Charles Taylor Trial: Proceedings, Indictment, and Charges Report

This report provides a detailed analysis of the Charles Taylor trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). It examines the court's proceedings, the indictment against Taylor, and the specific charges, including crimes against humanity and violations of the Geneva Conventions. The report discusses the challenges faced by the SCSL, the legal arguments presented, and the Appeals Chamber's judgment, including the controversial aspects of aiding and abetting. It also highlights the significance of the case as the first completed criminal appeals process involving a former Head of State. The analysis covers the complexities of the evidence, the extraterritoriality of Taylor's actions, and the sentencing, offering a comprehensive overview of the trial's legal and historical context. The report also compares the Taylor case with other international criminal tribunals like ICTY and ICC. The report concludes by assessing the importance of the trial in international criminal law and its implications for justice and accountability.

1
Student Name:
Date:
Institution:

2
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT'S PROCEEDINGS, INDICTMENT AND CHARGES
ON CHARLES TAYLOR OF LIBERIA. The details of the crime and case are to be found
in the internet, relevant books and journal articles.
Ex-Liberian President Charles Taylor faced trial at the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL),
which moved international criminal justice into limelight for nearly half a decade. There is no
doubt that the prosecution of a former Head of State received much international attention. The
Appeals Chamber of SCSL found Charles Taylor guilty and he has been sentenced to
imprisonment for 50 years.
Keeping in view, the significance of the Charles Taylor case, the Taylor trial judgment has been
discussed by several international journals including the International Criminal Justice Journal.
The trial of Charles Taylor is the first completed criminal appeals process in which the fate of a
former Head of State has been judged by the modern international criminal law. However,
considerable debate has been going on if the SCSL can be treated as the pro-first international
criminal tribunal that was going to try a Head of State. For this purpose, the sentencing of Karl
Donitz that was done by the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg has been mentioned as
he was the Head of the German Reich for nearly twenty days before capitulation of Germany.
However, as the International Military Tribunal could not succeed in completing the appeal
process, credit needs to be given to the SCSL of being the first Tribunal to accomplish this
historical task (Briody, 2005). The magnitude of this task can be seen from the time that was
taken by the global society to completely try, a previous Head and also from the realistic
obstacles that have been faced by other courts, like the unfinished Milosevic's trial that took
place before the ICTY or the failure in arresting Bashir for facing trial before the International
Criminal Court. Therefore, in terms of a legal perspective, theSCSL should not only be judged

3
on account of such historic achievement but also keeping in view the soundness of its factual and
legal findings (Cohn, 2001).
Considering the activities of SCSL since May 2002, when the first investigations took place, it
becomes very clear that it was not an easy task to bring Charles Taylor to trial. The Court had to
face a lot of challenges. These included demanding legal queries, financial constraints, the
annoyingly sluggish speed of proceedings, lack of interest on the part of the people of Sierra
Leone towards the end of the verdict, the difficult relationship. That was present with the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission, and also the PGS security situation during the early years of
operation. At the same time, further challenges are added that were exclusive to the Taylor trial.
These included the requirement for the Tribunal to operate in three different nations and two
different continents (Crane, 2006). However these are only some of the challenges among a large
number of challenges that were present in the success of the proceedings in the court. However,
in the end, SCSL were successful in dealing with all these challenges and completed its mandate.
In this way, it contributed in the transition of Sierra Leone to peace and democracy. Now,
looking at the past, a large number of problems that were faced by the court looks like less keen
as compared to the other experiences related with the international criminal regulations.
In the beginning of the proceedings, the sponsors of the court wanted that the court should
convey justice in a period of 3 years. However in the end, the court took more than a decade for
accomplishing its mandate. Only the Taylor case took more than 6 years. During the 11 years of
being of the SCSL, the tribunal provided 13 sentences against the affiliates belonging to all the
warring factions (Danner, Marston and Martinez, 2005). This resulted in eight convictions (not
including the Taylor conviction). There was only one accused, Johnny Paul Koroma who could
not be arrested by the authorities and was believed to be deceased. Two other accused died

4
shortly after the charges were framed against them. Another accused, Sam Hinga Norman died
soon prior to the decision day in Civil Defense Forces Trial. Other than the main "atrocity" trials,
the prosecution also started 12th contempt proceedings, which resulted in 10 convictions (Deen-
Racsma and Zsuzsanna, 2005).
After the Taylor verdict, the SCSL transformed into Residual Special Court for Sierra Leone
shortly after it had completed its directive. The RSCSL statute provides that the court will carry
on the "jurisdiction, rights and obligations and functions" of the SCSL.
The Charles Tyler case: Charles Taylor has been accused by the Court of court accusations of
crimes against humankind (including murder, sexual slavery, rape and additional inhuman acts),
4 accusations of violation of Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and of Additional Protocol II
(These included murder, acts of terrorism, cruel treatment, outrage on a smell dignity, pillage
etc.). Similarly, he was also charged for construction and the use of child soldiers. It was also
alleged against him that Taylor had committed these crimes on the soil of Sierra Leone between
1996 and 2002 remotely from Liberia. The trial court found Taylor guilty on all 11 counts in
2002. Although the conviction of Taylor had the trial may not surprising for a casual observer, he
was in reality, convicted for much less than he was charged with in the beginning by the
prosecution (Elagab, 2004). In this regard, the opinion of the prosecution was that Taylor had
acted along with the rebel leaders of Sierra Leone (the RUF and AFRC). Therefore the
prosecution believed that Taylor and his co-conspirators had the intention of committing all the
crimes that were perpetrated during the civil war going on in Sierra Leone. However this claim
was rejected by the judges as they arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution could not
succeed in establishing the allegation that an agreement was forged by Taylor with the levels of
Sierra Leone for perpetrating atrocities against Sierra Leone people (Farah, 2004).

5
On the other hand, according to the Trial Chamber, Taylor was an accessory. As a result he was
convicted for abetting and aiding and also preparing for crimes in a narrow time structure that
was between August, 1997 and 18 January, 2002. The trial chamber also discovered that Taylor
had abetted and aided these kinds as he provided practical encouragement and assistance to RUF
in committing the crimes in the course of the armed actions that were carried out by this
organization in Sierra Leone. In this context, it was mentioned by the trial chamber that "the
common feature of different types of assistance mentioned above is is to support, sustain and
enhance the operations of RUF, as well as its capability of undertaking military operations
during the course of which, these crimes have been committed". Therefore, significantly and
rather controversially, it was held by the court that the military actions conducted by RUF and
AFRC were inextricably associated with the crimes that have been charged in the indictment
(Gberie, 2005).
As a result, an individualized evaluation of the contribution made by Taylor to the particular
crimes that were committed on the territory of Sierra Leone was not necessary. It was adequate
to establish that the military operations carried on by the rebels were in fact sustained by Taylor.
Therefore, the trial chamber noted that due to the reason that these military operations were
inextricably associated with the commission of the crimes, it was not necessary that substantial
contribution to individual crimes should also be established. Moreover, it was also discovered by
the trial chamber that a plan had been made by Charles Taylor to assault main cities and also
Freetown, the capital, during the later part of 1998 and early 1999, and it was the time when
these kinds have taken place (Haffajee, 2006). Concerning the knowledge that can be attributed
to Taylor, it was discovered by the trial chamber that in fact, Charles Taylor knew very well
regarding the carnage, in any case when he became the president of Liberia in August 1997.

6
Several challenges introduced by the defense on appeal raised questions regarding the
assessment of proof done by the trial adjudicators. The particulars of this case and generally the
facts related with the Civil War were very complex unsurprisingly. The trial judgment had
elaborately relied on circumstantial and hearsay evidence (Hirsch, 2001).
Other than the questions related with evidence, one controversial point on appeal was the
meaning of ‘aiding and abetting’ and if this form of retribution means that the accused should
have added with "specific direction" in the crime. In this regard, the court had expressed the view
that the actus reus of aiding and abetting does not need this type of "specific direction". In this
context, the court depended on the ICTY precedence in Perisic Trial judgment and also in the
Mrksic appeal judgment. While the other cases before the SCSL. In fact made it such an element,
the rejection of the need for such element in the case of Charles Taylor is notable. On the other
hand in Perisic appeals judgment, it has been controversially mentioned by ICTY appeals
chamber that "specific direction" is a essential constituent related with aiding and abetting
(International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia, 2003). Therefore the court stated that in
"most of the cases, providing common aid that may be used for lawful as well as unlawful
activities, is not alone enough for establishing that this aid has been particularly directed to
crimes of main performers. Under these circumstances, for the purpose of entering a conviction
on the basis of aiding and abetting, the evidence which establishes a direct link between the aid
given by the charged person and the relevant crimes that have been committed by main executors
is required".
Another point that needs to be noted in SCSL Appeals Chambers regarding this issue is
remarkable. Therefore, it needs to be mentioned that in CDF case, it had mitigated the accused
from criminal liability for abetting and aiding by giving military apparatus that has been later on

7
used in committing the crimes (Keen, 2005). At the time of this contribution, the fighters of CDF
were notorious for committing atrocities against the civilian population. However, it was
mentioned by the appeals chamber that the "provision of logistics is not sufficient for
establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has contributed in the form of aging and
abetting the commission of particular criminal acts". Therefore, there are striking similarities
present with the case of Charles Taylor. While critically analyzing the legal findings of the trial
chamber, some experts have highlighted significant deficiencies in the try statement of Charles
Taylor, placing the assessment of the judgment within the wider international criminal regulation
jurisprudence related with personal criminal liability by dealing with the outcome of the ruling
given in the appeal in the Perisic case.
As already mentioned, the importance of the case of Charles Taylor is generally due to the detail
that Taylor was impeached when he was the head of state of Liberia. The appeals chamber had
sacked the legal issues related with any claim of immunity in 2004 before the arrest of Charles
Taylor and the initial appearance in 2006 (by this time, Charles Taylor had already stepped down
from presidency). As a result, any issue related with immunity did not feature in the appeal
judgment. However, the special status of Taylor as the Head of State at the time when he
supposedly took part in the offenses in Sierra Leone was considered as an aggravating
circumstance, while delivering the judgment. The special status of Charles Taylor and the
extraterritoriality of the actions of Taylor dropped all the mitigating circumstances (Kelsall,
2004). While critically analyzing the sentencing judgment, some experts have pointed out
towards some of the possible flaws of the sentence for imprisonment of 50 years, in particularly
dealing with the fact that Taylor has been offender as an outcome lies and not as the principal

8
perpetrator of the crime when this sentence given by Charles Taylor was compared with other
offenders of SCSL.
When the sentence that was imposed on Charles Taylor was compared with the other convicts of
SCSL, it was concluded by the analysts that the sentence for imprisonment of 50 years may be
inconsistent. Keeping in view, the detail that extraterritoriality of the actions of Taylor was
treated as an aggravating circumstance is noteworthy. Here the silence of the chamber regarding
the nature of the conflict while delivering the verdict is particularly notable. In other judgments
of the SCSL, it was found that regardless of supposed aid provided by Liberia, the character was
non-international. If this holding is treated as being true, the crimes committed in international
military clashes will regularly require a elevated punishment.
In earlier cases, the SCSL, appeal Chambers judges had upheld the conviction and the sentences
of RUF and AFRC commanders in Sierra Leone. Simultaneously, the lower sentences imposed
by the trial chamber have also been overturned by the judges and the verdicts of the Civil
Defense Forces commanders were also augmented. It is still not clear if the recent controversial
decision that has been given in the case against General Momčilo Perisic by the International
Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia (ICTY) Appeals Chamber had also influenced the Taylor's
appeal. In this case, the ICTY Appeals Chamber had reversed the conviction by trial chamber of
Perisic and stated that "specific direction" is necessary for aiding and abetting conviction,
particularly when the accused was at a remote location from the crimes. In case of Charles
Taylor, apart from planning the attacks by RUF and AFRC that included the attack on Freetown
during 1999, Charles Taylor was also held guilty of aiding and abetting crimes that have been
committed in Sierra Leone while he remained in Liberia. As a result, the SCSL appeals chamber
did not rule out regarding the exact direction condition in terms of aging and abetting as

9
mentioned by the ICTY judges even if this ground has been raised by the defense of Charles
Taylor on appeal.
In this way, the Court has applied both international as well as domestic law. On one hand, it
prosecuted Taylor for offenses against humanity, the violation of Art. 3 that are universal to
Geneva conventions and the additional protocol II as well as as other violations of the global
humanitarian regulations and at the same time, also for the Sierra Leonean crimes like rape and
arson.
In this way, after many years of deliberations, the court found Mr. Charles Taylor guilty of war
crimes and crimes against humanity on account of the role played by him in fomenting
widespread brutality. It was claimed by the prosecutors that the motivation for Mr. Taylor to
commit these gruesome crimes was not any ideology, but instead pure avarice and thirst for
power.

10
References
Briody, Tom. (2005) Feature: Defending war crimes in Africa: The Special Court for Sierra
Leone. The Champion, 29, 34–35
Cohn, Ilene. (2001) The protection of children and the quest for truth and justice in Sierra Leone.
Journal of International Affairs, 55(1), 2–37
Crane, David. (2006) Current issues brief: Charles Taylor on trial. United States Institute of
Peace. [Online]. Available: www.usip.org/events
Danner, Allison Marston, and Martinez, Jenny (2005) Guilty associations: Joint criminal
enterprise, command responsibility, and the development of international criminal law.
California Law Review, 93, 77–169
Deen-Racsma´ NY, Zsuzsanna. (2005) Prosecutor v. Taylor: The status of the Special Court for
Sierra Leone and its implications for immunity. Leiden Journal of International Law, 18, 299–
322.
Elagab, Omer Yousif. (2004) The Special Court for Sierra Leone: Some constraints.
International Journal of Human Rights, 8(3), 249–274.
Farah, Douglas. (2004) Blood from Stones: The Secret Financial Network of Terror (New York:
Broadway Books).
Gberie, Lansana. (2005) A Dirty War in West Africa: The RUF and the Destruction of Sierra
Leone (Bloomington: Indiana University Press).
Haffajee, Rebecca. (2006) Note: Prosecuting crimes of rape and sexual violence at the ICTR:
The application of Joint Criminal Enterprise Theory. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 29,
201–221.

11
Hirsch, John. (2001) Sierra Leone: Diamonds and the Struggle for Democracy (Boulder: Lynne
Rienner Publishers)
International Criminal Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia. (2003) Prosecutor v. Ojdanic, et al Case
No. IT-99-37-AR72 Separate Opinion of Judge David Hunt on Challenge by Ojdanic to
Jurisdiction Joint Criminal Enterprise, May 21. [Online]. Available: http://www.un.org/icty
Keen, David. (2005) Conflict and Collusion in Sierra Leone (New York: Palgrave).
Kelsall, Tim. (2004) Politics, Anti-Politics, International Justice: Notes on the Special Court for
Sierra Leone. Paper presented at the conference “Settling Accounts: Truth, Justice and Redress
in Post-Conflict Societies, November 1–4, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.