Sierra Leone Special Court addresses whether indictees can benefit from amnesties: LCHR, Redress and the International Commission of Jurists intervene as amicus curiae

On November 3, 2024 a special criminal court set up as part of Sierra Leone’s post-conflict transition held hearings to determine whether it should recognize amnesties granted as part of the peace agreement, the Lomé Accord. LCHR, together with two other human rights organizations, Redress and the International Commission of Jurists, accepted by the Appeals Chamber of the court as amicus curiae, argued that amnesties cannot apply for those who have committed the most heinous of crimes. The submissions made are available at http://www.lchr.org/international_justice/w_context/amicus_curiae_brief.pdf.

The Special Court was established to try war crimes, crimes against humanity and other serious violations committed in that country’s long and bloody conflict that began in 1996. (See Lawyers Committee for Human Rights, “The Special Court for Sierra Leone”. The Court has so far issued thirteen indictments, including against former Liberian President Charles Taylor.

As cases begin to move towards trial, the defense has argued that prosecution is barred because the Lomé Accord of 1999, the agreement that ended the conflict between warring parties, provided that the government of Sierra Leone would grant an amnesty to ex-combatants. The Statute of the Special Court itself, following a specific request from the Security Council, however, explicitly prohibits the Court from recognizing amnesties.

LCHR, together with the London-based organization Redress and the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists, applied to intervene in the case of Morris Kallon. Kallon is accused of responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes while a senior officer in the Revolutionary United Front, the armed rebel group led by Foday Sankoh that began armed operations against the government in 1991 and shared power with the leaders of the military coup that took power in 1997.

In the amicus brief, we argued that recognizing the Lomé amnesties would be inconsistent with obligations that exist under international law to investigate, prosecute and punish perpetrators of serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law that constitute crimes under international law. It would also go against the right of the victims of those crimes to a remedy and to reparation. The brief sets out statements and decisions of the United Nations, international, regional and domestic courts, and the opinions of leading academics, rejecting the notion of amnesties for serious violations. Most recently, in August 2003 Argentina’s Senate declared null and void amnesty laws that had blocked the investigation of human rights abuses committed during the country’s “dirty war” of 1976-83.

The court is expected to rule on the matter in the next few weeks.

BACKGROUND

The Special Court for Sierra Leone was established on the basis of an agreement between the U.N. and the Government of Sierra Leone concluded in 2002. Charged with prosecuting those bearing the greatest responsibility for the serious atrocities perpetrated in Sierra Leone since 1996, it has so far issued thirteen indictments, including against former Liberian President Charles Taylor, currently in exile in Nigeria, rebel leader Foday Sankoh, who died in July 2003 and other leading figures. The Court, which was given a three-year mandate, relies on voluntary contributions from states to fund its work.

Unlike the International Criminal Tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda (the ICTY and ICTR), which sit outside the area of conflict in The Hague and Arusha, Tanzania respectively, the Special Court is based within Sierra Leone itself. Also unlike the ICTY and ICTR, the Special Court is of mixed composition, with some judges and other staff being appointed by the U.N. and others by the host government. It also applies Sierra Leonean law as well as international law. For these reasons it is known as a “mixed” or “hybrid” tribunal, unlike the ICTY and ICTR which are organs of the U.N.