told the court that after the killing had started,
he saw "a Liberian commander" talking to Mosquito. Mallah explained that he met this
commander and his three bodyguards in Kailahun and that the commander did not
artici ate in the killin of the Kama`ors.l883 The Liberian commander left for Buedu in a
P P S J
convoy with Sam Bockarie. 1884
754. Augustine Mallah further told the court that after the massacre of the 65 civilians, he
travelled with Sam Bockarie from Buedu to Dam, and they passed through Kailahun Town
again because "Mosquito wanted to ensure whether the order that he had given was
complied with".lg85 Describing the atmosphere as they drove through Kailahun Town,
Mallah told the court that it was obvious that people had been killed in the town because
there were several human heads and skulls displayed on sticks on both sides of the road to
Pendembu.l8g6 Mallah told the court that on this occasion, Augustine Gbao and Joe Fatoma
told Bockarie that they had accomplished the mission by killing all the civilians as Bockarie
had ordered. 1887
1879 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, p. 20177.
‘*’"’ Augustine Me11ert, rmsenpr 13 November 2008, p. 20177.
ml Mallah explained that Fatoma was an RUF Junior Commando and a MP (Military Police) within the RUF.
1882 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, pp. 20178-20180.
1883 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, p. 20178.
1884 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, p. 20179.
1885 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, p. 20184.
1886 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, pp. 20183-20184.
1887 Augustine Mallah, Transcript 13 November 2008, p. 20184.

---- End of Page 283 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T / JL 18 May 2012

755. Witness Varmuyan Sherif testified that he arrived in Kailahun Town in February
1998 bearing a message for Mosquito "then leader of the RUFM888 from President Charles
Taylor. M9 On arrival in Kailahun Town, Sherif spoke to Bockarie's bodyguards who
pointed out Sam Bockarie and asked Sherif to wait until Bockarie had finished "talking to
some Kamajors".l890 Sherif testified that he saw Sam Bockarie taking people out of a
building and heard him saying "these people are Kamajors and we are going to finish them".
Sherif testified that he saw Bockarie personally shoot five of the men with a gun. ml Sherif
further told the court that after executing the five people, Sam Bockarie said "I am moving
now. Before I come back, the remaining people, I want all of them dead",l892 whereupon
Bockarie drove away to Buedu in a convoy of three cars. Sherif followed the convoy to
Kailahun and did not see what happened to the remaining people. M3
756. In cross-examination, the Defence confronted Sherif with a record of his first
interview with members of the Prosecution on 23 February 2005 in which he did not
mention Bockarie's execution of civilians. In this interview, Sherif is recorded as stating that
when he went to Kailahun Town, he arrived at night after Sam Bockarie had already left and
proceeded to Buedu.l894 Sherif explained that the incident described in the interview took
place in Pendembu and that in this first interview, he was afraid and did not trust the
investigators.l895 Sherif insisted however, that in subsequent interviews with the
Prosecution investigators, he did talk about Bockarie executing five persons.l896 The
Defence also confronted Sherif with a second interview with Prosecution investigators
which took place on 29 and 30 November 2006 and 4 December 2006.l897 In this interview
Sherif is recorded as meeting Sam Bockarie in Kailahun Town upon the instruction of
Charles Taylor and seeing Sam Bockarie shoot prisoners one at a time. mg
mg The witness explained that he did not personally know Sam Bockarie beforehand, but that he used to hear
that Foday Sankoh was detained in Nigeria and that Sam Bockarie was the leader of the RUF. Varmuyan Sherif;
Transcript 10 January 2008, pp. 985-987.
M9 Varmuyan Sherif] Transcript 9 January 2008, p. 828-829.
Hm Varmuyan Sherif, Transcript 9 January 2008, pp. 831-832.
ml Varmuyan Sherif] Transcript 9 January 2008, pp. 832-833.
M varnruyan Sherif, rranaprrpr 9 January 2008, pp. 832-833.
Hm Varmuyan Sherif; Transcript 9 January 2008, p. 833.
fm Varmuyan Sherif; Transcript 1 1 January 2008, pp. 1087-1088.
mj Varmuyan Sherif; Transcript 14 January 2008, pp. 1155-1158.
IW) Varmuyan Sherif] Transcript 1 1 January 2008, pp. 1087-1091.
*897 varnruyan srrprrr, Transcript 14 January 2008, p. 1 155.
mg Varmuyan Sherif; Transcript 14 January 2008, pp. 1 155-1158.

---- End of Page 284 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T _3\Q 18 May 2012

757. Witness Mohamed Kabbah1899 was the RUF regional commander in charge of
communications in Kailahun from the AFRC coup in May 1997 to the ECOMOG
Intervention in February 1998.1900 Part of his duties entailed receiving and dispatching radio
messages between the front lines and other assignment areas and Sam Bockarie, the overall
comrnander.19111 Kabbah testified that he was present in Kailahun Town on the day of the
killings.19112 He testified that ECOMOG had pushed RUF fighters out of Daru and that they
had regrouped in Kailahun Town.19113 Sam Bockarie arrived in Kailahun Town with his
bodyguards including a tall Liberian called Senegalese.19114 On the evening of their arrival, p
an ECOMOG `et flew over Kailahun Town and caused dama e.19O5 Kabbah testified that at
J 8
this time, 60 male "civilians who were Kamajors but who were not carrying arins" were held
in custody by the RUF at the MP prison in Kailahun Town. 191111
758. Kabbah testified that alter the jet passed, Sam Bockarie ordered five of the Kamajor
risoners to be brou t to the roundabout so that "he ma set an exam le of them".1907 A
P Y P
visibly distressed Kabbah told the court that when the prisoners were brought to the
roundabout in the center of Kailahun Town, Bockarie shot two of the prisoners in the
forehead and ordered Issa to execute the remainin three, and that Issa shot the remainin
8 8
three prisoners with his pistol.19118 Kabbah was approximately 7 to 8 metres away when he
saw the risoners killed.19119 Kabbah stated that alter the first five risoners were killed, Issa,
P P
his bodyguards and Bockarie's bodyguards went behind the police station and executed the
1899 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, pp. 16088- 16093. The witness stated that he was captured
by RUF rebels and conscripted into their fighting forces in 1991. He was trained by various "Liberian
commanders?
10011 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, pp. 16099-16100, 16105, 16111.
1901 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 161 1 1
1002 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 161 12.
1903 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 161 12.
19114 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 161 13.
19115 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 161 12.
19116 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, pp. 161 12, 16125. See also Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript
12 September 2008, pp. 16113-16120 (describing that the prisoners had been investigated and that some had
Kamajor markings on their bodies).
19117 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 16114.
1908 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 161 12.
1909 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, pp, 16122, 16124.

---- End of Page 285 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T Z 18 May 2012

remaining 55 prisoners. 19111 Kabbah did not see these persons killed, but heard about it from
"some boys"1911
759. Explaining how the 60 civilians had come to be detained by the RUF, Kabbah told
the court that before the Intervention, Kamajors used to attack some of the RUF positions
and this created anic within the RUF controlled areas. Durin that eriod, the RUF
P S P
interrogated a civilian from Jojoima whom they said was sent to spy on RUF positions.
Based on that information, Bockarie had sent a radio message to all military police within
the Kailahun District to escort all those civilians that entered the RUF-controlled territory to
Kailahun Town and to assemble them in Kailahun Town "so that they could be screened in
order for the RUF to know who was a Kamajor or who was a genuine civilian".1912 This is
how these 60 civilians came to be detained and later executed by the RUF in Kailahun
Town. Kabbah told the court however, that the Kamajor suspects fell into two categories,
namel , those who confessed to havin been Kama`ors in the ast but had disarmed; and
Y S J P
those that bore Kamajor markings on their bodies. Kabbah stated however, that none of the
60 suspects were armed or actively fighting when they were arrested. 1913
760. Prosecution Witness TF1-168, a prominent member of the RUF, gave a vivid
account of the Kailahun massacre.TF1-168 told court that he and six other colleagues were
held in detention by senior RUF commanders1914 for 30 months1915 on suspicion of
"betraying Foday Sankoh to the Nigerians", and that while in detention they were tortured
and moved around several prisons within Kailahun District.1916 TF1-168 testified that he and
his fellow-detainees were moved to a detention facility in the centre of Kailahun Town
around the end of December 1997, and that on 19 February 1998 they were transferred to the
town police station in Kailahun Town.1917 At the police station the detainees were guarded
by RUF MP John Duawo and his deputy Joe Fatoma. Augustine Gbao was the overall
1910 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, pp. 161 12-16113.
1911 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 16124.
11112 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, p. 161 14.
1913 Mohamed Kabbah, Transcript 12 September 2008, pp. 161 15-16116.
1914 TF1-168, Transcript 22 January 2009, p. 23315 (where the witness cited Issa Sesay, Sam Bockarie and
others).
1915 TF1-168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp. 23320-23328 (where the witness stated that they were arrested in
March 1997 and eventually released in October 1999).
11116 TF1-168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp. 23315-23322.
"’" TF1-168, raaaampt 22 January 2009, p. 23334. e

---- End of Page 286 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012
’ n

commander in charge of Kailahun Town. mg TF1-168 told the court that there were 65 other
civilian detainees in detention at the police station who told him that they were citizens of
Luawa Chiefdom in Kailahun District who were being held by the RUF leadership.l9l9 The
detainees had fled Kailahun District before the 25 May 1997 coup d’etat but after the coup
had been persuaded by Sam Bockarie to return to their homes. Upon their return to Kailahun
District, these civilians had been arrested and detained by the RUF on suspicion of being
Kamajors. mo
761. TF1-168 told the court that on the afternoon of 19 February 1998 John Duawo told
all the detainees to go back inside their cells because Sam Bockarie had arrived and did not
want to see anyone outside their cells. The witness returned to his cell from where he
observed through a window what was going on outside. The witness told the court that he
saw Duawo remove 10 of the Kamajor prisoners from their cells and take them outside
towards the roundabout.l92l TF1-168 testihed that the prisoners were brought outside
towards the roundabout and that not too long after, he heard gunfire}922 The witness stated
that from his vantage point, he could see them fall}923 TF1-168 later learned from the
military police that it was General Sam Bockarie (a.k.a. Mosquito) who had fired the first
shot.l924
762. TF1-168 said that MP guards took the remaining Kamajor suspects from their cells
in groups of four and five and took them towards the valley where they shot them to
death. I925 TF1-168 stated that as he was awaiting his own fate in his cell, he heard the guards
saying "bring out the remaining five prisoners", and thought that they were referiing to him.
TF1-168 learnt from the MPs the following day that 64 of the prisoners, all males, were
killed during this incident and that one person was saved. M6
mg TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp. 23338—23339.
"’" TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009,p. 23339.
‘°2° TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp. 23339-23341.
ml TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp. 23344—23345. The witness testified that amongst the ten was an
SLA called Charles Kaiyoko whom Duawo had accused of "being the cause of all this troub1e".
"m TF1-168, Transcript 22 January 2009,p. 23345.
"’" Tri-168, Transcript 22 January 2009, p. 23348.
m4 TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009, p. 23346. The witness described that the first shot he heard was one of
"suppressive"’or "rapid f`1ring"and made the sound "pop pop pop pop pop pop pop". Transcript 22 January 2009,
p. 23348.
mj TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009, p. 23346.
M6 TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009, p. 23349. The witness explained that he learnt that the prisoner who

---- End of Page 287 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T 2/ wrg 18 May 2012

0 $@30
763. TF1-168 stated that he had the opportunity to speak with some of the Kamajor
suspects before they were killed and that they explained that although some of them
belonged to the Kamajor society and bore Kamajor markings on their bodies, they never
participated in the fighting against the AFRC/RUF}927 Others explained to the witness that
they were civilians that had simply volunteered to carry loads for the Kamajor fighters but
they did not participate in the fighting}928 TF1-168 told the court that he and his colleagues
were transferred to Kangama on 21 February 1998 because the Kailahun Police station was
filled with the stench of the decomposing bodies. mi)
764. The Trial Chamber has also examined confidential Prosecution Exhibit P-277, which
in the Trial Chamber's view, corroborates the testimony of witness TF1-168.
765. Issa Sesay, a former RUF commander and Defence witness in this case, testified that
he was in Gandorhun when he heard from one Major Gua that 60 suspected Kamajors had
been arrested and executed in Kailahun Town on the orders of Sam Bockarie}930 Sesay
stated that upon travelling to Kailahun Town shortly thereafter, he saw 10 corpses which had
been moved from the roundabout to the roadside, but did not see corpses behind the MP
office because he did not go there.l9?’l Sesay estimated that from the way the bodies were
starting to decompose, he must have arrived about five to six days after the killings had 2
taken place}932 In cross-examination, Sesay ruled out the possibility of his own involvement
in the Kailahun massacre, stating that "these people were killed before he arrived in
Kailahun".l933 He also told the court that Sam Bockarie gave orders that the corpses of the
people who were killed should not be buried and that is why there was such a stench in the
air·1=>34
got away was a relative of F aroma and that the latter had helped this prisoner escape to safety after leaming the
fate of the other prisoners. Transcript 22 January 2009, p. 23351.
*927 TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp, 23351—23352.
*928 TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp. 22251-23252.
1929 TF1—168, Transcript 22 January 2009, pp. 23353—23354.
1930 Issa Sesay, Transcript 8 July 2010, pp. 44004-44008, 44010.
193 I Issa Sesay, Transcript 13 August 2010, p. 44010.
mg rm spsay, Transcript is Augusr 2010, p. 44010.
lm Issa Sesay, Transcript 13 August 2010, pp. 46207—46209.
19] 4 Issa Sesay, Transcript 13 August 2010, p. 46209.

---- End of Page 288 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T % 18 May 2012

766. Witness Fayia Musa another prominent member of the RUF, confirmed to the court
that he and six other colleagues were held in detention by senior RUF commandersl935 for
30 monthsl936 on suspicion of "betraying Foday Sankoh to President Kabbah and the
Nigerians" and that while in detention they were tortured and moved around several prisons
within Kailahun District.l937 Fayia told the court that he and his fellow prisoners were
transferred from Kangama to Kailahun Town "after the ECOMOG intervention" and
remained in detention there until 29 March 1998. Fa ia testified that in the same Kailahun
Y
Police station, the RUF had detained 69 civilians from Daru and some SLA soldiers who
were arrested and brought to the prison in Kailahun Town}938 On 28 March 1998 Sam
Bockarie came to Kailahun to check on the prisoners}939 The witness who was in another
cell, stated that an SLA soldier called Kaioko and nine of the 69 prisoners were taken out of
the cell on the order of Sam Bockarie and around five to ten minutes later he heard
gunshots. 1940 Bockarie also ordered that the remaining prisoners be brought out in groups of
five, with younger people being killed first.l94l Fayia and his colleagues were terrified as
they thought they too were going to die, but they were spared. Fayia told the court that he
was told 68 of the other prisoners were shot or hacked to death, that their bodies were
"scattered all over the place", and that only one escaped}942 On 29 March 1998, the witness
and his colleagues were transferred to Buedu where they remained until their release in
August 1999."’43 p ·
767. The Trial Chamber also considered the evidence of Protected Defence Witnesses
DCT-068, DCT-292 and DCT-102, all of whom gave hearsay accounts of the Kailahun
Town massacre. IQ44 These hearsay accounts accord with the direct evidence of the witnesses
cited above and confirm the fact that the AFRC/RUF forces acting under the orders of Sam
Bockarie massacred over 60 un-amied civilians in Kailahun Town.
M5 Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, pp. 39112—39126. The witness cited Issa Sesay, Sam Bockarie and
others as being responsible for his detention. Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, p. 39115.
M6 The witness stated that they were arrested on 29 March 1997 and eventually released in August 1999. Fayia
Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, p. 39118.
I937 Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, pp. 39125-39126.
*938 Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, p. 39126.
l939Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, pp. 39126-39128.
"""’ Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, p. 39127.
ml Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, pp. 39127-39129.
vm Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, p. 39128.
'°‘*’ Fayia Musa, Transcript 15 April 2010, p. 39129,

---- End of Page 289 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T $() 18 May 2012


38382
Findings
768. The Trial Chamber finds the above evidence consistent. ln particular the evidence
proves that after the ECOMOG Intervention of February 1998, AFRC/RUF Junta forces fled
to Kailahun District where they were temporarily based. While there, Sam Bockarie, the
RUF leader issued orders to the senior AFRC/RUF commanders to "defend Kailahun
District" against their perceived enemies including ECOMOG and the Kamajors. The
evidence further proves Sam Bockarie's distrust of the civilians from the Luawa and
Bambara Chiefdoms, many of whom had fled their villages before the 25 May 1997 coup,
but who had since retumed totheir homes having been encouraged by Bockarie to do so.
Additionally, the evidence proves that around 60-65 unarmed male civilians from these two
chiefdoms were arrested on suspicion of being Kamajors or Kamajor collaborators, on
Bockarie's orders and interrogated by Augustine Gbao. The evidence further proves that
Gbao's verdict against these civilians was based on mere suspicion and/or speculation that
they were Kamajors or Kamajor collaborators and not as a result of due process. Moreover,
the evidence proves that the executions in about mid to late February 1998 at the Kailahun
Town roundabout and Military Police prison, were clearly reprisal killings by Sam Bockarie
and AFRC/RUF forces acting under his orders, against unarmed civilians that were
perceived to be enemies of the AFRC/RUF. The Trial Chamber accordingly finds that the
Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in about mid to late February 1998, the
RUF forces under the command of Sam Bockarie intentionally killed around 60-65 civilians
in Kailahun Town, all of whom were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
769. The Trial Chamber further finds in view of the above evidence that the perpetrators
wilfully made the victims the object of such violence and the primary purpose of the
Kailahun massacre, including the bizzare public display of human heads and rotting corpses
of the victims, was to instil terror in the civilian population in Kailahun.
Conclusion
770. In conclusion, the Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond
reasonable doubt that between about 1 February 1998 and about 30 June 1998, in various
locations in Kailahun District including Kailahun Town, members of the AFRC/RUF
[944 DCT-068, Transcript ll March 2010, pp. 37092-37095; DCT-292, Transcript 2 June 2010, pp. 41982-41983
and Exhibit P-601 B (RUF Trial Transcript, 3 June 2008, pp. 89-90).

---- End of Page 290 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03 -01-T _ Gi}, 18 May 2012

murdered an unknown number of civilians, as charged in the Indictmentll)45 and as shown by
the evidence.
771. The Trial Chamber recalls that the Prosecution has established beyond reasonable
doubt that at all times relevant to the Indictment, the RUF and/or AFRC forces directed a
widespread or systematic attack against the civilian population of Sierra Leone. M6 The Trial
. Chamber is satisfied that each of the killings proved by the Prosecution in respect of
Kailahun District formed part of the said attack and that the perpetrators were aware of this
fact. The Trial Chamber also recalls that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable
. doubt that there was an armed conflict in Sierra Leone at all times relevant to the Indictment,
involving among others, members of the RUF, AF RC and CDF .l947 The Trial Chamber is
satisfied that for all of the aforementioned killings in Kailahun District there was a nexus
between the killings and the armed conflict, that each of the victims was not taking an active
part in the hostilities at the time of death, and that the perpetrators knew this fact. Therefore,
the Trial Chamber is satisfied that the aforementioned killings in Kailahun District constitute
murder as both a crime against humanity under Article 2 of the Statute and a war crime
under Article 3 of the Statute.
4. Alleged unlawful killings in Freetown and the Western Area gbetween about 21
December 1998 and about 28 February 1999;
772. The Trial Chamber received the following credible documentary evidencell)48
regarding the situation in Freetown and the Western Area during the period December 1998
to February 1999. One report records:
[I]n the early hours of January 6, 1999, rebels of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF)
launched an offensive against the Sierra Leonean capital, Freetown, capturing it from
government troops and the soldiers of the Nigerian~led peace keeping force known as
ECOMOG .... The battle for Freetown and the ensuing three week rebel occupation of the
capital was characterised by the systematic and widespread perpetration of all classes of
atrocities against the civilian population of over one million inhabitants, and marked the
most intensive and concentrated period of human rights violations in Sierra Leone's eight~
year civil war. As the rebels took control of street after street, they turned their weapons on
the civilian population. By the end of January, both government and independent sources
estimated that several thousands of civilians had been killed ,..,
M5 Indictment, para. 12.
M6 See Law and Findings on the General Requirements: Article 2: Crimes Against Humanity, para. 559 supra.
lim See Law and Findings on the General Requirements: Article 3: War Crimes, para. 573 supra.
lm This evidence was received pursuant to Rule 92bis of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

---- End of Page 291 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL~03~01~T ’ JJ Gtk 18 May 2012

E%%8%
In December 1998, following the capture of Kono District and Makeni, thousands of RUF
fighters started moving towards Freetown and that by early January 1999 they had reached
the peninsular on which Freetown is located and gathered less than 20 miles west of the
capital. On 6 January 1999 the rebels broke through the highly stretched and poorly manned
ECOMOG defences, and proceeded to march through the eastern suburbs and straight into
the city centre .... While the rebels were only able to occupy the city center for less than one
week, it took ECOMOG forces over three weeks to flush them from the three densely
populated eastern suburbs of Kissy, Wellington and Calaba Town. It was in these three
suburbs, particularly towards the end of the occupation that the vast majority of atrocities
occurred.
The rebels made little distinction between civilian and military targets, They repeatedly
stated that they believed civilians should be punished for what they perceived to be their
support for the existing government .... The largest number of killings took place within the
context of attacks on civilians gathered in houses, compounds and places of refuge such as
churches or mosques .... Human Rights Watch took testimonies from scores of witnesses to
such atrocities including a January 6 attack on a family in which all but one of their seven
children were killed; a January 19 attack on the church of the Brotherhood of the Cross and
Star in Wellington, in which twelve people were gunned down; a January 21 attack on a
compound in Kissy in which seventeen people were murdered and later burned; and a
January 22 attack on the Rogbalan Mosque in Kissy, in which sixty-six people were
massacred .... There were also frequent accounts of people being burned alive in their
houses, often having been wounded. Children and the elderely were particularly vulnerable.
Witnesses described rebels throwing civilians, sometimes children, into burning houses and
shooting at those trying to escape. Family members trying to rescue their children or other
relatives from a burning house were threatened with death and forced to abandon them to
the fire .... While most victims were seemingly chosen at random, the rebels directly
targeted a few groups, namely Nigerian nationals, unarmed Policemen and journalists. At
least sixty-three Nigerians, most of whom were traders or businessmen, were hunted down
and murdered in particularly brutal ways. The rebels also killed at least 85 unarmed Police
officers, and several local and one international journalist .... The Catholic archbishop, four
Xavierian fathers, and six Sisters of Charity were abducted and held for over ten days. The
rebels later killed four of the sisters and wounded one Xavierian father. 1949
773. Another report records:
[R]ebel fighters belonging to the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) and
Revolutionary United Front (RUF) attacked Freetown on 6 January 1999. The rebels
attacked the city from the east and penetrated as far as the centre, which they held for four
days before being forced to withdraw by a counterattack. The fighting resulted in the deaths
of between 3000 and 5000 persons, including rebel fighters, soldiers of the Economic
Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG), members of the Civil
Defence Force (CDF) militia who were defending the capital and large numbers of civilian
inhabitants ....
In late January and early February, UNOMSIL human rights officers visited Freetown to
conduct an assessment of the situation there. The assessment team travelled extensively
within the city and interviewed numerous people, including victims of mutilations and other
human rights violations .... The team found that the ultimate responsibility for the fighting,
for most of the civilian casualties and for the related humanitarian emergency in Freetown
rested with the rebel forces. Though it was impossible to state with precision the actual
number of civilian casualties, most estimates put the total casualty figure at between 3000
and 5000, including rebel fighters, ECOMOG and CDF combatants. It is feared that at least
2000 of those casualties were civilian inhabitants of Freetown. Many civilians were killed
while being used by rebels as human shields in combat, or because they reportedly refused
W9 Exhibit P-328, Human Rights Watch Report, Sierra Leone - Getting away with murder, Mutilation, Rape,
New Testimony fiom Sierra Leone, July 1999, Vol.11 No.3(A), Part I-Summary, ERN 22999-2300].

---- End of Page 292 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-0 l-T J w 18 May 2012

5838 5
to come out on the streets to demonstrate in favour of the rebels. Many were killed while
trying to protect family members from death or rape, or while trying to protect their
property from looting and destruction.
Much of the killing seems to have been arbitrary and to have been carried out by child
fighters or rebel fighters under the influence of drugs or alcohol. However, there is also
evidence that some of the murders were targeted, including, reportedly, the murder of 200
Police personnel. The Solicitor general was killed during the fighting, as were the resident
Minister for the North, an adviser to President Kabbah and at least two journalists. Other
victims who appear to have been deliberately targeted include senior officials of the Sierra
Leone National Commission for Democracy and Human Rights, the Council of Churches
and the National Commission for Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Reintegration, as well
as Nigerian nationals. WSU
774. An Expert Report that was admitted into evidence as Confidential Prosecution
Exhibit P-077 stated the following conceming the killing of civilians in Freetown and the
Westem area during the period January-February 1999:
[R]ebel forces advancing into and through the city on 6 and 7 January, frequently forced
civilians into the streets for use as human shields. People who refused to comply were
either killed or had their properties destroyed. Many reports have also been received of the
killing of persons who refused to obey instructions to dance and make music on the streets.
A number of interviewees describe the execution of the entire populations of residential
compounds for such rnisdemeanours. There are reports of compounds housing up to 50
people being targeted in this manner. Similar reports indicate that then and later, people
were executed because of their efforts to deter looting and to protect family members from
assault or rape. Persons caught attempting to escape from rebel custody, were frequently
killed. One witness saw 6 children killed at Wellington in mid-January in one such incident. r
Much of the killing also appears to have been entirely arbitrary. Witnesses report such
killings of men, women and children by rebel fighters, including an instance in which the
perpetrator is stated to have been about l0 years old, and another implicating an eight-year-
old boy. It is frequently stated that the perpetrators of such acts were under the influence of
cocaine and other drugs, including alcohol. Killing occasionally occurred in the context of
games in which people were lined up and the executioners teasingly chose who to kill and
who to spare. In one such incident at Fourah Bay Road, around 21 January, three children
were executed and their three sisters had limbs amputated or mutilated. One man has
described how he was ordered to choose between the execution of his entire family and the
surrender of his daughter to a rebel fighter.
Some of those who were burned to death in their homes had been locked in or first been
disabled by gunshots. A number of elderly people and infants also died in this manner.
Others died while attempting to escape. One five—year-old girl survived being thrown into a
fire, at Blackhall Road, on 28 January. A six-year-old girl was executed together with her
mother on 23 January at Wellington.
Rebel forces targeted many individuals and categories of persons for execution. It is
reported that over 200 Police officers were killed, either at home or at their barracks in such
locations as CID Headquarters, Kingtom and Kissy. The means of execution included
knives, machete and gunshot. One incident on January 6 at the city center Cotton Tree,
involved the killing by stabbing of 11 Policemen. A number of prison officials appear to
have been killed during and after the assault on Pademba Road Prison on 6 January. An
escapee from Pademba Road Prison is reported to have allegedly led an attack on the
NSU Exhibit P-310, UN Security Council, 5th Report of the Secretary General on the United Nations Observer
Mission in Sierra Leone, S/1999/237, 4 March l999, paras 20-22.

---- End of Page 293 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / 62} 18 May 2012

Solicitor General, who was killed and decapitated. Two senior Government officials, the `
Resident Minister for the North and an Advisor to the President, were captured and killed.
At least 2 journalists were sought out and killed (while other journalists, including foreign
nationals, though not specifically targeted, were killed, injured or abducted.) ·
A senior member of the human rights monitoring committee of the National Commission
for Democracy and Human Rights (NCDHR) was killed together with her
husband...Executed senior officers of the Council of Churches and the NCRRR may have
been targeted on the basis of their positions .... Nigerian nationals also appear to have been
targeted. One witness, on 8 January, observed 2 Nigerian traders whose throats were cut
apparently on the basis of their nationality. . 1951
775. The Trial Chamber heard the evidence of many witnesses that gave first-hand
accounts of civilian killings in Freetown and the Western Area during the period December
1998 to about 28 February 1999. The Chamber took into account the following evidence
which is corroborated by the documentary evidence referred to above.
776. Alimamy Bobson Sesay, a combatant who took part in the Freetown invasion of
January 1999, testified that a group of about 1000 troops made up of members of the AF RC,
RUF ,195 2 30 Special Task Force (STF) members1953 and 20 other "Liberian fighters",195 11
captured Benguema from ECOMOG around Christmas of 1998 and while based there,
reorganised themselves into seven "battalions"1955 in preparation for a final assault on
Freetown.1956 Alex Tamba Brima, a.k.a. Gullit was the overall commander of the brigade
after SAJ Musa died at Benguema. Other AF RC commanders included Ibrahim Bazzy
Kamara1957 a.k.a. "Bazzy", Santigie Borbor Kanu1958 a.k.a. "Five-Five", Franklin Conteh
Woyoh,1959 Hassan Papa Bangura1960 a.k.a. "Bomb Blast", Col. "O-Five",1%1 Lt. Col. "Papa-
‘"‘ Exhibit P-077 rcppiidcmiaij, pp. 9292-9293.
1952 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8200-8201. Bobson Sesay testifiied that O-Five also
came with a platoon of 30 RUF members to reinforce the troops preparing to invade Freetown.
1953 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8195-8199. In his testimony, Bobson Sesay explained
that the Special Task Force were a group of Liberians that had served within the Sierra Leone Army during the
NPRC Govemment of Valentine Strasser in the early 1990s.
1954 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8193-8195. In his testimony, Bobson Sesay explained
that a Commander O-Five brought with him a group of 20 Liberians from Kailahun who were to reinforce the
AFRC/RUF troops that would invade Freetown. According to the witness, O-Five explained to the brigade that
these Liberians were former NPFL fighters who had undergone training with the Armed Forces of Liberia
(AF L).
1955 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp 8248-8250. Bobson Sesay testified that the Brigade at
Benguema was restructured tocomprise the IS1 Battalion, 21111 Battalion, 3111 Battalion, 4111 Battalion, 5[11 Battalion,
the Rapid Deployment or RDF Battalion and the Red Lion Battalion. Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8248-8250.
Bobson Sesay explained that the STF and the former NPFL fighters who came to reinforce the invading troops
were exclusively based in the Red Lion Battalion. Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8203.
1056 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8243-8251.
1957 Bazzy was the Deputy Chief in command of the Brigade.
1958 Five-five was the Chief of Army Staff of the Brigade.
1959 Woyoh was the Director/Operations of the Brigade.

---- End of Page 294 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T 18 May 2012

17,,,*962 FAT Sesa ,*963 rumor shcmg "’°‘* Mau r1m,‘°" Frida Bah Marah{966 a.k.a.
Y J Y
"Bu]ld0ze", Ma`0r Arthur,{997 Junior Geor e Johnson{969 a.k.a. "Junior Lion", Lt. C0]. Saidu
J g
Kambolai a.k.a. "Basky",{999 C0]. Lamin Sidique a.k.a. "Terminator" or "NPFL",{979 Med
Bajehjeh,{97{ C0]. Foy0h,{972 Lt. C0]. Konj0r,{973 "R0adb]0ck",{974 Adamu a.k.a. "Chicken
Sou ", Adama "Cut 1—Iand",{975 Tarrawali a.k.a. "G0]d Teeth",{979 Idrissa Kamara a.k.a. "
P
Rambo Red G0at",{977 and Amidu Kamara Keforkeh. Bobson Sesa ex lained that he was in
Y P
the 599 Battalion and served as Intelligence Officer.{979 Amongst the RUF that came to
reinforce the Freetown invasion were Captain Stagger, Washington, King Perry, Alfred
Brown, and Dukulay.{979 The evidence relating to the composition of these forces is
corroborated b that of Perr Kamara, an RUF radi0 0 erator that travelled with the 0u to
Y Y P gr P
Freetown. {999
777. Bobson Sesay further testified that prior to the invasion of Freetown, while at
Benguema, Gullit communicated on radi0 with Sam Bockarie informing him that the tr00ps
were ready to advance on Freetown but that they needed manp0wer reinforcement from
{999 Bomb Blast was the Operations Commander of the Brigade.
{96{ Colonel O-Five was the deputy Operations Commander of the Brigade.
{992 Bobson Sesay testified that Lt. Col. Papa 17 was appointed by SAJ Musa and is a different individual from
Hassan Papa Bangura. Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8234.
{963 FAT Sesay was the Brigade administrator. Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8289.
{994 Junior Sherrif was the Deputy Operations Commander of the Brigade.
{965 Tito was the Commander of the 19 Battalion.
{966 Bulldoze was the Commander of the 2"9 Battalion.
{997 Arthur was the Commander of the 3rd Battalion.
{969 Junior Lion was the Commander of the 491 Battalion.
{999 Basky was the Commander of the 591 Battalion.
{979 Terminator was the Commander of the RDF Battalion.
{97{ Bajehjeh was the Commander of the Red Lion Battalion.
{972 Foyoh was the missions Commander.
{973 Konjor was the Battlefield Inspector.
{974 CO Roadblock was the Military Police Commander
{975 Sesay testified that Adama was a female combatant who was given the nick-name "Cut Hand"because she
always carried a machete with her and was not afraid to amputate people. Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23
April 2008, p. 8336.
{976 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8221. Adamu and Tarawali were some of the military
inspectors/ supervisors.
{977 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8358. The witness explains that this Rambo came to
reinforce the rebel troops invading Freetown.
{979 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8251.
{979 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8201-8202. The witness explained that King Perry
and Alfred Brown were RUF radio operators. Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8240.
{999 Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, pp. 3185-3188.

---- End of Page 295 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T Z *"’ 18 May 2012

35358
Bockarie.{98{ Bockarie responded saying that reinforcement was on its way from Kono,
Kailahun and Dam but that the reinforcing troops under Issa Sesay and Superman needed to
weaken the ECOMOG forces in Kono and Segbwema before they could arrive to reinforce
the invading troops. Bobson Sesay further told the court that the invasion of Freetown was
planned jointly between the AFRC and RUF, with three flanks planning to attack jointly.
One flank led by Issa Sesay, Morris Kallon, RUF Rambo, Akim Turay and lsaac Mongor
would come from Kailahun and attack from the eastern part around Kono area, and after
capturing Kono and Makeni from ECOMOG they would proceed to reinforce the forces
invading Freetown.{982 The second flank led by Gullit, Bazzy and Five—Five would attack
from the north. The third flank led by Denis Mingo a.k.a. Superman and Brigadier Mani
would attack from the Kailahun-Dam axis and assist in capturing Makeni from ECOMOG,
after which they too would proceed to reinforce the forces invading Freetown.{983 Bobson
Sesay learnt of this plan by monitoring conversations between the AFRC and RUF High
Command in the areas that the SLA and RUF occupied. {984
778. Bobson Sesay further told the court that as the rebel troops were waiting on the
outskirts of Freetown{985 for reinforcement, they came under heavy bombardment by the
ECOMOG jets and this caused Gullit to order the rebel troops to start the Freetown invasion
without waiting for reinforcement.{986 ln the witness's presence, Gullit instructed the
invading rebel troops to "ensure that they burn down all Police Stations, open the central
prisons and free the prisoners including Foday Sankoh, kill all collaborators of the
Government and ECOMOG and opponents of the AFRC/RUF forces, loot any valuables
from the civilian population and kill any civilians that resist the looting, and capture a good
number of civilians to use as human shields if the troops encountered any resistance".{987
Sesay further told court that the over 1000 rebel troops who entered Freetown were "well—
armed with support propelled grenades (SPGs), 60 millimetre commando motars; 81
{QM Alirnarny Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8253.
{982 Alirnarny Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008 p. 8305.
{983 Alirnarny Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008 pp. 8254-8258.
{984 Alirnarny Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008 pp. 8286, 8287, 8289, 8300-8312.
{W5 The witness stated that the troops were camped in a "prirnar~y jurrg1e"around Allen Town until 5 January
1999. Alirnarny Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8269.
{986 Alirnarny Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8270.
{987 Alirnarny Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8270-8271.

---- End of Page 296 ---------------------------


Case No.. SCSL 03 01 T qéb 18 May 2012

millimetre motars; rocket ro elled enades RPGs ; li t automatic rifles LARs ; sub-
P P SY
machine guns (SMGs); AK—47 and machetes".'988
779. Bobson Sesay further testified that on 6 January 1999, the whole Brigade comprised
of AFRC, RUF, STF and Liberian fighters moved from Allen Town and commenced their
attack on Freetown.'989 The invading rebel troops spent three and a half weeks in Freetown
before they were repelled by ECOMOG forces.'99O
780. The Trial Chamber heard the following evidence of civilian killings in Freetown and
the Western Area. 1
(i) Killing of civilians and ECOMOG soldiers around State House in Freetown
781. Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that the rebel forces led by Gullit captured
"Statehouse" or the Office of the President at 6.00 a.m. on 6 January 1999.1991 Sesay told the
court that on that morning Major Tito captured 20 Nigerian ECOMOG soldiers and brought
them to Gullit for instruction as to what to do with them.'992 Gullit ordered Tito to have
them summarily executed. The witness was present when Tito took the soldiers who were
hors de combat to the washing bay behind State House and shot them all to death.l993
Bobson Sesay explained that the invading rebel troops had a policy that required the
civilians to show respect for the rebels and that any civilian perceived to "overlook" (i.e.
disrespect) the rebels would be summarily shot".'994 Bobson Sesay told court that he saw "so
many corpses of civilians littered around the State House axis" and counted over 20 dead
bodies of civilians on 6 January 1999, all of whom had been shot dead by the invading rebel
troops for simply "overlooking the rebels".'995
mg Alimamy Bobson Sesay, 'Transcript 22 April 2008, p .8272.
1989 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8272-8280. The witness explained that the rebel
troops attacked from two flanks and entred through the following locations within Freetown, namely, Calaba
Town, Brewery, Old Wellington Road, New Freetown-Waterloo Road, Kissy Mess Mess, Saroula, Fisher Lane
Old Road, PWD Junction, Kissy Road Cemetery, Upgun, Savage Sguare, Mountain Cut Junction, Eastern Police
station and State House.
*990 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8294.
wg} Alimamy Bobson Sesay, 'Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8280.
*992 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8289.
*993 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, 'Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8292.
mg" Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8291.
*995 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, 'Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8291.

---- End of Page 297 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / all 18 May 2012

782. Perry Kamara, an RUF radio operatorl900 with the rebel troops that invaded
Freetown, testified that when the troops entered Freetown they would either kill ECOMOG
soldiers on the front line or capture them and present them to Gullit who was the commander
in charge at State House.0)97 Kamara testified that Gullit consulted Sam Bockarie by radio as
to what to do with these prisoners of war and that Bockarie responded that "he had no prison
for ECOMOG".l090 Kamara testified that as a result of that response, the rebel forces never
spared any ECOMOG soldiers and that a total of 10-15 captured ECOMOG soldiers were
shot and killed under the Cotton Tree,0)09 which was 100 metres from State House.2000 In his
evidence, Kamara also refers to "massive killings around Cotton Tree" next to State House
on 6 January 1999.
783. The Trial Chamber admitted into evidence the prior testimony of Abu Bakarr
Mansaray.200l Mansaray, a mechanical engineer testified that while living on Waterloo
Street in Freetown,2002 he was abducted by three "rebel boys" dressed in ECOMOG
uniforms on 8 January 19992003 and forcibly taken to State House where Gullit was in
command.2004 Mansaray explained that by the term "rebel" he meant a mixed group of RUF
rebels and AFRC soldiers. The three rebels were armed with AK-47 rifles and spoke Krio
with "a Liberian accent".2005
1000 The witness explained that although he was an RUF radio operator, he and another RUF radio operator
called Alfred Brown were instructed by Mosquito and Morris Kallon to join Gullit's AF RC group at Rosos in
order to establish effective communications between the two groups (RUF and AFRC) in preparation for "a big
joint operation". Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, pp. 3184-3185.
"’°7 Perry Kamara, rrarraerrpr 6 February 2008, pp. 3230-3231.
1000 Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, pp. 3230-3231.
1000 Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, pp. 3230-3231.
2000 Perry Kamara, Transcript 6 February 2008, p. 3231.
2001 Abu Bakarr Mansaray's testimomy in the AFRC trial was admitted as Exhibit P-222 under Rule 92bis
("prior testimony"). In the present trial, Mansaray was cross—examined on his prior testimony. See Abu Bakarr
Mansaray, Transcript 29 October 2008, pp 19517-19568.
2002 Abu Bakarr Mansaray, Transcript 29 October 2008, p. 19518; Exhibit P-222, "TFl-024, AFRC Transcript, 7
March 2005", p. 20427.
2003 In his prior testimony, the witness testified that he was captured on 8 January 1998. However, in cross-
examination at p. 19543 he corrected himself to state that he was in fact abducted in January 1999. See Exhibit P-
222, AFRC Transcript, 7 March 2005, Witness TF1-024, pp. 43/20427, 62-63/20446-20447; Abu Bakarr
Mansaray, Transcript 29 October 2008, p. 19543.
2004 Exhibit P-222, AFRC Transcript, 7 March 2005, Witness TF1-024, pp. 20428-20430.
2005 In his prior testimony Mansaray stated that the three rebel boys spoke "Liberian English". See Exhibit P-222,
"TF1-024, AFRC Transcript 7 March 2005" at p. 20428. In cross—examination however, he stated that the rebels
spoke Krio with a Liberian accent. See Abu Bakarr Mansaray, Transcript 29 October 2008, p. 19557.

---- End of Page 298 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T dl; 18 May 2012 `%

35391
784. At State House, on the orders of Gullit, the rebels tried in vain to force Mansaray and
50 other civilian captives to join them in fighting against ECOMOGZOO6 Mansaray and the
50 civilians refused to join the rebels as requested and were locked up in the kitchen of State
House for four days. F rom the kitchen window Mansaray observed the rebels at State House
gunning down about 35 civilians for refusing to join the rebels. He testified that the rebels
shot and killed three women and two men in his presence, and thereafter shot and killed 30
of the 50 civilians that were with Mansaray.2OO7 The rebels threw the bodies of the civilians
over the State House wall and also into the Paramount Hotel's compound.2OO8
Findings
785. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of Alimamy Bobson Sesay and Perry Kamara
credible. Each of these witnesses took part in the Freetown invasion of 6 January 1999 and
given their unique position among the invading forces, each was privy to the preparations
that took place amongst the rebel troops immediately prior to that invasion. In particular
each of them was present at State House during the first crucial hours after the take-over of
power by the rebels and had a first-hand observation of what went on there. Bobson Sesay's
testimony proves that on 6 January 1999 at the State House washing bay in Freetown, a
rebel commander called Major Tito acting on the orders of Commander Alex Tamba Brima
a.k.a. Gullit, intentionally killed 20 Nigerian soldiers who were hors de combat. The
evidence further proves that on the same day at State House, rebel forces made of the
AFRC/RUF/STP and Liberian fighters intentionally killed over 20 civilians that were not
taking an active part in the hostilities, as punishment for "disrespecting" the rebel forces.
The evidence of Perry Kamara, which largely corroborates that of Bobson Sesay, proves
beyond reasonable doubt that on 6 January 1999 at the Cotton Tree near State House, rebel
forces made of the AFRC/RUF/STP and Liberian fighters acting on the orders of Gullit and
Sam Bockarie intentionally killed at least 10-15 Nigerian soldiers who were hors de combat
and an unknown number of civilians that were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
786. The Trial Chamber further finds the first-hand account of Abu Bakarr Mansaray to
be credible. His evidence, which also corroborates that of Sesay and Kamara, proves that on
20% Abu Bakarr Mansaray, Transcript 29 October 2008, pp. 19554-19555; Exhibit P-222, "TF1-024, AFRC
Transcript 7 March 2005", pp. 20431-32.
2007 Exhibit P-222, "TF1-024, AFRC Transcript 7 March 2005", pp. 20484-20485.
2008 Exhibit P-222, "TF1-024, AFRC Transcript 7 March 2005", pp. 20431-32, 20456-20457, 20485-20490.

---- End of Page 299 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T }

8 January 1999 at State House, rebels including members of the AFRC/RUF intentionally
killed at least 35 civilians who were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
787. The Trial Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt
that between 6 and 8 January 1999 at State House in Freetown, rebel forces including
members of the AFRC/RUF/STF and Liberian fighters intentionally killed (i) at least 35
Nigerian soldiers who were hors de combat at the time of death; and (ii) at least 55 civilians
that were not taking an active part in the hostilities.
788. The Trial Chamber finds that the perpetrators were acting in accordance with the
orders of the top Commander Alex Tamba Brima (a.k.a. Gullit) to carry out indiscriminate
killings, mass abductions and raping of civilians, and burning and destruction of civilian and
public property in Freetown during this period as part of the campaign of terror waged
against the civilian population. The Trial Chamber finds that the perpetrators wilfully made
the victims the object of such violence and the primary purpose of the killings at State
House was to instil terror in the civilian population.
(ii) Unlawful killing of civilians in Kissy area around J anuary 1999
789. Mohamed Sesay, a petty trader living on Falcon Street in the Kissy Shell Company
area testified that on 6 January 1999 he heard a lot of shooting in the night and in the
morning and when he woke up he saw rebels everyvvhere.2009 He and his family stayed
indoors for five or six days after the rebels had taken over Freetownmm and then went with
other civilians to buy food at the Marbela market in the eastern part of Freetown.20H On the
wa back the came to a check oint manned b the "rebels and SLAs" at PWD, which is
Y Y P Y
near Ferry Junction.20l2 There were many people gathered at the checkpoint, including the
former President Momoh who was being carried in a hammock.20l3 The rebels ordered the
civilians to sit down and then took two men from the civilians saying they were going to
2009 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3901. The witness stated that "the rebels had guns. Some
of them had machetes. Some of them had axes. Some of them, the way they were dressed, some of them had
socks on without having shoes, some had military shirts on without the pants, some of them will have the
military pants without shirts on".
M0 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3901.
ml Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3902.
M2 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3902.
ZOB Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3903.

---- End of Page 300 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL—03—01—T / OM 18 May 2012 %
\

offer them as "a sacrifice".2Ol4 ln the witness's resence, the rebels shot and killed one of the
P
men and stabbed the other one to death after which they collected the latter man's blood into
a bowl.2O15 Sesay and the other civilians at the checkpoint were then allowed to pass through
and he retumed home.20l6
790. Mohamed Sesay further testified that two or three days later he was sitting under a
mango tree behind his house on Falcon Street with other civilians when five armed "rebels ‘
and SLAs" joined them including an RUF rebel called Issa Conteh that the witness
reviousl knew.2Ol7 As the sat under the tree, two other "rebels" a roached the
P Y Y PP
witness.2Ol8 One of the rebels was a woman dressed in trousers, a T-shirt and boots but did
not carry a gun. She also spoke "Liberian language". The other rebel was a man who wore
"ful1 unif`orm" but no boots.2Ol9 The woman fighter told the fighters sitting under the tree
that "because they refused to fight, Pa Kabbah had sent ECOMOG to fight against them, so
now she was orderin them to be `n O eration No Livin Thin 72020 Sesa testified that he
g gl P g g Y
saw Issa Conteh shoot and kill an old woman that was passing by.2O2l Sesay also saw an old
man who was passing fall down and die, but he did not see the person who shot him.2O22
791. Mohamed Sesay further testified that two days later "rebels" carrying fuel in a
container came and set fire to his home. The witness was in the house when it caught fire but
esca ed to hide first in the house of one Pa Bobodin, and later sou t refu e in the house of
P g
one Mr Abass.2O23 There were more than 50 civilians, includin old men and women, who
g
had also sou t refu e at Mr Abass’ house, which house had also been bumt.2O24 Sesa
g Y
testified that on 19 J anu 19992025 he was on the veranda at Mr Abass’ house when he saw
MY
seven "rebels" arrive, including a "commando" who was giving the other rebels orders.2O26
M4 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3902-3903.
M5 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3904.
M6 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3904, 3907.
M7 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3907, 3911-3912.
M8 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3907-3908.
M9 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3908.
2020 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3907-3910.
mm Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3911.
2022 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3910-3911.
2023 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3914-3916.
2024 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3917-3918.
2025 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 15 February 2008, p. 3936; Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p.
3931.
20% Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3917. The witness stated that the person referred to as

---- End of Page 301 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / QQ 18 May 2012

The witness testified that the commando carried a pistol, one rebel carried a machete,
another rebel carried an axe and four others carried guns.2O27 The commando ordered the
fighters to select the young men out of the house. The rebels selected 24 young men from
the house, including the witness, and took them to the junction where they asked them to
ueue u in re aration for havin their arms am utated on a lo which had been laced in
Cl P P P S P S P
front of them.2O28 The commando ordered the first man in the line to put his arm down to be
amputated, and when he pleaded with him not to, the commando shot the man in the face,
killing him.2O29 When the second man in line pleaded with the commando not to amputate
him, the commando shot him in the chest, killing him as well.2O30 When the third man
pleaded with the commando not to amputate him, the commando used rapid fire to shoot and
kill six of the men in the queue.203l
792. Mohamed Sesay further testified that after the commando had shot the first eight
men, he ordered the fighters to split open the heads of the remaining young men in the queue
with axes and machetes instead, saying "he was not going to waste his bullets anymore".2O32
Sesay told the court that after the rebels had smoked marijuana, they used an axe and
machete to split open the heads of five of the men and killed them.2O33 Although the witness
wanted to look away because he was frightened, the rebels forced him and the other civilians
to watch the gruesome executions.2033 Mohamed Sesay further testified that after the rebels
killed the civilians, they proceeded to amputate both his hands, and that the rebel that
actually did this was barely 13 years old.2O33
793. The Trial Chamber admitted in evidence the transcript of testimony Prosecution
Witness TF1-098 from the AFRC trial.2O3° Witness TF1-098 testified that on 18 January
"commando" was in fact the commander of the group and was issuing operational orders to the group.
2037 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3919.
3023 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3918-3919.
3029 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3919-3920.
2030 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3920.
ml Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3921-3922.
3032 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3922.
2033 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3922.
3034 Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3923.
3033Mohamed Sesay, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3924-3927.
3036 Witness TF1-098 testified in the AFRC trial, which was admitted as Exhibit P-2 10 ("prior testimony") under
Rule 92bis. ln the present trial, the witness was cross-examined on this evidence. See Witness TF1-098,
Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19147.

---- End of Page 302 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / 18 May 2012

1999, "rebels", whom the witness identified as members of the SLA,2O37 came to the house
on Manfred Lane near Kissy road where he was hiding with his younger brother, cousins
and other civilians and led them by gunpoint to a primary school on Fataraman Street.2O38
While there a Krio-speaking rebel named Tommy, who was from the Freetown area and
who wore a combat uniform, amputated the witness's left hand and the hands of 6 other
civilians with an axe and told them "to go and tell Pa Kabbah that they were in control, and
not ECOMOG". 2039 One of the seven amputees who was related to the witness, died from
the amputation.2O4O ln cross—examination, Witness TFl-098 explained that Tommy belonged
to the same group as "Captain Blood".2O4l
794. Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that in the third week of January 1999,2042 as the
rebel troops were retreating from the ECOMOG forces in Freetown, they hid in the hills
overlooking the east of Freetown from where they observed "civilians singing and dancing
as they welcomed the ECOMOG forces".2O43 The witness heard Gullit remarking, "Now the
people in Freetown have changed their song, the song which they were singing: that they
were our brothers, we want peace. Now the people are singing it otherwise: That our
brothers have come, they have come to steal. So now we should move to Ferry Junction. So
wherever we meet people singing that song...those people were betraying us, we should kill
them".2O44 After this remark, Gullit reorganised the rebel troops and sent them to Ferry
Junction, Low Cost area and Kissy, instructing them to "burn all the remaining houses and
kill all the civilians".2°45
795. Bobson Sesay testified that upon receiving Gullit's orders, his group which included
Rambo Red Goat and Bajehjeh went to Kissy Market where they saw civilians singing
"They are our brothers". Immediately the rebels, including the witness, went and shot all the
civilians. They even shot civilians who were in their homes.2O46 The witness said that while
he used his gun to shoot the civilians, some of his colleagues used machetes to kill the
2037 Witness TF1—098, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19131.
203* Exhibit P~2l0, "TF1-098, APRC Transcript 5 April 2005", pp. 20688—20689.
2039 Exhibit P-210, "TF1-098, APRC Transcript 5 April 2005", pp. 20689-20690.
2040 Exhibit P-210, "TF1-098, APRC Transcript 5 April 2005", p. 20692.
2041 Witness TF1-098, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19131.
2042 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8361.
2043 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8353.
2044 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8351.
2045 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8353-8354.

---- End of Page 303 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL~03-01-T %/ 6}* 18 May 2012

civilians while others burnt civilians alive in their homes.2O47 The witness could not estimate
the actual number of casualties but stated that they were many. The witness further testified
that the rebel group that attacked Low Cost area came back aHerwards and reported that they
too had carried out burnings and amputated and killed civilians there. The witness explained
that this second group was led by commander "Changa Bulanga".2O48
796. Bobson Sesay further testified that the day aHer the operations in Kissy Market and
Low-Cost areas, Gullit informed the fighters that he had heard that civilians were hiding
ECOMOG forces in the mosque on Old Shell Road by having them take off their uniforms
and pose as civilians.2O44 Gullit then ordered "Five-Five" to lead a group of fighters to the
mosque and to kill everyone there.2O5O The witness was in this group of fighters which was
made up of over 100 AFRC, RUF, STP, and Liberian fighters, including "Rambo Red Goat"
and Med "Bajehjeh".2O5l Bobson Sesay testified that upon reaching the mosque, they saw
that the mosque was full of people, they did not search and they just started shooting
randomly into the crowd. The rebels killed everyone who was not able to escape, including
people he believed to be ECOMOG officers, men, children, nursing mothers, and old
women.2O52 Bobson Sesay estimated that his group killed more than 20 people in this
attack.2O53 Bobson Sesay further testified that aHer the Lomé Peace Accord his uncle
informed him that two of his female cousins were among the victims of the attack.2O54
Bobson Sesay testified that as they withdrew from the mosque they met Commander Gullit
at Crazy Yard, and "Five-Five" reported to Gullit that they had destabilized the mosque and
killed the people. 2055
797. Bobson Sesay further testified that aHer the killings at Rogbalan Mosque, Gullit
ordered Foday Bah Marrah (a.k.a. Bulldoze) to execute four white nuns they had captured
when they were withdrawing from Eastern Police and that Bobson Sesay saw Bulldoze
2**6 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8355-8356, 8359.
2047 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8360.
2048 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8360.
20*9 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8361-8363.
2050 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8362.
2051 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8362-8363.
M2 Alimamy Bpbspp Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8363-8365.
2053 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8364.
2054 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8364-8365.
2055 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8365-8367.

---- End of Page 304 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-O1-T 7%/ QU 18 May 2012

shoot and kill the four nuns at a location called "Crazy Yard".2O5° The nuns had been
captured along with a Bishop Ganda and a Father Mario, both of whom had managed to
escape.2O57 Gullit gave the order to execute the four nuns saying "he did not want them to
escape like Bishop Ganda and Father Mario as that would not be good for the rebel troops
The murder of four white nuns is corroborated by documentary evidence in Exhibit P—328
which describes the nuns as "Sisters of Charity".
798. The Trial Chamber admitted in evidence pursuant to Rule 92quater the transcripts
and confidential witness statement of Witness TF1—021 from the AFRC and RUF trials.2O58
He was not cross·examined in the present trial regarding his prior testimony as he is now
deceased. ln his prior testimony, Witness TF1·021 testified that he was leading prayers at
the Rogbalan Mosque at about 12:30pm on a Friday in January 1999 when he saw more than
15 men armed with guns and machetes jumping over the fence and into the compound.2O59
They had disguised themselves in different ways, some wearing plastic bags on their heads,
and some with their faces and/or bodies painted with blue, charcoal or white substances.2O6O
Some of the men were wearing black polo shirts and long trousers or shorts.2O61 The mosque
was overflowing with men, women and children, as people were there not only to pray but
also to seek refuge.20°2
799. Some of the arrned men approached TF1—021 and told him that they were going to
kill everyone in the mosque.2O63 TF1·021 tried to stop them by giving them 80,000 Leones
collected from people at the mosque, but after taking the money the armed men said that
they would still kill all the civilians in the mosque.2O64 TF1·021 then accepted his fate,
2056 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8365-8367, 8368.
2057 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8367.
2058 Exhibit P-287, "TFl-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005"; Exhibit P-289, TFl-021, "RUF Transcript 15
July 2004"; and Exhibit P-288A (confidential), were all admitted in evidence pursuant to Rule92quater.
2059 Exhibit P-287, "TFl-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", pp. 18735-18737; Exhibit P-289, TF1-021,
"RUF Transcript 15 July 2004", pp. 18726-18728; Exhibit P-288A (confidential), p. 18814.
2060 Exhibit P-287, "TFl-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", p. 18736; Exhibit P-289, "TFl-021, RUF
Transcript 15 July 2004", p. 18727; Exhibit P-288A (confidential), p. 18815.
206* Exhibit P-288A (caiiaaciitiaii, p. 18814.
2062 Exhibit P-287, "TFl-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", p. 18737; Exhibit P-289, "TFl-021, RUF
Transcript 15 July 2004", p. 18727; Exhibit P-288A (confidential), p. 18814.
2063 Exhibit P-287, "TF1-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", p. 18738; Exhibit P-289, "TF1-021, RUF
Transcript 15 July 2004", p. 18728; Exhibit P-288A (confidential), p. 18816.
2064 Exhibit P-287, "TFl-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", p. 18739; Exhibit P-289, "TF1-021, RUF
Transcript 15 July 2004", p. 18728; Exhibit P-288A (confidential), 25 February 2003", p. 18816.

---- End of Page 305 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T J Gu 18 May 2012

telling the armed men that "it would happen if it was God's will".2666 The armed men
taunted the civilians for believing in God and then began shooting randomly at the crowd
inside the mosque.2666 As the armed men were shooting, they said it was not their fault, but
the fault of Tejan Kabbah, who refused to have peace talks with them.2667 When the shooting
ceased, TF1-021 counted 71 dead eo le inside and around the outside of the mos ue.2666
P P Cl
800. The Trial Chamber also admitted in evidence pursuant to Rule 92quater the transcript
of the testimony of Witness TF1-083 from the AFRC trial.2669 He too was not cross-
examined in the present trial regarding his prior testimony as he is now deceased. ln his
prior testimony, the witness stated that in January 1999 he was living in Kissy, Freetown.2676
On 22 January 1999,267l he went to the Rogbalan Mosque to seek shelter after his hand was
amputated.2672 When he arrived at the mosque he saw what he estimated to be 70 corpses
wearing civilian clothes outside of the fence surrounding the compound, inside the
compound gates, and inside the mosque.2676 Among the dead were children, old persons,
men, and women.2674 lnside the mosque he also saw tripods, spoons, and clothes spread
about.2676 He testified that he stayed in the mosque from after his hand was cut-off at about
12.00pm until about 6.00pm that evening.2676
2666 Exhibit P-287, "TF1-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", p. 18739; Exhibit P-289, "TF1-021, RUF
Transcript 15 July 2004", p. 18728; Exhibit P-288A (confidential), 25 February 2003", p. 18816.
2666 Exhibit P-287, "TF1-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", p. 18739; Exhibit P—289, "TF1—021, RUF
Transcript 15 July 2004",,p. 18728; Exhibit P-288A (confidential), pp. 18816—18817.
2667 Exhibit P-287, "TFl-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", pp. 18739, 18745; Exhibit P-289, "TF1-021,
RUF Transcript 15 July 2004", pp. 18728-18729; Exhibit P-288A (confidential), p. 18817.
2666 Exhibit P-287, "TFl-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", p. 18740; Exhibit P-289, "TF1-021, RUF
Transcript 15 July 2004", p. 18728. In both the AFRC and RUF trials, and in his confidential witness statement,
TF1-021 identified a similar but different list of victims. In the AFRC Trial he listed Memuna Kalokoh,
Marnmy Bangura, Pa Alfred Bangura, Mammy Sawdatu from Kailuhun, Mrs. Farmer, and his son. Exhibit P-
287, "TF1-021, AFRC Transcript 15 April 2005", pp. 18741—18743. In the RUF trial he listed Mohammed
Tombu, Pa Bangura, "[a]nother Mamie", "another Ya Memuna", Ibrahim, and TF1-021's son. Exhibit P-289,
"TF1-021, RUF Transcript 15 July 2004", pp. 18730-18731. In his confidential witness statement he listed Pa
Bangura, a Loko Pastor, Mammy Safratu, Memunata Kalokoh, lman Issa Kamara, Mamie Bangura, Mariatu
Kamara, Alieu Kamara, Alusine Sankoh, Musa Sankoh, and Amadu Tombo Bangura. Exhibit P-288A
(confidential), p. 18819.
2°°" Exhibit P-29oA, "TF1-083, AFRC Transcript, 8 April zoos?
2676 Exhibit P-290A, "TFl-083, AFRC Transcript, 8 April 2005", p. 18764.
2671 Exhibit P-290A, "TFl-083, AFRC Transcript, 8 April 2005", pp. 18775-18786, 18803.
2672 Exhibit P-290A, "TF1-083, AFRC Transcript, 8 April 2005", p. 18787.
2673 Exhibit P-290A, "TF1-083, AFRC Transcript, 8 April 2005", pp. 18787-18788.
2674 Exhibit P-290A, "TFl-083, AFRC Transcript, 8 April 2005", p. 18788.
2675 Exhibit P-290A, "TFl—083, AFRC Transcript, 8 April 2005", pp. 18787-18788.
2676 Exhibit P-290A, "TF1-083, AFRC Transcript, 8 April 2005", pp. 18788-18789.

---- End of Page 306 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T {tig 18 May 2012

801. Witness Corinne Dufka,2O77 a senior researcher for the African Division of Human
Rights Watch,2O78 testified that she reported on a massacre of 60 individuals at the Rogbalan
Mosque on 22 January 1999.2079 Dufka interviewed 10 witnesses to the massacre who told
her that the rebels gave the people in the mosque two days advance warning that they would
come to kill them, but the people inside the mosque stayed because they had nowhere else to
go.2O8O Witnesses to the attack told Dufka that when the rebels came, one group went inside
and randomly shot at the civilians in the women's and men's sections, while the other stayed
outside and shot at eo le as the ran outside to esca e.2O8l
P P Y P
802. Prosecution Witness Ibrahim Wai testified that rebels attacked his home village of
Tombudu around 23 December 1998 and he fled to Kissy and took refuge at the home of his
brother-in-law called Brima, in Kissy.2O82 While there in January 1999 a rebel commander
that the witness previously knew very well, called Mohammed (a.k.a. Captain Blood)2°83
came to the house with his bodyguards and attacked the witness and his brother-in-law's
family. Wai immediately recognised this same Captain Blood as the rebel that had attacked
Ibrahim Wai's home in Tombudu on 23 December 1998. Captain Blood asked the witness
for money and electronics and when the latter said he had nothing to give, Captain Blood
am utated Wai's hand with a machete and told him to " o to Pa Kabbah who had brou t
P 8
many hands for the civilians".2O84 As Wai ran to hide inside a toilet, the rebels also
amputated the hands of his brother-in-law's younger brother.2O85 Wai further told court that
later on that night, the rebels set his brother-in-law's house on fire and his brother-in-law
called Brima, who was trapped inside the house, was burnt to death.2O86
2077 Corinne Dufka initially prepared a Report for the Prosecution entitled "Report of Corinne Dufka, Human
Rights Watch, to the Office of the Prosecutor, Special Court for Sierra leone, 13 May 2007". This report was not
admitted in evidence following an objection by the Defence. Ms. Dufka's oral testimony however, was admitted
in court.
0000 cunnna Durka, Transcript 21 January 2008, p. 1745.
2079 Corinne Dufka, Transcript 21 January 2008, pp. 1797, 1803.
0000 cunnna Durka, rrannanpt 21 January 2008, pp. 1802-1803.
000' cpnnna Dufka, Transcript 21 January 2008, pp. 1802-1803.
0000 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript, 16 oatubar 2008, pp18581~18585
2083 Wai testified that "Captain Blood" was one of Bazzy's security men and that his real name was Bob Lahai.
See TF1—334, Transcript 24 April 2008, pp. 8462, 8489.
2084 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 17 October 2008, pp. 18588—l8592.
0000 rrnannn Wai, rranuanpt 17 oatpbar 2008,p. 18594.
20% Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 17 October 2008, pp. 18566—18597.

---- End of Page 307 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T Qt 18 May 2012

35 ¤-1 is 0
803. Exhibit P-328 documents the 22 January 1999 attack of Rogbalan Mosque in which
66 people were killed, as one of the events in a section describing mass killings and
massacres.20g7
804. Witness TF1-104 gave evidence in another trial and the Trial Chamber admitted the
transcript of his prior testimony as evidence in the present trial.2088 In his prior testimony,
the witness told the Court that he was working as a nurse at the Good Shepherd Hospital in
Kissy in January 1999.2089 On 15 January 1999, while at the hospital, he saw a group of
RUF/AFRC Juntas shoot a civilian man in the nearby cemetery. The civilian was from
Fourah Bay and sustained serious gunshot wounds to the stomach from which he later died
in the hospital.2090 On 18 January 1999 a group of "RUF and juntas" went to search the
Good Shepherd hospital accusing the staff there of "treating ECOMOG and Kamajors". The
J untas forced every body out of the hospital, including staff patients and visitors, and started
beating them with a stick called a "coboko".209l The juntas took Witness TF1-104 along
with 200 other civilians2092 to one Pa Zubay's house located a short distance from the
hospital. On the way to this house, the AFRC/RUF fighters shot to death a Nigerian
businessman called Ike who had been admitted for treatment of his gunshot wounds in the
Good Shepherd hospital.2093 A number of Junta commanders had gathered at Pa Zubay's
house including one "Captain Shepherd" whom the witness had previously met and one
"Captain Blood". The civilians were made to stand against a wall and the J untas opened fire,
shooting randomly at the civilians. The witness testified that 15 civilians were shot to death
as a result, and that he was lucky to escape with bullet wounds on his elbow, knee and
hip 2094
Findings
2087 Exhibit P-328, "Human Rights Watch Report, Getting Away with Murder, Mutilation, Rape, New Testimony
from Sierra Leone, July 1999", pp, 23000-23001.
2088 Exhibit P-212A, "TE1—104, APRC Transcript, 8 April 2005" and Exhibit P-212B (confidential). The witness
was cross-examined on his prior testimony on 23 October 2008.
2089 Exhibit P-212B (confidential), pp. 5-9.
2""° Exhibit E-21212. qbbiihtibiitiai), p. 19.
M Exhibit P-21212. tbbiihtibiitiai), pp. 22-24.
2092 Exhibit P-212B (confidential), p. 25.
2093 Exhibit P-212B (confidential), p. 24.
""’* Exhibit E-21212. qbbiihtibiitiai), pp. 24-29.

---- End of Page 308 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSI,-03-01-T % QTQ 18 May 2012

$6H 0;
805. The Trial Chamber finds, based on the reliable and credible evidence of Mohamed
Sesay, that the Prosecution proved that (i) around l2 January 1999 at PWD near Ferry
Junction, two civilian men were intentionally killed in a ritualistic murder by the invading
rebel forces described by the witness as "rebels and SLAs," (ii) that around 15 January 1999
at Falcon Street, an RUF rebel called Issa Conteh intentionally killed an old civilian woman
as part of "Operation No Living Thing," (iii) that around 18 January 1999 at the house of
one Abbas, a rebel called "Commando" intentionally shot and killed 8 young civilian men
who had refused to surrender their hands to him for amputation; (iv) and that on the same
occasion rebels acting under the orders of "Commando" intentionally hacked to death 5
other civilian men who had similarly refused to surrender their hands to him for amputation.
The Trial Chamber also finds based on the credible evidence of Witness TF1—098 that (v) on
18 January 1999 a rebel called Tommy intentionally amputated and caused the death of one
civilian at Fataraman Street in Kissy. Additionally, the Trial Chamber finds based on the
credible evidence of Ibrahim Wai that (vi) in January 1999, rebels led by a commander
called Captain Blood intentionally killed a civilian named Brima who was set ablaze in his
house at Kissy. The Trial Chamber further finds based on the credible evidence of Witness
TF1—104 that (vii) in January 1999, at the Good Shepherd Hospital in Kissy, AFRC/RUF
junta forces under the command of Captain Blood intentionally executed 17 civilians
including Ike the Nigerian businessman and another civilian shot at a nearby cemetery. The
Trial Chamber further finds that none of the civilian victims in the above instances was
taking an active part in the hostilities at the time of death.
806. The Trial Chamber further finds, based on the reliable and credible evidence of
Alimamy Bobson Sesay (viiii) that in the third week of January 1999, rebels comprising
members of the AFRC, RUF, STF and other Liberian fighters acting on the orders of
Commanders Gullit, Rambo Red Goat and Bajehjeh, intentionally killed an unknown
number of civilians at Kissy Market and Low Cost area in Kissy whom they suspected of
supporting ECOMOG, and (ix) that on 22 January 1999 after the massacre at Rogbalan
mosque, a rebel called Foday Bah Marrah (a.k.a. Bulldoze) acting on the orders of Gullit,
intentionally shot and killed four white nuns. The Trial Chamber finds that none of the
civilians in the above instances were taking an active part in the hostilities at the time of
death.

---- End of Page 309 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T OL 18 May 2012

38Moz
807. The Trial Chamber further finds, based on the reliable and credible evidence of
Alimamy Bobson Sesay as corroborated by Witnesses TF 1-021; TF1-083; Corinne DuH
and Exhibit P—328 that (x) on 22 January 1999 at Rogbalan Mosque in Kissy, rebels
including members of the AFRC, RUF, STP and Liberian fighters under the command of
Gullit, Five-Five, Rambo Red Goat and Bajehjeh, intentionally killed over 60 civilians who
had taken refuge in the mosque, on suspicion that they were harbouring ECOMOG forces.
The Trial Chamber also finds that none of the civilians in this instance was taking an active
part in the hostilities at the time of death.
808. Further the Trial Chamber takes note of evidence relating to comments by rebel
commander Gullit inciting the rebel forces to "burn all the houses and kill all the remaining
civilians" in Kissy, all of whom he perceived to have "betrayed the AFRC/RUF". The Trial
Chamber particularly takes note of the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians including
Catholic nuns, women and children seeking refuge in places of worship like the Rogbalan
Mosque. The Trial Chamber also takes particular note of the public or ritualistic execution
of the civilians often by gruesome means as hacking by axe or machete, and the declaration
of "Operation No Living Thing" as means by which the rebels terrified the civilian
population. The Trial Chamber accordingly finds that the perpetrators wilfully made the
victims the object of such violence and the primary purpose of the murders in Kissy was to
instil terror in the civilian population.
(iii) Unlawful killing of civilians in Fourah Bay in late J anuary 1999
809. Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that in the second week of January, ECOMOG
forces dislodged the rebel forces from State House and the latter retreated to Eastern Police
where they stopped to wait for reinforcement that had arrived and was waiting at Allen
Town.2O95 While there, the rebel troops ambushed and captured a Government delegation
consisting of one Doctor Daboe and two Ministers. The rebels sent the captives to Ferry
Junction where Gullit was situated. Gullit ordered the summary execution of the three
Government officials saying "they were collaborators and they were the people who fought
2095 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008 pp. 8322-8324.

---- End of Page 310 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T 310 QA 18 May 2012

$$14 03
against us that led us to go into the bush". Bobson Sesay testified that the three Govemment
officials were executed at Ferry Junction and their bodies displayed there.2O%
810. Bobson Sesay further testified that sometime after the third week of January 1999,
when the rebel troops had been reinforced by a group of 50 SLAs and RUF members led by
Rambo Red Goat and had recaptured State House,2O97 they heard on BBC radio that Sam
Bockarie (a.k.a. Mosquito) had rejected a ceasefire and peace talks with the Govemment.
Thereafter, Mosquito called Gullit on the radio set, and after waming the latter that the
Government was "just trying to reorganise themselves to flush us out of Freetown",
Mosquito instructed Gullit "to kill civilians and bum down strategic areas so that there
would be no govemment and there would be no one for the govemment to rule".2O98 After
this message, Gullit ordered his senior commanders to distribute fuel to the forces in
Freetown, who started buming buildings as they withdrew from State House where
Ecoivioo had attacked t1tam?"°9
811. Bobson Sesay was with the advance team of the rebels during the withdrawal that
moved from State House to Eastern Police and then Mountain Cut.2mO Gullit, Five-Five, and
Bazzy met them near Savage Squarezml and told them that civilians had challenged them by
killing an AFRC fighter in Fourah Bay.2 102 ln response, Gullit ordered Sesay and some other
men, including the witness, Bazzy and Five-Five, to bum down Fourah Bay and kill the
people there.2m3 Bobson Sesay, who participated in this operation, stated that on arrival at
Fourah Bay the rebels bumt a lot of houses and killed a lot of civilians by either buming
them alive inside of their homes, or by forcing them outside of their homes and killing
them.2m4 Explaining how the rebels attempted to burn all of the houses down and kill all of
the civilians in Fourah Bay, the witness stated, "Whenever we went on such a mission we
would always make sure that nobody escapes and even there we did not allow anybody to
esca e .... we would not `ust set fire to a house and move. We will stand there until we see
P J
2096 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008 pp. 8326.
2097 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008 pp. 8327-8328.
2098 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8328-8329.
2099 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8330-8331.
2100 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8332.
2101 Witness TF1-104 testified that Fourah Bay is an area within Kissy, around Savage Square. See Exhibit P-
212B (confidential), p. 20732.
M2 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8332-8333.
2103 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8333-8334.

---- End of Page 311 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T Gk 18 May 2012 g
t

381404
that everything was burnt to the ground".2lO5 The witness told court that the whole team
including Gullit, Bazzy and Five-Five participated in the Fourah Bay operation, in
vengeance for the death of one of the rebels.2m6
812. The Trial Chamber also considered Exhibit P-077. In the context of describing
arbitrary attacks by the retreating rebels against civilians in Freetown in January 1999,
Exhibit P-077 referred to an incident around 21 January 1999 at Fourah Bay Road where
three children were executed and the limbs of their three sisters were amputated or
mutilated.2lO7
Findings
813. The Trial Chamber further finds, based on the reliable and credible evidence of
Alimamy Bobson Sesay (i) that in the second week of January 1999, three civilian
Government officials including Dr Daboe and two Ministers, were intentionally killed at
Ferry Junction on the orders of Gullit as punishment for being "collaborators" of the
Government; and (ii) that in the third week of January 1999, rebels comprising members of
the AFRC, RUF, STF and other Liberian fighters acting on the orders of Commanders
Gullit, Bazzy and Five—Five intentionally killed an unknown number of civilian in Fourah
Bay area by either burning them alive inside of their homes, or by forcing them outside of
their homes and killing them, in revenge for an AFRC fighter that had been killed in the
area. The Trial Chamber further finds based on the documentary evidence in Exhibit P-077
(iii) that around 21 January 1999 at Fourah Bay Road, retreating rebels intentionally killed
three civilian children. The Trial Chamber also finds that none of the civilians in the above
instances was taking an active part in the hostilities at the time of death.
814. Further the Trial Chamber finds based on the above evidence that the civilian killings
in Fourah Bay area were part of the reprisal killings by the rebel forces as they fled
Freetown. In this regard, the Trial Chamber takes note of comments by rebel commanders
that the captured Government officials were "collaborators" who deserved to die and that the
civilians of Fourah Bay also deserved to die for killing an AFRC fighter. The Trial Chamber
gm Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8333-8334.
MOS Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8334,
2‘°*‘A1imamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8334.
ZW Exhibit P-077 (confidential), p. 9292.

---- End of Page 312 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03-01-T GL; 18 May 2012

articularl takes note of the ublic dis la of the bodies of the three Government officials
P Y P P Y
at Ferry Junction and the random bumings and amputations that accompanied the civilian
killings, as means by which the rebels terrified the civilian population. The Trial Chamber
finds, based on the above oral and documentary evidence that the perpetrators wilfully made
the victims the object of such violence and the primary purpose of the murders in Fourah
Bay was to instil terror in the civilian population.
(iv) Unlawful killing of civilians in Calaba Town in the third week of January
1999
815. Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that after the rebel troops had withdrawn from
Rogbalan Mosque and killed the nuns, Gullit told them that he had received information that
the Guinean ECOMOG forces were moving from Kambia to Waterloo in pursuit of the
rebels. Consequently, Gullit ordered the rebel troops to withdraw from PWD to Allen Town
in order to esca e the advancin ECOMOG forces and "to burn as man buildin s and
P 8 Y 8
capture as many civilians as possible along the way in order to force the Government to
recognise them".21O8 Bobson Sesay explained that en route, the rebel forces21O9 went through
Kissy Mess Mess, the Porty Market area, Brewery, Calaba Town and Allen Town, engaging
ECOMOG forces, burning buildings, amputating and/or capturing many civilians as they
went.211O
816. On this initial retreat from Kissy, Bobson Sesay testified that they passed through
Calaba Town without stopping because there was an attack around the area, and then
stopped in the hills of Allen Town.2111 Although there were civilians in the hills of Calaba
Town when the fighters went through, Gullit ordered the rebel troops to advance at once to
Allen Town.2112
817. Describing the rebel withdrawal at this time, Bobson Sesay told the Court, "When
we were moving we were like wounded lions, because the way we withdrew we were so
21118 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8340.
21119 The witness explains that by this time, the initial rebel forces comprising members of the AFRC/RUF/STF
and Liberian fighters were reinforced by SLA and RUF members who had come with Rambo Red Goat and
some of the former prisoners that had been freed by the rebels from Pademba Road Prison. Alimamy Bobson
Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8340-8341.
2"° Alimamy BODSOII Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8368-8369.
2111 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8370.
2112 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8371.

---- End of Page 313 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T / Qu 18 May 2012 M

desperate that we were burning along the way whilst we were coming. Taking civilians from
out of their houses, those that we saw were not fit enough we would execute them and we
advanced because it was a mass withdrawal".2113 Bobson Sesay testified that they captured
many civilians as they withdrew from Freetown, including men, women and children and
guarded them well so they could not escape, while executing those that were not fit enough
to move with the rebel troops.2114 When asked whether the houses they bumt had people in
them, he testified that "Some were empty, some had people in them, but we were moving.
Because the brigade was very long, so while the fighting force was ahead we would attack
and burn and the other fighting forces on the back would do the same. Some would capture
civilians and other would be executing them whilst we would be advancing and withdrawing
from the area".2115 Bobson Sesay fi1r‘ther testified that when they set fire to a house with
people inside, that the "people were screaming and they died".2116
818. Bobson Sesay told the Court that the retreating rebel forces met resistance from
ECOMOG at Calaba Town and quickly proceeded to Allen Town. However, once they
arrived at Allen Town, Gullit ordered Hassan Papa Bangura to organise fighters to go back
to Cabala Town to attack the ECOMOG forces and to ensure that "anywhere civilians were
and houses were they should burn down the area so that Freetown becomes
ungovernable".2117
819. Bobson Sesay testified that a team of more than 200 fighters, including members of
the RUF, AFRC, STP and former NPFL fighters led by Hassan Papa Bangura (a.k.a. Bomb
Blast), Rambo Red Goat, Med Bejehjeh and the witness, attacked Calaba Town but did not
see any ECOMOG forces there.2118 lnstead the rebel fighters set about burning buildings
and killing civilians as ordered by Gullit. They shot and killed most of the civilians, but
some of them were hacked to death in order to preserve bullets, and some burned to death
2113 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8369.
2114Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8346-8347, 8370. The witness stated that the civilians
captured from Freetown, and in the course of the rebel withdrawal from Freetown, were referred to by the code
name "family members"and were closely guarded by the whole brigade so that none escaped. These civilians
were also used by the brigade to carry "loads" of food and ammunition as well as cook for the brigade. Alimamy
Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8350, 8371.
2115 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8370.
2116 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8370.
21 17 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8371.
21 18 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8371-8372.

---- End of Page 314 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T /2 Gil}, 18 May 2012

inside their homes, which had been set on fire.2119 Bobson Sesay testified that the rebel
troops killed an unknown number of civilians and that "We all killed, let me tell you that. l
m self 1 killed. Other men killed".2120 After this mission ended the a ain withdrew to
Y Y E
Allen Town.2121
820. The Trial Chamber admitted in evidence the transcript of testimony of Prosecution
Witness TF1—029 given in the RUF trial.2122 ln her prior testimony, Witness TF1—029
testified that after she and 50 other civilians were captured in Wellington by RUF and AFRC
fighters including the SLA soldier Major Arif on 22 January 1999, they all travelled en
masse together to Calaba Town, where they stayed for two weeks.2123 On the way from
Wellington to Calaba Town TF1—029 saw the rebels buming houses and killing civilians.2124
During the two weeks that TF1—029 stayed in Calaba Town she also testified that the rebels
cut off the head of an ECOMOG fighter, and that an AFRC fighter named Colonel Tito shot
and killed one nun and shot two other nuns in their hands.2125 The body of the dead nun was
buried near the kola tree.2126
821. While TF1—029 testified consistently conceming this event in both the RUF trial and
this trial, the Defence did question TF1—029 regarding Prosecution interview notes from 24
November 2003 wherein she purportedly stated that all three nuns were killed by Colonel
Tito. TF1—029 testified that the interviewer recorded her words incorrectly and that only one
nun had died and the other two were injured.2127
822. Osman Jalloh testified that he was in Calaba Town in January 1999.2128 J alloh further
told the Court that in the second or third week of January 1999, rebels travelled through
Calaba Town into the hills with loads on their heads, but wamed the residents of Calaba
2* "’ Arinnnny Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 Apni 2008, p. 8372-8373.
2120 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, pp. 8371—8372.
2121 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8372.
2122 Witness TF1—029 testified in the RUF trial. The transcript of her evidence was admitted as Exhibit P—206
("prior testimony") under Rule 92bis. In the present trial, the witness was cross—examined. See Witness TF1—029
Transcript 22 October 2008, pp. 18969-18983.
2123 Exhibit P—206, "TF1—029, RUF Transcript 28 November 2005", pp. 19415-19418.
2124 Exhibit P—206, "TF1—029, RUF Transcript 28 November 2005", p. 19418.
M5 Exhibit 1>~206, ·‘Tr1~029, RUF Transcript 28 November 2005**, p. 19419.
2126 TF1—029, Transcript 22 October 2008, p. 18979.
2127 TF1-029, Transcript 22 October 2008, pp. 18978—18979.
2128 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17675.

---- End of Page 315 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01-T i Gu 18 May 2012

Town that they would be back to "disturb" them.2l29 J alloh had heard that ECOMOG had
driven these rebels from Freetown, Wellington and Kissy.213O Jalloh testified that two to
three hours after the rebels had gone into the hills he heard gunshots and went to the
compound of his neighbour, Mr Jalloh, to hide.213l The witness and ten others, including
elderly people and suckling children, hid in a little tin shack for six days, until an aimed man
wearing civilian clothes and a goat horn on his head knocked on the door asking for
money.2l32
823. The man searched the witness's pockets and took 2,000 Leones that he found
there.2133 When the aimed man did not find any money on the other civilians he put them
back into the tin shack, set the straw mattress inside on fire, and left them there for about
five minutes before allowing them to come out.2l34 The aimed man then said that even
though the other civilians did not have money, they should give him something else if they
did not want to be burnt a1ive.2l35 Otick, the owner of the compound, told the aimed man
that he would give him 86 bags of 1ice.2136 The aimed man opened the compound door and
about 100 rebels dressed in civilian clothes came into the compound, taking the bags of
1ice.2l37 The rebels left and the civilians remained in the compound.2138
824. The following day a tall rebel came to the house and took the civilians to Sayinoh
Junction, which was between Calaba Town and We11ington.2139 The rebel said that it was
"for their safety because if another group of rebels came the civilians would have nothing to
ive them, and would be ki11ed".2l40 J alloh testified that as the walked from Calaba Town
E Y
to Sayinoh Junction he saw "a lot of corpses lying by the road".2l4l J alloh further testified
that he could not identify the corpses lying in the street, but that he assumed that they were
mg Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17682.
mo Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17678, 17682.
ml Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17683.
lm Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17684—17690.
3*33 osman .1311011, Transcript 1 october 2008,p. 17688.
M4 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17691.
mj Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17692.
M6 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17693.
M7 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17693—17694.
mg Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17695.
mi) Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17695—17698.
2140 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17696.
fm Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17698.

---- End of Page 316 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T [ CN 18 May 2012

civilians because they were wearing civilian clothing and not military uniforms.2l42 There
were old people, women and children among the corpses.2l43 Jalloh estimated that there
were approximately 100 corpses over a 200 yard stretch of road, and testified that there were
so man that the had to walk in a "zi za " to avoid ste in on them.2l44 The onl lace he
Y Y 3 3 PP 3 Y P
stopped seeing corpses was "the culvert" between Calaba Town and Wellington.2l45
825. Jalloh testified that when they arrived at Sayinoh Junction, there were over 100
armed rebels there dressed in civilian clothes who spoke in bad Krio and sitting on the floor
of one Mr Okabia's house.2 M6 The Commander was the only person seated in the house on a
chair.2l47 Children around the age of 10 years old were 50 yards away from the house
packing stones on the highway to prevent ECOMOG from coming through.2 148 The rebels
ordered the captives to go to the top floor of the two story house, and to wam the rebels
whenever the ECOMOG helicopter referred to by the rebels as the Alpha Jet or "Wowo
Boy", was going to come to attack them. The rebels wamed the civilians that if they failed to
wam the rebels as ordered, they would punish the civilians by amputating their hands.2l49
Jalloh told the court that when the Alpha Jet came and shot at them, the rebels ran outside
and 1r1r1.2*5"
826. When the Alpha Jet had left, the rebels started amputating the hands of civilians.
Otick refused to place his hand on the mortar two times, and the rebel then chopped him two
times in the head with a cutlass.2l5l Jalloh testified that blood spilled out all over and that
Otick fell to the ground. Jalloh testified that the rebels told him to place his hands on the
mortar block and they chopped them both off, one at a time.2l52 The rebels then told J alloh
"to tell Pa Kabbah and the ECOMOG that if they came to meet the fighters that they would
be chopped in the same way".2l53 Jalloh left the house and walked until he came upon
2*42 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17699—17700.
2143 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17701.
M4 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17701.
2*42 ocrrrarr Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17702.
M6 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17703—17705.
M7 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17705.
mg Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17707—17708.
2149 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17709—17710.
mo Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 1771 1.
2*2* Osman Jalloh, rrarrccrrpt 1 October 2008,p. 17717.
2*22 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17718.
M3 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17719.

---- End of Page 317 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T / 0; 18 May 2012

ECOMOG soldiers who took him to Connaught Hospital.2154 J alloh saw Otick again at the
Connaught Hospital, and testified that Otick died there three days later.2155
827. At Connaught Hospital J alloh was also told that Ya Sampa, who was his neighbour
and who had been with him at the house when his hands were amputated, had been
"chopped up" and subsequently died.2156 However he did not see her corpse, nor did the
others that made their way to the hospital from the scene of the criminal event.2157 Jalloh
testified that he believed that his hand was amputated on 28 January 1999 because this was
the date he was told it was when he was admitted to Connaught Hospital.2158
828. Paul Conteh2159 testified that on 19 January 1999 he was in Calaba Town.21611 At this
time the fighting between ECOMOG and the "rebels" was "so immense" that he decided to
flee to Jui by way of Allen Town.2161 On the main road to Allen Town he was forced to tum
back two days later because the ECOMOG were "shedding bombs" and there were civilians
moving toward Allen Town.21°2 On his way back to Calaba Town, as he was passing
through Thomas Place, he saw approximately 40 civilian corpses dressed in "plain
cloth".2163 He testified however, that he did not know how they had died.2164
829. In his prior testimony, Prosecution Witness TF l-0982165 testified that on 6 January
1999 he was near the East End Police and Mountain Cut area of Freetown when the rebels
attacked.2166 During this time he observed civilians, Kamajors, and ECOMOG soldiers
coming fiom Calaba Town to the East End Police area.2167 Two days later, Witness TF 1-098
2154 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17719-17721.
2155 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17718.
21511 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17726.
2157 Osman Jalloh, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17726.
**5* Osman Jaucir, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17734.
2159 Paul Conteh gave evidence concerning murders in Calaba Town in the AFRC trial, which was admitted as
prior testimony under Rule 92bis. Paul Conteh, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19314. He was cross-examined
by the Defence concerning this testimony in this trial.
2160 Exhibit P-215, "TF1-227, AFRC Transcript 8 April 2005", p. 20814.
21111 Exhibit P-215, "TF1-227, AFRC Transcript 8 April 2005", p. 20815.
2162 Exhibit P-215, "TF1-227, AFRC Transcript 8 April 2005", p. 20816.
2163 Exhibit P-215, "TF1-227, AFRC Transcript 8 April 2005", p. 20816.
21114 Exhibit P-215, "TF1-227, AFRC Transcript 8 April 2005", p. 20816.
21115 Witness TF1-098 gave evidence concerning murders in Calaba Town in the AF RC trial, which was admitted
as prior testimony under Rule 92bis. Witness TF1-098, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19147. He was cross-
examined by the Defence concerning this testimony in this trial.
**°° Exhibit P-210, *·TF1-098, Aruc Transcript 5 April 2005**, p. 20682.
**6* Exhibit P-210, *·rr1-098, Arno rrarrccript 5 April 2005**, p. 20682.

---- End of Page 318 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-O3-01-T % OA 18 May 2012 @
\

3 6411
left to attempt to find his mother in Calaba Town.2l68 From Ferry Junction he used the Old
Road to travel to Calaba Town, and testified that he saw many corpses of men, women and
children along the way.2l69 After locating her there, he returned back to the East End Police
area using the New Road, and testified that he again saw many corpses of civilians.2l7O A
Findings
830. The Trial Chamber finds the above first—hand evidence credible and reliable. While
Bobson Sesay participated in the Calaba Town attack, the other witnesses were civilian
victims of the attack and gave first—hand accounts of their experiences. Based on the above
evidence the Trial Chamber finds that the evidence proves that around l8 to 22 January
l999, on the orders of commanders Gullit, Bazzy and Five—Five, members of the RUF,
AFRC, STF and former NPF L fighters led by Hassan Papa Bangura (a.k.a. Bomb Blast),
Rambo Red Goat, Med Bejehjeh and the witness, intentionally massacred hundreds of
civilians at Calaba Town by shooting, burning or hacking them to death including (i) a
civilian nun who was intentionally shot dead by an AF RC commander called Tito, (ii) Otick
and Ya Sampa who were civilians who were intentionally hacked to death with machetes
and (iii) an ECOMOG soldier who was hors de combat was intentionally beheaded. The
Trial Chamber finds that none of the victims in the above instances was taking an active part
in the hostilities at the time of death.
831. Further the Trial Chamber is satisfied based on the above evidence that the civilian
killings in Calaba Town were in reprisal for the defeat that the retreating Junta forces had
suffered in Freetown. In this regard, the Trial Chamber takes note of the large numbers of
Junta forces that participated in this attack, the mass abduction of civilians by the retreating
rebel forces, the orders issued by rebel commanders Gullit "to burn as many buildings and
capture as many civilians as possible along the way in order to force the Government to
recognise them" and the comments by the rebels as they amputated Osman Jalloh and sent
him "to tell Pa Kabbah and the ECOMOG that if they came to meet the fighters that they
would be chopped in the same way". The Trial Chamber also takes note of the public
display of the hundreds of corpses of men, women and children left strewn along the
highway in the area. The Chamber finds that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the
M8 Exhibit P—2 10, "TFl—098, AFRC Transcript 5 April 2005", p. 20683.
M9 Exhibit P—2l0, "TF 1-098, AFRC Transcript 5 April 2005", p. 20685.

---- End of Page 319 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-O1-T GX 18 May 2012

$$1-1 12
object of such violence and the primary purpose of the murders committed in Calaba Town
was to instil terror in the civilian population.
(v) Unlawful killing of civilians in Kingtom, Allen Town and Tower Hill areas
832. Alimamy Bobson Sesay testified that around the second week of January 1999, while
the rebel forces still occupied State House, Gullit received information that ECOMOG
forces were poised in Kingtom, a suburb of Freetown, and were preparing to attack the rebel
forces at State House. Gullit remarked that "it was the civilians who went and called on the
ECOMOG to go and base in Kingtom".2*7* Consequently, Gullit declared the area from
Siaka Stevens Street, Kingtom Road, the Cotton Tree Area through to Pademba Road area,
up to Tower Hill, a "killing zone wherein anybody who came around that area was
considered an enemy and that person should die".2*72 Gullit ordered his commanders
including Basky to go to Kingtom "to repel the ECOMOG forces and put the situation under
control". Bobson Sesay testified that he was part of the group of l50 rebels comprising
members of the AFRC/RUF/STF and Liberian fighters that attacked Kingtom on Gullit's
orders.2*73 Sesay further testified that in Kingtom, the rebels attacked ECOMOG but also
killed many civilians and burnt buildings before withdrawing back to State House.2*74 Sesay
told the Court that the civilians in Kingtom were killed "because they had gone and called
ECOMOG to base in there", and that they were either pulled out of their houses and shot to
death or burnt alive in their homes.2*75
833. Bobson Sesay testified that other Commanders who killed civilians in this "killing
zone" during the second week of January l999 included Junior Lion, who told the witness
that "he went on patrol in the Tower Hill area and had captured and executed some
civilians",2*76 and "Captain Blood"2*77 who captured and beheaded seven young men in
Guard Street for "collaborating with the Nigerians".2*78 Bobson Sesay also testified that
while the rebel troops were temporarily based for two days at Allen Town awaiting further
2*70 Exhibit P—2l0, "TFl-098, AFRC Transcript 5 April 2005", p. 20685.
2*7* Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8294.
2*72 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8296-8297.
2*73 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8295,8298.
2*74 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8295-8298.
2*75 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, pp. 8295-8296.
2*76 Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8297.
2*77 The Witness explained at p. 8299 that Captain Blood was assigned to commander Bazzy.

---- End of Page 320 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03·0l-T /( Gu 18 May 20l2 W

orders from Gullit, they would go out into the surrounding areas looking for food, and that
an civilians the found on the wa were killed because the rebels "did not want an civilian
Y Y Y Y
in that area for them to go and tell ECOMOG that we were based around that area. So when
we met them we killed them".2l79
834. Akiatu Tholley testified that she was at home with her family in Wellington on 5
January 1999 when she heard that rebels had attacked Wellingtonmo She and her family
were hiding inside their house when a group of anned rebels dressed in black T·shirts2l8l
and black jeans with bandanas or mufflers on their headszm forced their way into the
witness's house. Three of these men dragged Tholley out of the house while kicking and
whipping her with belts. The rebels also amputated the hand of a three·year·old child they
found hiding in the witness's house and threatened to amputate the witness's mother.2l83 The
witness stated that when the rebels dragged her outside, she "saw rebels killing and burning
down houses".m4 However, she did not specify who she saw killed in Wellington.
835. Tholley testified that rebels came for a second time to her house at night and wanted
to rape her, but her mother pleaded with them.2l85 The rebels stayed with their wives at
Tholley's house for two days.2l86 An STP rebel named J ameszm captured the witness and
took her and many other civilian captives (including men and women) from Wellington to
Allen Town. The witness and other civilian male and female captives were forced by the
rebels to cany ammunition.2l88 Although Tholley's condition was not feeling well from the
beatings she had suffered, she forced herself to cany the ammunition because she "had seen
mg Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 22 April 2008, p. 8299.
mt) Alimamy Bobson Sesay, Transcript 23 April 2008, p. 8373.
mo Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, pp. 19172-19173.
ml Tholley stated that the T-shirts had the inscription "2-pac"(or "Tupac") on them. Akiatu Tholley, Transcript
23 October 2008, p. 19174.
M2 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19194.
2183 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19175.
M4 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19175; Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 27 October 2008, pp.
19193-19194.
M5 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 27 October 2008, pp. 19193—19195.
M6 The witness explained in cross-examination that in fact the rebels visited her house three times, on 5, 6 and 7
January 1999 and that on the third time it was her mother that invited one of the rebel commanders with his two
bodyguards to come and stay at their house. Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 27 October 2008, pp. 19240—19241.
gm Tholley testified that James told her he was a former member of ULIMO and that he was an STP, and had
fought in Liberia. Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 27 October 2008, pp. 19236-19237, 19272.
2188 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, pp. 19176—19178.

---- End of Page 321 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / gm 18 May 2012

eo le killed for refusin to ca loads".21119 The witness did not however, s ecif where
P P g ITY P Y
she saw people killed in this way. Tholley iiirther testified that as the group moved from
Wellington to Allen Town she saw the rebels killing people, buming down houses,
am utatin eo le, and lootin eo le's ro ert .2190
P g P P g P P P P Y
836. The witness further testified that when they reached Allen Town, she and a group of
the civilians decided to drop the boxes of ammunition because they were tired of carrying
them.2191 Rebels (referred to by the witness as "James's boys") stripped the witness and her
companions naked and pushed them to the ground, threatening to hack them to death for
refusing to carry the loads of ammunition.9199 At that moment, fighter jets came and flew
over them, and everybody ran to hide.2193 Tholley hid in the house of a woman named
Fatmata who was one of J ames's wives. Fatmata gave the witness clothes to wear. 2194 James
found Tholley in Fatmata's house, and took her to Mammy Dumbuya's church.9195 In the
church Tholley saw the beating and raping of many "small girls" who were "not even adult"
and the killing of some of them.2196 Tholley testified that the fighters were killing the girls
who refused to be raped by stabbing them with their bayonets.2197
837. Tholley further testified that while she was in the church, James raped her and she
became unconscious.21911 Tholley told the Court that she herself was a virgin and "had not
et be n her menses" at the time of ca ture.2199 She re ained consciousness in a small hut
Y gu P g
in "a place after Allen Town" where an old woman was tending to Tholley's wounds with
medicine in order to sto her bleedin .2200 The old woman told Tholle that some eo le
P g Y P P
had brought the witness to her for treatment.2291 Later, the rebel called James came to the hut
21119 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19179.
2199 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19179.
2191 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19180.
2199 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, pp. 19180-19181.
2199 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19181. 1
2194 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, pp. 19181-19182.
2195 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19182.
2196 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19182.
2197 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19183.
2*1* Akram Tholley, rrarrscrrpr 23 October 2008, p. 19184.
2199 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19183; Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 27 October 2008, p.
19224.
2299 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, pp. 19184-19185.
22191 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, p. 19185.

---- End of Page 322 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T GL; 18 May 2012 %
\. /

?;i’>l-I 15
and killed the old woman by shooting her in the forehead as Tholley was pleading to him
stop,2202 and then forcefully took Tholley with him on the way to Waterloo.2203
838. In cross—examination the Defence questioned Tholley as to inconsistencies between
her pre—tria1 statements and her testimony concerning how many times she had been forced
by the fighters to eat human hearts. In particular, in 2003 she had told the Prosecution that
James had forced her to eat the heart of the old woman in the hut after he had killed her.2204
Tholley insisted on cross—examination that she had not been forced to eat the heart of the old
woman, but she did not explain the discrepancy. The witness was also confronted with her
prior statement where she told the OTP investigators that in her presence, rebels killed her
uncle and aunt and raped her cousin to death in the jungle.2205 The witness made no mention
of these alleged murders in her evidence in—chief. While admitting that she gave the said
statement to the OTP investigators, the witness testified that the deaths of her uncle, aunt
and cousin did not in fact take place "in her presence" and that instead it was her mother
who had told her about the alleged deaths.2200
Findings
839. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of Akiatu Tholley relating to the deaths she
witnessed in Wellington too general and unreliable. Consequently, The Trial Chamber has
not relied on her evidence in relation to the killings that took place in Wellington. The Trial
Chamber however, finds her testimony credible in relation to (i) the killing of civilians she
saw on the way from Wellington to Allen Town; (ii) the young girls she saw killed in a
church for resisting rape and (iii) the death of the old woman shot in the forehead by a rebel
called James. The Trial Chamber finds on the basis of the above evidence that the
Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that members of the AFRC/RUF/STP
intentionally killed an unknown number of civilians in the vicinity of Wellington and Allen
Town in January 1999.
840. The Trial Chamber further finds the first—hand evidence of Alimamy Bobson Sesay
who took part in the rebel attacks, credible. That evidence proves that in the second and third
2202 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19230.
2203 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19185.
2204 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 23 October 2008, pp. 19230—19233.
2205 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 27 October 2008, pp. 19250—19253.
2200 Akiatu Tholley, Transcript 27 October 2008, p. 19252.

---- End of Page 323 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—0l—T X qu 18 May 2012 M

38m la
weeks of` January l999, on the orders of Gullit, (i) rebels comprising members of the
AFRC/RUF/STF and Liberian fighters intentionally killed an unknown number of` civilians
suspected of` collaborating with ECOMOG forces, in Kingtom, Allen Town and Tower Hill,
an area referred to by the perpetrators as a "killing zone;" (ii) a rebel commander called
Junior Lion intentionally executed several civilians in Tower Hill and, (iii) a rebel called
"Captain Blood" intentionally beheaded seven young civilian men suspected of`
collaborating with ECOMOG, in Guard Street. The Trial Chamber finds on the basis of` the
above evidence that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that in the second
and third weeks of` January 1999, members of` the AFRC/RUF/STF and Liberian fighters
intentionally killed an unknown number of` civilians in Kingtom, Allen Town and Tower hill
areas.
84].. Further the Trial Chamber is satisfied based on the above evidence that the civilian
killings in Kingtom, Allen Town and Tower Hill, were in reprisal f`or the humiliating defeat
suffered by the retreating Junta forces at the hands of` the ECOMOG troops. In this regard,
the Trial Chamber takes note of` the large number of` rebels that participated in this attack,
the orders issued by rebel commander Gullit declaring this particular area a "killing zone
wherein anybody who came around that area was considered an enemy and that person
should die" because in his view, the civilians "had gone and called ECOMOG to base
there". The Trial Chamber also notes that the civilian killings were often coupled with
rampant amputations and burning of` buildings in these areas as part of` a deliberate plan to
terrorise the civilians whom the Junta forces perceived to support their enemies including
the Government, ECOMOG and the Kamajors. The Trial Chamber finds that the
perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of` such violence and the primary purpose
of the murders in Kingtom, Allen Town and Tower Hill, was to instil terror in the civilian
population.
(vi) Unlawful killing of` civilians in Tumbo
842. The Trial Chamber has considered the evidence of` Prosecution Witness Ibrahim Wai
in relation to the unlawful killings alleged to have taken place during this time period in
Tumbo. Ibrahim Wai was a fisherman living in Tumbo in December 1998.2207 He testified
that on 23 December 1998, at 3:00a.m. in the moming, AFRC and RUF soldiers attacked
2207 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18559.

---- End of Page 324 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T GL] 18 May 2012 %
r

315141 ir
Tumbo by buming houses and killing people.221111 The attack was led by a man dressed in full
combat uniform called Captain Mohamed, also known as "Captain Blood",22119 who had
been a fiiend of the witness.22111 During the attack Wai hid in the hills, and then retumed to
Tumbo the next moming.2211 As he walked toward Krio Town he saw the three dead bodies
of Pa Pratt's children lying next to a bumt down house.2212 One of the dead children was
named Elcu and the other two were twins.2213 I-Ie also testified that the rebels killed Bai
Usu's 10—year—old son, whose head had been "shattered, probably by a bullet;"2214 a man
named Joseph who had been shot,2215 and one other man that he did not identify,2216 and that
he saw their corpses. Wai testified that Captain Blood subsequently met him again in Kissy
and amputated Wai's hand, telling him to "go to Pa Kabbah who had brought many hands
for the civilians".2217
Findings
843. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of` Ibrahim Wai credible. Although his
evidence relating to the deaths in Tumbo is circumstantial in that he only saw the dead
bodies of the six civilians when he came out of hiding and did not see the killers, the fact
that AFRC and RUF rebels had attacked Tumbo the previous night looting, shooting and
buming a lot of houses, points to one reasonable conclusion that these rebels were the cause
of death of the three children of Pa Pratt as well as the death of three other civilians
including Bai Usu's son. The Trial Chamber accordingly finds that the Prosecution has
proved beyond reasonable doubt that AFRC/RUF fighters led by Commander Mohammed
a.k.a. Captain Blood, intentionally killed six civilians including a 10 year—old boy, in Tumbo
on 23 December 1998.
844. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that the killings in Tumbo or Tombo were part of the
campaign of reprisal and terror waged by the retreating Junta forces against the civilians of
2208 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18560.
2209 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 17 October 2008, pp. 18586-18588, 18609.
2210 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18561; Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 17 October 2008, p. 18577.
2211 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18563.
2212 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18565; Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 17 October 2008, p. 18620.
2213 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18567.
2214 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 16 October 2008, pp. 18565—18566; Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 17 October 2008, p.
2 .
i§?Ib)rahim Wai, Transcripts 16 October 2008, pp. 18565—18566; Transcript 17 October 2008, pp. 18578, 18620.
2216 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 16 October 2008, p. 18567.

---- End of Page 325 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03-01-T gu 18 May 2012 M

*38 #18
Freetown and the Westem Area. In this regard, the Trial Chamber notes that the widespread
bumings, amputations and killings that occurred in Tumbo as the rebels advanced towards
_ Freetown, the fact that these atrocities involved innocent civilians including children, and
that one child's head was shattered by a bullet. The Trial Chamber also notes the rebel
instructions to amputees to "go to Pa Kabbah who had brought many hands for the
civilia.ns", as indicative of the reprisals that civilians were subjected to for supposedly
supporting President Kabbah's govemment or ECOMOG. Accordingly the Trial Chamber
finds that the perpetrators wilfully made the victims the object of such violence and the
primary purpose of the murders in Tumbo was to instil terror in the civilian population.
(vii) Unlawful killing of civilians in Waterloo
845. The Trial Chamber has considered the oral evidence of Prosecution Witnesses TF 1-
028 and TF 1-026, Witness Patrick Sheriff as well as documentary evidence contained in
Prosecution Exhibits P-308, P-341A, and P-341B admitted pursuant to Rule 92bis, in
relation to the unlawful killings alleged to have taken place at Waterloo by rebels during
their advance towards, and withdrawal from, Freetown between late December 1998 and
early January 1999. 1
846. Exhibit P-308 is a UN Security Council, Special Report of the Secretary-General on
the United Nations Observer Mission in Sierra Leone (UNOMSIL) S/ 1999/20, dated 7
January 1999. It reported that on 22 December 1998, rebels in the Westem area attacked
Waterloo, resulting in heavy casualties among the civilian population,2218 and the looting
and burning of property, and the displacement of around 12,000 persons that fled from
Waterloo to Freetown.2219
847. Exhibits 341A and 341B are an audio clip and its accompanying transcript,
respectively, of a BBC "Focus on Africa" interview that took place on 22 December 1998
between Kwabena Mensah, a BBC reporter and Abubakar Sesay, a forest guard for the
Waterloo district.222O In the interview Mensah reported that an ECOMOG commander had
2217 Ibrahim Wai, Transcript 17 October 2008, pp. 18593-18594.
mg Exhibit P-308, "UN Security Council, Special Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations
Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, 7 January 1999", p. 21473.
2219 Exhibit P-308, "UN Security Council, Special Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations
Observer Mission in Sierra Leone, 7 January 1999", p. 21477.
22211 Exhibit P-34lA, "BBC Focus on Africa Clip, 22 December l998"; Exhibit P-34lB, "BBC Focus on Arrica
Transcript, 22 December 1998".

---- End of Page 326 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T GJ" 18 May 2012 M

confirmed that the RUF had attacked Waterloo in the early hours of the morningml
Abubakar Sesay explained to Mensah that "collaborators of the AF RC and RUF juntas in an
extension of Waterloo called Lumpa had secretly brought approximately 50 fighters into
their homes two nights previously".m2 At 3:00a.m. the rebels began their attack, which
i lasted for two hours until ECOMOG, who had initially retreated, returned with ammo tanks
and drove them out.2223 Sesay stated that during the two-hour attack there was a lot of
shooting and that the rebels burnt some houses and killed some civilians, including Mr
W`henzle, the Secretary-General of the YWCA.2224 Sesay reported that the rebels were
fighting because they wanted their leader released and stated that "they are just bandits,
going around villages, stealing people's goods, and...killing innocent people .... Their target
is...civilian targets — that's what they do".m5 Sesay did not witness the attack, as he was in
a different section of Waterloo.2226
848. Prosecution Witness TF 1-028 testified that she was captured in Karina, Bombali
District by AF RC and RUF fighters around the time of the ECOMOG Intervention in
Freetown.2227 She lived in captivity in Rosos for six months and then was moved to a
location called Tufayim or Eddie Town.2228 The witness testified that Commanders at Eddie
Town included Gullit, Five—F ive, Woyoh, Col. Eddie, FAT and Leather Boot, and that
Commanders Tito, Alabama, and RUF Mohammed all brought troops to reinforce the ones
in Eddie Town. The witness stated that RUF Superman also sent troops and ammunition
from Kurubonla to reinforce the rebel troops at Eddie Town, as they prepared to invade
Freetown.2229 The witness told the Trial Chamber that the RUF group that came from
Kurubonla were led by Mohammed Bajehjeh, and comprised about 100 men, some of whom
ml Exhibit P-34lA, "BBC Focus on Aiiica Clip, 22 December 1998"; Exhibit P—341B, "BBC Focus on Afiica
Transcript, 22 December 1998", p. 23590.
2222 Exhibit P-34lA, "BBC Focus on Aiiica Clip, 22 December 1998"; Exhibit P~341B, "BBC Focus on Afiica
Transcript, 22 December 1998", p. 23590.
2223 Exhibit P-34lA, "BBC Focus on Aiiica Clip, 22 December 1998"; Exhibit P~342B, "BBC Focus on Afiica
Transcript, 22 December 1998", pp. 23590-2359l. .
2224 Exhibit P-341A, "BBC Focus on Aiiica Clip, 22 December 1998"; Exhibit P~342B, "BBC Focus on Africa
Transcript, 22 December 1998", p. 23590.
2225 Exhibit P-34lA, "BBC Focus on Aiiica Clip, 22 December l998"; Exhibit P~342B, "BBC Focus on Africa
Transcript, 22 December 1998", pp. 23590~23591.
2226 Exhibit P-341A, "BBC Focus on Africa Clip, 22 December 1998"; Exhibit P~342B, "BBC Focus on Aiiica
Transcript, 22 December 1998", p. 23590.
2227 TFl—028, Transcript 7 May 2008, pp. 9136, 9151, 9163, 9166.
2228 rrr-028, rrarraarrpr 7 May 2008,p. 9201.
Em TF1-028, Transcript 7 May 2008, p. 9205-9210.

---- End of Page 327 ---------------------------


Case No.; SCSL-03-01-T J G}; 18 May 2012
./

were Liberians and were called the "Red Lion" group.223O A week after the arrival of the
reinforcements, the rebel troops left Eddie Town and trekked to Freetown, taking the witness
and other captured civilians with them.223 I
849. On the way to Freetown they passed through Port Loko Road, Freetown Highway,
Four Mile and stopped at Waterloo, where she saw the rebel fighters buming houses and
killing people.2232 She saw the corpses of women and children in civilian clothes lying in the
streets.2233 From Waterloo, the rebel troops moved through Benguema, Tumbo, Grafton,
Calaba Town and then into Freetown.2234
850. Prosecution Witness TF 1-026 was also captured by RUF rebels led by a commander
called CO Rocky2235 on 6 January 1999, from her home in Wellington at the age of 14 years.
She and 50 other civilian captives from her village travelled for several days with the rebels
from Wellington through Calaba Town, Waterloo and then to Makeni.2236 The witness
testified that when the rebel troops and captured civilians arrived in Waterloo, the residents
of Waterloo were frightened of the rebels and started running away. The witness saw the
rebels shooting and killing the civilians as the latter tried to flee.2237 The witness told the
Trial Chamber that the rebels stayed in Waterloo for about one week under the command of
one RUF commander called CO Rambo2238 before moving to Makeni.2239
851. Patrick Sheriff testified that in December 1998 he was living in Lumpa2240 in the
Waterloo Rural District.224l He testified that on 17 December 1998 rebels attacked Lumpa
mo TF1-028, Transcript 7 May 2008, pp. 9216-9218.
223* TF1—028, Transcript 7 May 2008, pp. 9220-9223.
2232 TF1-028, Transcript 7 May 2008, pp. 9223-9224.
2233 TF1—028, Transcript 7 May 2008, p. 9224.
2233 TF1-028, Transcript 7 May 2008, pp. 9224-9226.
2233 Tri-026, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3847
2233 TF1-026, Transcript 14 February 2008, pp. 3847-3865.
2233 TF1-026, Transcript 14 February 2008, p.3864.
2233 TF1-026, Transcript 14 February 2008, p.3865.
2233 TF1—026, Transcript 14 February 2008, p.3865.
mo Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, pp. 17807-17809. The witness explained that Lumpa and
Waterloo share a common boundary at a bridge where the motor park is located. Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3
October 2008, p. 17870; Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17765-17766. See also the statement of
Abubakar Sesay, who was interviewed by the BBC concerning the attacks on Waterloo and described Lumpa as
an extension of Waterloo. Exhibit P-341A, "BBC Focus on Africa Clip, 22 December 1998;" Exhibit P-341B,
"'BBC Focus on Africa Transcript, 22 December 1998", p. 23590.
22** Patrick sirprrfrg rrarraprrpr 1 October 2008, p. 17765.

---- End of Page 328 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T / 18 May 2012

?>&»m.t
with ns at about 4.00a.m.2242 Sheriff hid in the bush for five da s before bein ca tured
gu Y S P
and whi ed b the rebels. Durin the five da s, the rebels burnt hundreds of civilian homes
PP Y S Y
in Lum a and Waterloo Town, in what a eared to the witness to be a coordinated
P PP
campaign. The witness described the rebel operations stating "When they came they
distributed themselves into various groups, Lumpa, Waterloo and all other villages around,
and they set a time. And at any time they were doing something at a particular place, the
other groups in the other areas were doing similar things in the other places. lt was like
simultaneous exercise".2243 After he was captured by rebels dressed in "black polo shirts
with the inscription "Tupac, All Eyes on Me" and "short trousers", Sheriff witnessed the
rebels shoot and kill three civilian captives who had been told to lie on the ground.2244
Sheriff himself narrowly escaped death but the rebel commander ordered that he be given
150 whip lashes, which the rebels carried out.
852. Sheriff further testified that on 10 January 1999 he was living in Malambay, about
half an hours walk from Lumpa,2245 when he learnt that rebels had burnt down Lumpa
village and Waterloo Town for the second time. The rebels also announced that they would
kill any civilian found hiding in the bush around Lumpa.2246 Sheriff moved back to Lumpa
and was staying at the Mannor Connor section of the village of Lumpa which was under the
control of a rebel commander named Peleto, who was also known as "Friday" because he
was known to go on killing sprees of civilians every Friday of the week around Lumpa.2247
One early Friday morning in February 19992248 Sheriff saw Peleto shoot and kill a man
named Mr Kai who had been reading his Bible and a Limba man who had been eating rice in
a pot.2249 Both victims were close neighbours of Sheriff.2254 Sheriff saw Peleto coming
toward his house and before running into the bush to hide he told an old woman who was
staying there to tlee.2254 She could not run and went to hide in her room instead.2252 Shortly
after leaving the house, Sheriff heard a gunshot, and that evening when he returned to town
2242 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17766.
22*3 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 1 October 2008, p. 17770.
2244 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 1 October 2008, pp. 17771-17777.
2245 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, pp. 17804-17806.
2244 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, pp. 17807-17808.
2247 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, pp. 17809, 1781 1.
2248 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, p. 1781 1.
2244 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, pp. 17809, 17812-17813, 17867-17868.
2250 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, p. 17813.
ml Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, pp. 17810, 17813.

---- End of Page 329 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T l! Qls 18 May 2012 Vw

$$5*+11
he found the dead body of the woman in the house lying in a pool of blood.2253 Sheriff had
heard of Peleto before these killings, but was able to identify him at the time because after
he killed Kai and before he killed the Limba man the people in the area were very afraid of
this commander and were yelling "Peleto is coming".2254
Findings
853. The Trial Chamber finds the evidence of Witnesses TF 1-028 and TF 1-026 credible.
They each spent a long time with the rebel forces in captivity during the rebel invasion of
Freetown and moved with them during the withdrawal from Freetown. Their first hand
evidence of civilians being indiscriminately killed by rebels in Waterloo is corroborated by
the documentary evidence in Exhibits P-308, P-341A, and P-341B. Furthermore, the Trial
Chamber also finds the evidence of Patrick Sheriff who was a victim of rebel attacks on his
village of Lumpa in Waterloo, credible. His evidence relating to the coordination of rebel
attacks in Waterloo is corroborated by the. description provided by Abubakar Sesay in
Exhibits P-341A and P-341B. Based on the above oral and documentary evidence, the Trial
Chamber finds that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that between late
December 1998 and February 1999 rebels, including members of the AFRC/RUF/STF and
Liberian fighters, attacked Waterloo and intentionally killed an unknown number of civilian
men, women, children including (i) Mr VVhenzle, the Secretary-General of the YWCA; (ii) i
Mr Kai, a Limba man and an old woman, who were summarily executed by Commander
Peleto in Lumpa Village in Waterloo. The Trial Chamber finds that none of the victims in
the above incidents were taking an active part in the hostilities.
854. The Trial Chamber is satisfied that the evidence of such callous indifference to
human life by the rebels clearly indicates that the killings in Waterloo were part of the
campaign of reprisal and terror waged by the retreating Junta forces against the civilians of
Freetown and the Western Area. In this regard, the Trial Chamber notes the evidence of
Sheriff referring to the fact that the rebels would attack in the early hours of the morning
while civilians were sleeping in their homes, and that Commander Peleto, who used to go on
regular killing ramEnd of Pages "every Friday", was greatly feared by the civilians. The Trial
Chamber also notes the vindictive marmer in which the rebels carried out massive burnings
2252 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, pp. 17810, 17813.
2253 Patrick Sheriff, Transcript 3 October 2008, pp. 17810, 17813—17814, 17868.

---- End of Page 330 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL—03—01—T QL; 18 May 2012

and afterwards lured back civilians who had fled the area, pretending to protect those
civilians, only to harm or kill them. The Trial Chamber finds that the perpetrators wiliiilly
made the victims the object of such violence and the primary purpose of the murders in
Waterloo was to instil terror in the civilian population. .
(viii) Unlawiiil killing of civilians in Wellington
855. Prosecution Witness TF 1-026, referred to above,2255 told the Trial Chamber that nine
armed RUF rebels attacked her house in Wellington on 6 January 1999.2256 The rebels
ordered the whole family to go outside on the veranda but the witness's sister kept crying
out of fear. The rebels shot TF 1-026's sister to death because they said "she was causing
noise".2257 Witness TF 1-026 iixrther testified that as she was held in captivity by RUF rebels
in Wellington, she saw the rebels amputating a lot of civilians and burning a lot of
houses.2258 The witness heard the rebels tell one man whose hands they amputated to "go
and tell the people that the rebels were coming". The amputated civilian fell down and died
from his wounds.2259 TF 1-026 also saw the rebels set a house on fire in which Mr Wilson, a
crippled teacher, was burnt to death. 2260 The witness also testiHed that she saw the rebels
shoot and kill another civilian man on the way to Calaba Town.2261
856. The Trial Chamber admitted in evidence the transcript of the testimony of
Prosecution Witness TF 1-023 given in another trial.2262 In her prior testimony, Witness TF 1-
023 testified that she was a captive of the AF RC from 22 January 1999 until August
1999.2263 She testified that at one point during this time, on the way to being taken to
2254 Patrrcic sircrrtr, rrcrrccrrpt 8 October 2008, p. 17815.
2255 This witness was captured by RUF rebels led by a commander called CO Rocky on 6 January 1999, from her
home in Wellington at the age of 14 years. She and 50 other civilian captives from her village travelled for
several days with the rebels from Wellington through Calaba Town, Waterloo and then to Makeni.
2256 TFl-026, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3843.
2257 TFl-026, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3843.
225* TFl-026, Transcript 14 rcbrtrcry 2008,p. 3844.
2259 TF1—026, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3845.
m TFl—026. Transcript 14 rcbrmry 2008, p. 3846.
2261 TFl-026, Transcript 14 February 2008, p. 3849.
22°2 Witness TFl-023 testified in the AFRC trial. The transcript of her evidence was admitted as Exhibit P-205A
and P-205B ("prior testimony") under Rule 92bis. In the present trial, the witness gave further evidence. See
Witness TFl-023 Transcript 22 October 2008, pp. l8928—l8967.
2263 Exhibit P-205A, "TFl-023, AFRC Transcript 9 March 2005", pp. 19314-19354 and Exhibit P-205B
(confidential), pp. 19356-19375. See also TFl-023, Transcript 22 October 2008, pp. 18950, 18956.

---- End of Page 331 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-03-01-T JZ 18 May 2012

?>B49—’*1
Waterloo, she heard, but did not see, that the rebels killed some nuns.2264 However, the
Defence confronted Witness TFl—023 with a previous written statement that she gave to
Prosecution investigators wherein she stated that "she had seen the nuns, and then had not
seen them again", and that she "had not seen the rebels commit abuses during the walk to
Waterloo but many civilians and rebels were killed by the Alpha Jets".2265 The witness
confirmed that she had made these statements and that they were truthful.2266
857. Witness Sarah Koroma was living in Loko Town, Wellington with her husband and
six children on 6 Janua 1999.2267 The witness and her famil ran and hid in the bush for a
week, on hearin that rebels armed with ns and knives had attacked Wellin on.2268 The
witness stated that when the rebels arrived, the were dressed in combat uniforms and found
no civilians in Wellington as everybody had run away. The rebels then sent a message
tellin all the civilians to return to their homes and that an one found in the bush thereafter
would be considered an enemy.2269 The witness and her family left the bush to return home
but on the way, the rebels captured them and hacked her husband to death.227O
858. The rebels abducted the witness along with many other civilians. While in captivity,
she saw them hack to death a six- ear—old child whose mother had attem ted to esca e. In
addition, the rebels amputated the witness's left hand and sent her to "go and tell President
Kabbah that they want peace". They also tried to amputate her right hand but it was not
severed.227l On her way to the hospital, the witness ran into a group of drunken rebels who
made fun of her in`uries and accused her of bein "Te`an Kabbah's mother".2272 The witness
fell in a gutter where the rebels repeatedly kicked her, pelted her with empty beer bottles and
stole her money. She Hnally made it to Conaught Hospital alive.
Findings
2262 rr1-023, rrcrrccrrpt 22 October 2008, p. 18956.
2262 TF1—023, Transcript 22 October 2008, pp. 18956—18957.
2266 TF1—023, Transcript 22 October 2008, p. 18957.
2262 TF1—33 1, Transcript 22 October 2008, pp 1898}-18987.
mg TF1—331, Transcript 22 October 2008, p. 18989.
22°° TF1-33 1, Trcrrccrrpt 22 October 2008, p 18990.
222° TF1-33 1, Transcript 22 October 2008, p. 18991.
222* TF1-331, Transcript 22 October 2008, p. 18994.
2222 r1¤1-331, Transcript 22 October 2008, p. 18999.

---- End of Page 332 ---------------------------


Case No.: SCSL-O3-01-T J {ZL 18 May 2012

38’—l9.S`
859. Given the major inconsistency in the evidence of Witness TP 1-023 relating to any
alleged killings that she might have or have not seen committed in Wellington, the Trial
Chamber cannot rely on that evidence. The Trial Chamber however, finds the evidence of
Witness TF 1-026 reliable and credible. Based on that evidence the Trial Chamber finds that
the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that between late December 1998 and
February 1999 rebels, including members of the AFRC/RUP/STP and Liberian fighters,
attacked Wellington and