Country: Liberia


Event: Pearl-MUN 2006

Student: Sulaiman Al-Khaled and Ahmad Al-Shammari

The Defense of Former President Charles Taylor




Links to other sites on the Web:

Back to the 2005-2006 Team page
Back to the 2006 Pearl-MUN page
Back to the Briefing Book Library
Back to Teams
Back to Fruit Home




The Liberian National Anthem

Liberia

All hail, Liberia, hail!
(repeat)

This glorious land of liberty
Shall long be ours.
Though new her name,
Green be her fame,
And mighty be her powers,
(repeat)

In joy and gladness
With our hearts united,
We'll shout the freedom
Of a race benighted,
Long live Liberia, happy land!
A home of glorious liberty,
By God's command!
(repeat last two sentences)

All hail, Liberia, hail!
(repeat)

In union strong success is sure*
We cannot fail!
With God above
Our rights to prove
We will o'er all prevail,
(repeat)

With heart and hand
Our country's cause defending
We'll meet the foe
With valour unpretending.
Long live Liberia, happy land!
A home of glorious liberty,
By God's command!
(repeat last two sentences)

* Note the unintended irony

The Republic of Liberia

 

The Charles Taylor Case

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHARLES TAYLOR IS NOT GUILTY 2
RANKOH OMAR, ONE OF THE RUF COMMANDERS 2
FORMER CIA AGENT 2
ANY WITNESS WHO IS FORCED OR INFLUENCED IS BAD: 3
THE CASE WAS POLITICALLY INFLUENCED 4
USA
4
Money influenced USA to trial him 5
Sanctions on Charles 5
USA tried to exterminate Charles by force 5
UK 6
UN 6
PEOPLE WHO FUND AND SUPPORT ARE NOT GUILTY 7
PARALLEL EXAMPLES 7
USA FUNDED NICARAGUA REVOLUTIONARY FIGHTER 7
USA gave WOMD to IRAQ, 7
BAD DECISION TO TRIAL HIM 8
UNREST IN SIERRA LEONE 8
UN advisor: African Research Committee Revolution was Good 8
Revolution was Good 9
Dr. Paulís visit said that everyone liked Mr. Taylor 9
Economic conditions improved in Liberia under the Taylorís government. 9
Social Reform improvement 9
CHAOS IN WESTERN AFRICA MADE ARMED CONFLICTS A MUST 10
Low chance of no bound to be war crimes 10
The chaos made war crimes inevitable 10
MISTRIAL 11
Nigeria escape 11
Statistics of civil strives 12
He provided weapons it to protect his country 13
RUF made several threats to Charles Taylor 13
WITNESSES 14
AFRC/RUF commander: Hamza Amin 14
International Law Expert 15

 

 

 

The Memorandum

A. Statement of Facts:

1. Charles Ghankay Taylor (born January 28, 1948) is a Liberian leader who served as President of Liberia from 1997 to 2003.
2. Charles Taylor was briefly arrested in 1972 in the US (New York)
3. On May 24, 1984 Taylor was arrested by 2 US Deputy Marshals in Somerville, Massachusetts.
4. Taylorís wife was, Enid Taylor, was held without bail on September 231984.
5. Foday Sankoh who began the war in Sierra Lyone through the RUF relied on Taylor and traded diamonds for guns.
6. Sam Bokarie the next RUF leader was advised bay Charles Taylor on and of for five years beginning in 1997.
7. During his absence for peace talks in Ghana on June, 4,2003 the US urged Taylorís Vice President Moses Blah to seize power.
8. US President George Bush Twice said Taylor " Must Leave Liberia" in July 2003
9. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), under the leadership of Nigeria, sent troops to Liberia with the assistance of $10 million from the US.
10. On August 6, a 32-member U.S. military assessment team was deployed as a liaison with the ECOWAS troops
11. On August Eleven the US brought 3 warships with 2,300 warships to oversee Taylorís exile from Liberia.
12. In November 2003, the United States Congress passed a bill that included a reward offer of two million dollars for Taylor's capture.
13. Charles Ghankay Taylor (born January 28, 1948) is a Liberian leader who served as President of Liberia from 1997 to 2003.
14. Charles Taylor advised Sam Bokarie the next RUF leader for five years beginning in 1997.
15. During his absence for peace talks in Ghana on June, 4,2003 the US urged Taylorís Vice President Moses Blah to seize power.
16. Charles Taylor was briefly arrested in 1972 in the US (New York)
17. On May 24, 1984 Taylor was arrested by 2 US Deputy Marshals in Somerville, Massachusetts
18. Taylorís wife was, Enid Taylor, was held without bail on September 231984.
19. Foday Sankoh who began the war in Sierra Lyone through the RUF relied on Taylor and traded diamonds for guns.
20. US President George Bush Twice said Taylor " Must Leave Liberia" in July 2003
21. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), under the leadership of Nigeria, sent troops to Liberia with the assistance of $10 million from the US.
22. On August 6, a 32-member U.S. military assessment team was deployed as a liaison with the ECOWAS troops
23. On August Eleven the US brought 3 warships with 2,300 warships to oversee Taylorís exile from Liberia.
24. In November 2003, the United States Congress passed a bill that included a reward offer of two million dollars for Taylor's capture.

 

B. Legal Claims:

1.Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

2. The International Criminal Court (ICC). The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
a. Killing members of the group;
b. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
c. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
d. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
e. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group. Definition of rape: "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will" Current international laws that touch on rape are mainly contained in four documents:
1. The 1949 Geneva Conventions
2. The 1977 Supplementary Protocols of the Geneva Conventions
3. The body of law from the Nuremberg Tribunal held at the close of World War II
4. The Military Tribunal of the Far East. 12

2. Terrorism: While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism [1], the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert AP Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs: Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). [2] UN short legal definition also proposed by AP Schmid: an act of terrorism is the "peacetime equivalent of a war crime."

3. Definition of rape: "unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will Current international laws that touch on rape are mainly contained in four documents:
a. The 1949 Geneva Conventions
b. The 1977 Supplementary Protocols of the Geneva Conventions
c. The body of law from the Nuremberg Tribunal held at the close of World War II
d. The Military Tribunal of the Far East. 12
Article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention states that "women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honor, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault."

 

C. Redress Wanted:

1. That Charles Taylor is acquitted of all charges against him.
2. An official apology from the nation of Sierra Lyone.
3. 1.5 Million Dollars in compensation for mental trauma suffered by Charles Taylor.
4. Million Dollars in compensation for jail time Charles Taylor faced in Sierra Leon

 

 

 

The Case Presentation



A. RANKOH OMAR, the Case is Political

1. I, Omar Rankoh, was one of the RUF commanders from years 1991 till 2000. RUF did not receive any orders or official notices from Liberia or Charles Taylor. The RUF had its autonomous status and its own commanding unit. Charles Taylor was not part of it. Africa Times SIERRA LEONE TRIAL: WHY TAYLOR? ISSUE 2006 APRIL Omar Rankoh, was one of the RUF commanders from years 1991 till 2000. FORMER CIA AGENT We have full knowledge that the RUF is an autonomous faction. It operates from within Sierra Leone. Its backbone for weapons is its diamond trade with Charles Taylor. That was their only connection with him. He didnít give orders to them." CIA former agent: Sharon Renolds, West-Africa Division, Worked from years 1988-2002, Africa Times article

 

2. ANY WITNESS WHO IS FORCED OR INFLUENCED IS BAD:

"section 315 (1) of the CPC stipulates that, Ďa confession which has been obtained through duress, violence, or intimidation or in exchange or promise for any benefit whatsoever or by any other means contrary to the free will of the maker of the confession shall be inadmissible in evidence.í " http://www.postnewsline.com/2006/03/law_without_bou_3.html

 

 

B. THE CASE WAS POLITICALLY INFLUENCED

1. USA:

"Ironically, it appears that the only place the Special Court for Sierra Leone can hear this case is outside Sierra Leone. There is further irony in the proposal to move Mr. Taylor to The Hague. Moving Mr. Taylor's trial to the premises of the International Criminal Court - an institution, which the Bush Administration has actively opposed - represents a victory for the fledgling ICC. It is more than likely that the Bushís Administration will try to make him guilty. This is indeed, a remarkable reversal for the Bush Administration, which has been adamant in its opposition to the International Criminal Court. The Bush Administration has been implacably opposed to supporting the ICC, going to great lengths to have other, smaller nations promise to refuse cooperation with the ICCÖPerhaps these ironies are reassuring, as they reveal the complex politics surrounding international criminal accountability. The re-location of the Sierra Leone Special Court to The Hague, and the American support of this proposal, would constitute a part of a constructive ferment in international criminal law." Amy Ross is a professor in the University of Georgia Department of Geography specializing in human rights, international justice, geographies of justice, genocide, and the spatiality of violence. Chandra Lekha Sriram is Chair of Human Rights at the University of East London School of Law (UK).

 

2. April 4, 2006

"Charles Taylorís prosecution will most likely cause unrest in Sierra Leone Liberia and a great part of west Africa yet P.W Botha of South Africa and many others were granted amnesty for their atrocities in the name of peace, why not Taylor? The answer is evidently due to the political influence which is aimed on making Charles Taylor guilty at any cost!" SX Professor A. Bolaji Akineymi, Harvard University specializing in international justice and international politics.

 

3. "Charles Taylorís case is politically motivated by the USA and other countries who want his head"

The Use and Abuse of the International Court of Justice: Cases concerning the Use of Force after Nicaragua Christine Gray Professor in International Law, Politics, Cambridge University Money influenced USA to trial him

 

4. Andrew Jonathan, a former researcher in the state department of the United States provide the following facts.

Their came a parting of ways between Taylor and Washington and the Americans never forgave him after Taylor committed political suicide by refusing to allow the Americans to exploit Liberiaís offshore oil on terms very disadvantageous to Liberia. Instead he wanted the Chinese who have excellent offshore oil technology to do the job and on better terms for Liberia. Economically Taylor made the right choice but politically it was his death warrant. If he had allowed the Americans to exploit the oil, he would still be in power today and the current circus about war crimes would not have happened in the first place. However, the policy is to put him in trial and then get his countryís resources from the next president who is a very good friend to the USA." Andrew Jonathan, a former researcher in the state department of the United States. PhD in international economics and specialist in US Policies

 

5. Sanctions on Charles

"When Taylor cleanly won the 1997 Liberian presidential election with 75.33% of the votes in an election deemed fair by the international community the USA imposed an unofficial economic and UN military sanctions in an attempt to paralyze Taylor ability to govern" Clayton Goodwin, former CIA analyst

 

6. USA tried to exterminate Charles by force

"Washington moved up a gear by using the CIA to train a rebel group in the forests of Guinea to attack Taylorís government starting in mid-1998."Clayton Goodwin, former CIA analyst (a)"America (with Britain in tow) is trying to settle scores with Charles Taylor, and this has been dressed up as war crimes" Baffour Ankomah editor of New African
A. The 1989 rebel war in Liberia was a CIA Job. Clayton Goodwin Former CIA analyst B. During the war there was full co-operation between me and the US government and every move we took, we consulted Washington first" Charles Taylor Baffour Ankomah editor of New African."
C. Their came a parting of ways between Taylor and Washington and the Americans never forgave him after Taylor committed political suicide by refusing to allow the Americans to exploit Liberiaís offshore oil on terms very disadvantageous to Liberia . Instead he wanted the Chinese who have excellent offshore oil technology to do the job and on better terms for Liberia. Economically Taylor made the right choice but politically it was his death warrant. If he had allowed the Americans to exploit the oil, he would still be in power today and the current circus about war crimes would not have happened in the first place." Professor Professor A. Bolaji Akineymi, a Harvard University specializing in international justice and international politics."
D. When Taylor cleanly won the 1997 Liberian presidential election with 75.33% of the votes in an election deemed fair by the international community the USA imposed an unofficial economic and UN military sanctions in an attempt to paralyze Taylor ability to govern
E. Washington moved up a gear by using the CIA to train a rebel group in the forests of Guinea to attack Taylorís government starting in mid-1998

 

7. UK

The UN Military sanctions resolution was backed and written by the UK. Britain has been flying arms to the LURD rebels, dropping them in Sierra Leoneís Parrot beak, arms with serial numbers that have been traced back to Britain have been seized from LURD rebels" Lansana Gberie is a doctoral student at the University of Toronto and research associate at the Laurier Center for Military, Strategic and Disarmament Studies, Waterloo, Ontario. He worked as an investigative journalist in Sierra Leone between 1990 and 1996, and has studied journalism in the United States, including a period of time with the Kansas City Star. He has written extensively on Sierra Leonean history and politics. His 1997 Masterís Thesis (Wilfrid Laurier University) was entitled "War and Collapse: The Case of Sierra Leone

 

8. UN

(a)The Charles Taylor government received US punitive sanctions for according to the UN, supporting the RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Guinea supports the LURD rebels that have no political agenda who are attacked Liberia and received no sanctions not even a slap on the wrist." Professor Professor A. Bolaji Akineymi, a Harvard University specializing in international justice and international politics.
(b)The UN denied Liberia the right to self defense even under Article 51 of the UN Charter;
Professor Professor A. Bolaji Akineymi, a Harvard University specializing in international justice and international politics.

 

 

C. PEOPLE WHO FUND AND SUPPORT ARE NOT GUILTY: PARALLEL EXAMPLES

1. USA FUNDED NICARAGUA REVOLUTIONARY FIGHTER

"The revolutionary fighters in Nicaragua engaged in a full-scale civil war with the former government. They committed many crimes against humanity including rape, torture, mass killings, genocide, and many more acts. Although the USA admitted its funding and support for the groups, the United States government were found not guilty for the crimes committed against humanity because
A. The groups were acting autonomously and the USA never forced them to commit those crimes.
B. The funding and support was based on but not limited to common ideological and economic relationships. No links whatsoever to the USA actually committing or advising to commit any crime."

 

2. The facts about the Nicaragua case VS USA Dr. Xing Lee, Ph.D. in international law from Cambridge.

USA gave WOMD to IRAQ, where they were used against their people. Yet USA is found not guilty by the international law. "The Iraqi regime sold WMD from the USA at the times of the Iraqi-Iranian War. However, Iraq did not only break international treaties upon using the WMDs against Iran, it also broke many humanitarian international laws when they attacked the Kurds in Halabja in 1998 and various Iraqi civilians. By law, the American government is not guilty of any crimes that the Iraqi government committed using the American aid for a number of reasons. The most obvious wasÖ One, Iraq is an autonomous state. Two, USA sold the weapons based on a free trade agreement. Yet the agreement didnít include liabilities by the US on the method of use."

 

3. Key notes about the American hypocrisy: Law Dr. Julia Simpson PhD in international law, UCLA, USC.

"The Nicaragua-USA case ended in the USA getting a non guilty verdict because the Nicaraguan rebellion was autonomous." The Use and Abuse of the International Court of Justice: Cases concerning the Use of Force after Nicaragua Christine Gray Professor in International Law, Cambridge University

 

 

D. BAD DECISION TO TRY HIM


1. UNREST IN SIERRA LEONE

"Charles Taylorís prosecution will most likely cause unrest in Sierra Leone Liberia and a great part of west Africa yet P.W Botha of South Africa and many others were granted amnesty for their atrocities in the name of peace, why not Taylor?" Professor Professor A. Bolaji Akineymi, a Harvard University specializing in international justice and international politics.

 

2. "Situations have gotten worse and worse with Charles Taylor being arrested"

Anthony Melo UN advisor: African Research Committee Revolution was Good: Dr. Paulís visit said that everyone liked Mr. Taylor. But after I got there, I was shocked of the popularity the man had because I was in Cuba after meeting with Castro, people told me so many terrible things, including the bishops and everyone had negative things to say about Castro. I was in Yugoslavia with Milosevic in 1999 and no one had positive things to say about Milosevic. I was in Iraq with Saddam and nobody had nice things to say about Saddam Hussein; but with Charles Taylor it was so different. Dr. K. A. Paul, Spiritual Advisor, St. Maryís University Visited Charles Taylor on a peace mission by the UN Visited various mission across the world (India, Pakistan, Iraq, Cuba, Congo etc.)

 

 

3. Economic conditions improved in Liberia under the Taylorís government.

After the overthrow of the former government, many social economic conditions improved. The new government gave lots of money to the poor and provided more services that what was provided by the past government. Relatively to the previous government, the economic conditions improved under the reign of Charles Taylor. BBC news Mr. Bodai Sanchez Economic researcher

 

 

4. Social Reform improvement

Compared to Liberiaís former status, Mr. Charles Taylor significantly improved their status economic equity status. He decreased the percentage of people that were under the line poverty from 45% to 36%. Although poverty hasnít been removed, it was decreased. Hassan Sulaimani Economics major and researcher at ECOSOC

 

 

 

E. CHAOS IN WESTERN AFRICA MADE ARMED CONFLICTS A MUST

1. Low chance of no bound to be war crimes

Although Iím against armed conflicts, I see that there was a very low chance for Sierra Leoneís government to survive without engaging in armed confrontations. Also, it is imminent for the Charles Taylor to support the RUF/AFRC to maintain his power because they could potentially attack him Researcher at the Global Policy "Armed conflict is a must in Africa: low possibility of peace" Timur Sahnas

 

2. The chaos made war crimes inevitable

"After assessing the status of Liberia/ Sierra Leone at various years from 1990-2003, it is impossible to disregard the fact that chaos is there. War crimes are bound to happen. They might not be justified all the time. But they are THERE! Dr. Ahmad Murtatha Red Crescent official. Sent various times to help in West Africa

 

 

F. MISTRIAL

"Taylor accepted an immunity from any prosecution deal brokered by ECOWAS, the AU, UN, USA, and UK that took him into exile in Nigeria on August 2003." The UN and US are backing the SCSL violating an agreement they themselves brokered. Professor A. Bolaji Akineymi, a Harvard University specializing in international justice and international politics.

 

1. Nigeria escape

"Taylorís alleged escape was actually a set-up by Nigerian president Obasanjo. Unimpeachable sources close to Nigerian security after the escape agreement had been reached . Taylor was offered Naira 50 million . He was to find alternative sanctuary because international pressure to hand him over was becoming overwhelming and he would be announced a free man once he reached his new sanctuary. ON March 27 half of the promised N50M was delivered. The government supplied Taylor with a green BMW getaway car. He was given 2 Nigerian escorts and half way through switched to a BULLET PROOF JEEP. A message came in from Calabar that Taylor was announced a fugitive and upon reaching the first Cameroon- Nigeria border checkpoint was caught" Lansana Gberie is a doctoral student at the University of Toronto and research associate at the Laurier Center for Military, Strategic and Disarmament Studies, Waterloo, Ontario. He worked as an investigative journalist in Sierra Leone between 1990 and 1996, and has studied journalism in the United States, including a period of time with the Kansas City Star. He has written extensively on Sierra Leonean history and politics. His 1997 Masterís Thesis (Wilfrid Laurier University) was entitled "War and Collapse: The Case of Sierra Leone".

 

2. Statistics of civil strives

During the Second World War in Yugoslavia the Nazis, Chetniks, Croatian Ustashi, and the communist Partisans and successor Tito regime committed massive democide. The Croatians alone may have murdered some 655,000 people, the greater majority Serbs. The Tito regime itself killed in cold blood some 500,000 people, mainly "collaborators," "anti-communists," rival guerrillas, Ustashi, and critics. And after the war it probably killed even more people, now also including the rich, landlords, bourgeoisie, clerics, and in the later 1940s, even pro-Soviet communists.

 

3. "DRCongo: 5 Million deaths, Rwanda: 800,000 thousand deaths"

" The horrendous atrocities committed by the western backed Unita rebels in Angola are comparable to those committed in Sierra Leone" New African war correspondent Osie Boateng " In Rwanda: French troops moved United Nations peacekeepers away from a college where they were protecting 2,000 Tutsis, and after the peacekeepers were moved, the Tutsis were slaughtered." New African war correspondent Osie Boateng

 

4. He provided weapons it to protect his country

RUF made several threats to Charles Taylor Charles told me a lot that he is being threatened by many militia groups including the Lords Army, the RUF and others that would try to overthrow him. However, he tries to quell most of them through diplomacy and trade. Dr. K. A. Paul, Spiritual Advisor, St. Maryís University Visited Charles Taylor on a peace mission by the UN Visited various mission across the world (India, Pakistan, Iraq, Cuba, Congo etc.) RUF in many occasions did try to threaten the peace and security of Liberia, but Charles Taylorís diplomacy with both the RUF and the Sierra Leone governments evaded it. Africa Times SIERRA LEONE TRIAL: WHY TAYLOR? ISSUE 2006 APRIL Omar Rankoh, was one of the RUF commanders from years 1991 till 2000.

 

 

G. WITNESSES

1. AFRC/RUF commander: Hamza Amin

You are a commander of the RUF/AFRC, known as the Revolutionary United Front. You have committed many criminal acts against civilians of Sierra Leone. Most of the time, you committed them without the knowledge of your leader SANKOH. You worked with many commanding officials such as Bokharie etc.
Q: You have never received orders or any type of communications from Charles Taylor or from Liberian officials
Q: You are guilty of all the things that they say you didÖ but the point is that Charles didnít order you.
Q: If you are asked questions that are weird look at meÖa head scratch means admit or go with the follow/ a beard scratch is deny
Q: If youíre forced, admit having Liberian people in your group but not related to the Liberian government.
The organized armed group that became known as the RUF, led by FODAY SAYBANA SANKOH aka POPAY aka PAPA aka PA, was founded about 1988 or 1989 in Libya. The RUF, under the leadership of FODAY SAYBANA SANKOH, began organized-armed operations in Sierra Leone in March 1997. During the ensuing armed conflict, the RUF forces were also referred to as "RUF", "rebels" and "Peopleís Army". Initially the RUF fought against the Republic of Sierra Leone Military Forces, commonly known as the Sierra Leone Army of SLA. International Law Expert, Name: Andrew Kalen, PHD in International Law Cambridge

 

2. The RUF

First, remember when asked to talk about specific laws that you donít know, tell them you donít remember it but you will be glad to interpret it after reading it.
Q: What happens if the prosecution accuses a person of a crime but fails to define it?
A. Based on Article 22. The defense is entitled for their favorable definition. If however, there is a definition but itís very ambiguous then it should be interpreted to favor the defendant.
Q: tell us how could a person be responsible for a crime.
A. ACCORDING TO article 25 of the ROME STATUTE
The person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
IF the person has provided aid to the act he/she must have the following
Their contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or
(ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime
Q. When can a person be excluded from his crimes?
Q. What is Guilty in the ICC
A. If the guilt sticks on a person and there is no doubt whatsoever that he isnít guilty then he is guilty. Unlike the ICJ, where the more the evidence the better. A PERSONíS Life is on stake. Therefore, justice takes no pride in punishing innocent people.
Q. When can we prosecute a person for his subordinates actions?
A. Well, According to the Hague convention 1899, the commander must be responsible for his subordinates. Moreover, he/she have known or should have known what his subordinates were doing. Also, he/she failed to stop them or punish them. He/she must have had effective responsibility and control over his subordinates. Subordinations of his subordinates grant him innocence.

 

 

H. Legal Documents

1. Definitions: Genocide

Genocide is defined by the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) article 2 as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: "Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:"
(A) Killing members of the group;
(B) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(C) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(D) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group

 

2. Definition: rape

ICC Ďunlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the willí

 

3. Definition: Terrorism

Terrorism: While the United Nations has not yet accepted a definition of terrorism [1], the UN's "academic consensus definition," written by terrorism expert AP Schmid and widely used by social scientists, runs: Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby - in contrast to assassination - the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperiled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought," (Schmid, 1988). Geneva Protocol III Part I: General provisions ARTICLE 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, 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, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) Taking of hostages;
(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees, which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.


(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for. An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict. The Parties to the conflict should further endeavor to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention. The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict

 

4. SUBORDINATE / COMMANDER RESPONSIBILITY

The actual principle of command responsibility was recognized as early as 1907 in the Hague Convention.23Article IV of The Hague Convention of 1907 states that " The laws, rights, and duties of war apply not only to armies, but also to militia and volunteer corps fulfilling the following condition: (1) To be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinatesÖ." The adoption of the Hague convention of 1899 and 1907 regulating the conduct of war established the first binding international laws governing the actions of states during times of war. NEW ENGLAND SCHOOL OF LAW INTERNATIONAL WARCRIMES PROJECT ISSUE # 10: DEFINING WHO IS A SUBORDINATE, UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL DOCTRINE OF COMMAND RESPONSIBILITY. Prepared By: Mona H Savastano PHD CRIMINAL INTERNATIONAL LAW

 

5. The Rome Statute

Article 28 Responsibility of commanders and other superiors ROME STATUTE In addition to other grounds of criminal responsibility under this Statute for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court:
(a) A military commander or person effectively acting as a military commander shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by forces under his or her effective command and control, or effective authority and control as the case may be, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such forces, where: HE IS THE PERSON RESPONSABLE
(i) That military commander or person either knew or, owing to the circumstances at the time, should have known that the forces were committing or about to commit such crimes; and
(ii) That military commander or person failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.
(b) With respect to superior and subordinate relationships not described in paragraph (a), a superior shall be criminally responsible for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court committed by subordinates under his or her effective authority and control, as a result of his or her failure to exercise control properly over such subordinates, where:
(i) The superior either knew, or consciously disregarded information, which clearly indicated, that the subordinates were committing or about to commit such crimes;
(ii) The crimes concerned activities that were within the effective responsibility and control of the superior; and
(iii) The superior failed to take all necessary and reasonable measures within his or her power to prevent or repress their commission or to submit the matter to the competent authorities for investigation and prosecution.

 

6. ROME STATUTE Article 7

2. For the purpose of paragraph 1:
(a) "Attack directed against any civilian population" means a course of conduct involving the multiple commission of acts referred to in paragraph 1 against any civilian population, pursuant to or in furtherance of a State or organizational policy to commit such attack;
(b) "Extermination" includes the intentional infliction of conditions of life, inter alia the deprivation of access to food and medicine, calculated to bring about the destruction of part of a population;
(c) "Enslavement" means the exercise of any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership over a person and includes the exercise of such power in the course of trafficking in persons, in particular women and children;
(d) "Deportation or forcible transfer of population" means forced displacement of the persons concerned by expulsion or other coercive acts from the area in which they are lawfully present, without grounds permitted under international law;
(e) "Torture" means the intentional infliction of severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, upon a person in the custody or under the control of the accused; except that torture shall not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to, lawful sanctions;
(f) "Forced pregnancy" means the unlawful confinement of a woman forcibly made pregnant, with the intent of affecting the ethnic composition of any population or carrying out other grave violations of international law. This definition shall not in any way be interpreted as affecting national laws relating to pregnancy;
(g) "Persecution" means the intentional and severe deprivation of fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group or collectivity;
(h) "The crime of apartheid" means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime;
(i) "Enforced disappearance of persons" means the arrest, detention or abduction of persons by, or with the authorization, support or acquiescence of, a State or a political organization, followed by a refusal to acknowledge that deprivation of freedom or to give information on the fate or whereabouts of those persons, with the intention of removing them from the protection of the law for a prolonged period of time.

 

7. Article 9 Elements of Crimes

1. Elements of Crimes shall assist the Court in the interpretation and application of articles 6, 7 and 8. They shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.
2. Amendments to the Elements of Crimes may be proposed by:
(a) Any State Party;
(b) The judges acting by an absolute majority;
(c) The Prosecutor.
Such amendments shall be adopted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Assembly of States Parties.
3. The Elements of Crimes and amendments thereto shall be consistent with this Statute.
Article 22 (definition in favour of accused)
Nullum crimen sine lege
1. A person shall not be criminally responsible under this Statute unless the conduct in question constitutes, at the time it takes place, a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court.
2. The definition of a crime shall be strictly construed and shall not be extended by analogy. In case of ambiguity, the definition shall be interpreted in favour of the person being investigated, prosecuted or convicted.

 

8. Article 25 Individual criminal responsibility

1. The Court shall have jurisdiction over natural persons pursuant to this Statute.
2. A person who commits a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court shall be individually responsible and liable for punishment in accordance with this Statute.
3. In accordance with this Statute, a person shall be criminally responsible and liable for punishment for a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court if that person:
(a) Commits such a crime, whether as an individual, jointly with another or through another person, regardless of whether that other person is criminally responsible;
(b) Orders, solicits or induces the commission of such a crime which in fact occurs or is attempted;
(c) For the purpose of facilitating the commission of such a crime, aids, abets or otherwise assists in its commission or its attempted commission, including providing the means for its commission;
(d) In any other way contributes to the commission or attempted commission of such a crime by a group of persons acting with a common purpose. Such contribution shall be intentional and shall either:
(i) Be made with the aim of furthering the criminal activity or criminal purpose of the group, where such activity or purpose involves the commission of a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; or (ii) Be made in the knowledge of the intention of the group to commit the crime;
(e) In respect of the crime of genocide, directly and publicly incites others to commit genocide;
(f) Attempts to commit such a crime by taking action that commences its execution by means of a substantial step, but the crime does not occur because of circumstances independent of the person's intentions. However, a person who abandons the effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevents the completion of the crime shall not be liable for punishment under this Statute for the attempt to commit that crime if that person completely and voluntarily gave up the criminal purpose.
4. No provision in this Statute relating to individual criminal responsibility shall affect the responsibility of States under international law.

 

9. Article 31 Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility

1. In addition to other grounds for excluding criminal responsibility provided for in this Statute, a person shall not be criminally responsible if, at the time of that person's conduct:
(a) The person suffers from a mental disease or defect that destroys that person's capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of law;
(b) The person is in a state of intoxication that destroys that person's capacity to appreciate the unlawfulness or nature of his or her conduct, or capacity to control his or her conduct to conform to the requirements of law, unless the person has become voluntarily intoxicated under such circumstances that the person knew, or disregarded the risk, that, as a result of the intoxication, he or she was likely to engage in conduct constituting a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court;
(c) The person acts reasonably to defend himself or herself or another person or, in the case of war crimes, property which is essential for the survival of the person or another person or property which is essential for accomplishing a military mission, against an imminent and unlawful use of force in a manner proportionate to the degree of danger to the person or the other person or property protected. The fact that the person was involved in a defensive operation conducted by forces shall not in itself constitute a ground for excluding criminal responsibility under this subparagraph;
(d) The conduct which is alleged to constitute a crime within the jurisdiction of the Court has been caused by duress resulting from a threat of imminent death or of continuing or imminent serious bodily harm against that person or another person, and the person acts necessarily and reasonably to avoid this threat, provided that the person does not intend to cause a greater harm than the one sought to be avoided. Such a threat may either be:
3. At trial, the Court may consider a ground for excluding criminal responsibility other than those referred to in paragraph 1 where such a ground is derived from applicable law as set forth in article 21. The procedures relating to the consideration of such a ground shall be provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

 

10. Article 66 Presumption of innocence

1. Everyone shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty before the Court in accordance with the applicable law.
2. The onus is on the Prosecutor to prove the guilt of the accused.
3. In order to convict the accused, the Court must be convinced of the guilt of the accused beyond doubt.

 

11. Article 69 Evidence

1. Before testifying, each witness shall, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, give an undertaking as to the truthfulness of the evidence to be given by that witness.
6. The Court shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but may take judicial notice of them.

 

12. Article 72 Protection of national security information

1. This article applies in any case where the disclosure of the information or documents of a State would, in the opinion of that State, prejudice its national security interests. Such cases include those falling within the scope of article 56, paragraphs 2 and 3, article 61, paragraph 3, article 64, paragraph 3, article 67, para-graph 2, article 68, paragraph 6, article 87, paragraph 6 and article 93, as well as cases arising at any other stage of the proceedings where such disclosure may be at issue.
2. This article shall also apply when a person who has been requested to give information or evidence has refused to do so or has referred the matter to the State on the ground that disclosure would prejudice the national security interests of a State and the State concerned confirms that it is of the opinion that disclosure would prejudice its national security interests.
3. Nothing in this article shall prejudice the requirements of confidentiality applicable under article 54, paragraph 3 ( e ) and ( f ), or the application of article 73.
4. If a State learns that information or documents of the State are being, or are likely to be, disclosed at any stage of the proceedings, and it is of the opinion that disclosure would prejudice its national security interests, that State shall have the right to intervene in order to obtain resolution of the issue in accordance with this article.
5. If, in the opinion of a State, disclosure of information would prejudice its national security interests, all reasonable steps will be taken by the State, acting in conjunction with the Prosecutor, the defence or the Pre-Trial Chamber or Trial Chamber, as the case may be, to seek to resolve the matter by cooperative means. Such steps may include:
(a) Modification or clarification of the request;
(b) A determination by the Court regarding the relevance of the information or evidence sought, or a determination as to whether the evidence, though relevant, could be or has been obtained from a source other than the requested State;
(c) Obtaining the information or evidence from a different source or in a different form; or
(d) Agreement on conditions under which the assistance could be provided including, among other things, providing summaries or redactions, limitations on disclosure, use of in camera or ex parte proceedings, or other protective measures permissible under the Statute and the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.
6. Once all reasonable steps have been taken to resolve the matter through cooperative means, and if the State considers that there are no means or conditions under which the information or documents could be provided or disclosed without prejudice to its national security interests, it shall so notify the Prosecutor or the Court of the specific reasons for its decision, unless a specific description of the reasons would itself necessarily result in such prejudice to the State's national security interests.

 

13. Statute of the International Tribunal for the Prosecution of Persons Responsible for Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law

Article 2: Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949
The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons committing or ordering to be committed grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:
(a) wilful killing;
(b) torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(c) wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health;
(d) extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(e) compelling a prisoner of war or a civilian to serve in the forces of a hostile power;
(f) wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or a civilian of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(g) unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement of a civilian;
(h) taking civilians as hostages.

Article 3: Violations of the laws or customs of war
The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons violating the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to:
(a) employment of poisonous weapons or other weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering;
(b) wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;
(c) attack, or bombardment, by whatever means, of undefended towns, villages, dwellings, or buildings;
(d) seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, historic monuments and works of art and science;
(e) plunder of public or private property.

Article 4: Genocide
1. The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons committing genocide as defined in paragraph 2 of this article or of committing any of the other acts enumerated in paragraph 3 of this article.
2. Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) killing members of the group;
(b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
3. The following acts shall be punishable:
(a) genocide;
(b) conspiracy to commit genocide;
(c) direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
(d) attempt to commit genocide;
(e) complicity in genocide.

Article 5: Crimes against humanity
The International Tribunal shall have the power to prosecute persons responsible for the following crimes when committed in armed conflict, whether international or internal in character, and directed against any civilian population:
(a) murder;
(b) extermination;
(c) enslavement;
(d) deportation;
(e) imprisonment;
(f) torture;
(g) rape;
(h) persecutions on political, racial and religious grounds;
(i) other inhumane acts.

Article 7: Individual criminal responsibility
1. A person who planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted in the planning, preparation or execution of a crime referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute, shall be individually responsible for the crime.
2. The official position of any accused person, whether as Head of State or Government or as a responsible Government official, shall not relieve such person of criminal responsibility nor mitigate punishment.
3. The fact that any of the acts referred to in articles 2 to 5 of the present Statute was committed by a subordinate does not relieve his superior of criminal responsibility if he knew or had reason to know that the subordinate was about to commit such acts or had done so and the superior failed to take the necessary and reasonable measures to prevent such acts or to punish the perpetrators thereof.
4. The fact that an accused person acted pursuant to an order of a Government or of a superior shall not relieve him of criminal responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the International Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

Article 21: Rights of the accused
1. All persons shall be equal before the International Tribunal.
2. In the determination of charges against him, the accused shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing, subject to article 22 of the Statute.
3. The accused shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to the provisions of the present Statute.
4. In the determination of any charge against the accused pursuant to the present Statute, the accused shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality:
(a) to be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and to communicate with counsel of his own choosing;
(c) to be tried without undue delay;
(d) to be tried in his presence, and to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing; to be informed, if he does not have legal assistance, of this right; and to have legal assistance assigned to him, in any case where the interests of justice so require, and without payment by him in any such case if he does not have sufficient means to pay for it;
(e) to examine, or have examined, the witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
(f) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in the International Tribunal;
(g) not to be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.

 

 

I. ANY WITNESS WHO IS FORCED OR INFLUENCED IS BAD:

1. "Section 315 (1) of the CPC stipulates that, Ďa confession which has been obtained through duress, violence, or intimidation or in exchange or promise for any benefit whatsoever or by any other means contrary to the free will of the maker of the confession shall be inadmissible in evidence.í " http://www.postnewsline.com/2006/03/law_without_bou_3.html

J. Witness:USA

Q: Did your government attempt to undermine that of Charles Taylor?
Q: Please explain these quotes : "Washington moved up a gear by using the CIA to train a rebel group in the forests of Guinea to attack Taylorís government starting in mid-1998"Clayton Goodwin 2. In November 2003, the United States Congress passed a bill that included a reward offer of two million dollars for Taylor's capture.
Q: How can you explain the fact that the "US President George Bush Twice said Taylor " Must Leave Liberia" in July 2003":
Q: Please explain why the US turned on Charles taylor after they supported all his actions in Liberia and sierra leon:
Q: Why did you propose sanctions on Taylor when he won his elections fairly and the international community recognizes it as fair? "When Taylor cleanly won the 1997 Liberian presidential election with 75.33% of the votes in an election deemed fair by the international community the USA imposed an unofficial economic and Un military sanctions in an attempt to paralyze Taylor ability to govern" Clayton Goodwin
A: Expected : he was dangerous etc.
Q: please give evidence of an act in which Taylor has done to harm to his country men or the international community by braking any law from an unbiased source .( no US,UK,SL,UN I want evidence from a neutral party)
Q: Please defign national Soveriegnty:
Q: How can the US violate national soviregnty by "During his absence for peace talks in Ghana on June, 4,2003 the US urged Taylorís Vice President Moses Blah to seize power."

 

 

K. The UK is biased :

" The UN Military sanctions resolution was backed and written by the UK" Lansana Gberie Britain has been flying arms to the LURD rebels, dropping them in Sierra Leoneís Parrot beak, arms with serial numbers that have been traced back to Britain have been seized from LURD rebels" Lansana Gberie

 

 

L. The UN is biased :

The Charles Taylor government received US punitive sanctions for according to the UN, supporting the RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Guinea supports the LURD rebels that have no political agenda who are attacked Liberia and received no sanctions not even a slap on the wrist." Professor A. Bolaji Akineymi ĎThe UN denied Liberia the right to self defense even under Article 51 of the UN Charter" Professor A. Bolaji Akineymi

 

 

M. Immunity from prosecution:

"Taylor accepted an immunity from any prosecution deal brokered by ECOWAS, the AU, UN, USA, and UK that took him into exile in Nigeria on August 2003." Baffour Ankomah The US and UN are backing the SCSL violating an agreement they themselves brokered. US War crimes: (US aided and confirmed of Taylorís actions and approved of the war crimes so under the same accusations against Taylor for support and command can be applied to the US)