The First Judgement of the Special Court for Sierra Leone: A Missed Opportunity?

2007 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nolwenn Guibert ◽  
Tilman Blumenstock

AbstractOn 29 June 2007, the Special Court for Sierra Leone – a criminal tribunal created by an agreement between the United Nations and Sierra Leone – rendered its first judgement. The three accused, all senior members of a military junta which had ousted the elected government, were amongst other things found guilty of "new" international crimes, such as using child soldiers and collectively punishing the civilian population. This note critically analyses the achievements and shortcomings of what can be seen as a landmark ruling in international criminal law. It discusses the court's rejection of a separate crime of "forced marriages" as well as the application of "effective control" in terms of responsibility of a superior in the context of an "African conflict". Finally, this note examines the treatment of defective pleadings in the indictment in relation to particulars, crimes committed by the accused in person, and the existence of a joint criminal enterprise. It will be demonstrated that the judgement is of significance not only for assessing the success of the Special Court for Sierra Leone, but also for future criminal trials dealing with similar charges.

2011 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 217-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara Wharton

AbstractThe Special Court for Sierra Leone has been noted for becoming the first international court to convict accused of the crimes of sexual slavery, the use of child soldiers, 'forced marriage', and intentionally directing attacks against peacekeepers. This article analyzes how prosecutions of some of these supposedly 'new' crimes were found not to be in violation of the principle of legality, nullum crimen sine lege. In particular, this article will focus on the crimes of 'forced marriage', intentionally directing attacks against peacekeepers, and sexual slavery: the judgments in the RUF case (Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao) and the AFRC case (Prosecutor v. Brima, Kamara and Kanu) together reveal two different processes through which the law has proven able to evolve and adapt to accommodate so-called 'new' crimes without violating the principle of legality.


2010 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 601-618 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pablo Galain Palermo

AbstractThis article discusses the criminal trials carried out in Uruguay against civilian, military, and political functionaries who committed crimes, including crimes against humanity, during the period of civilian-military dictatorship lasting from 1973 to 1985. These criminal proceedings are analyzed in the contexts of transitional justice and international criminal law. Therefore, the first part of this article addresses the diverse phases of transitional justice in Uruguay while the second part analyzes fundamental aspects of criminal trials against 'state terrorists'.


wisdom ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 170-182
Author(s):  
Hayk GRIGORYAN

The article analyzes the mechanisms of bringing the servicemen of the opposing party of the armed conflict to criminal responsibility through the doctrines of “joint criminal enterprise” and “command responsibility”, which are dealt with International criminal law considering that the acts committed by this category of persons are usually subject to investigation by international bodies of criminal justice on the basis of definitions developed by international practice. The analysis carried out by the author enables to propose scientifically substantiated recommendations on the qualifications of acts committed by servicemen of the opposing party of the armed conflict that constitutes corpus delicti of various war and international crimes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 210-215
Author(s):  
Charles C. Jalloh

As a preliminary remark, our starting point must be to recognize that, up until now, international criminal law has relied on what M.C. Bassiouni called “direct enforcement” by international criminal courts and “indirect enforcement” by national courts. The middle ground between the two extremes has been the use of “hybrid” courts such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL). The SCSL married the domestic with the international, in an effort to combine the best of the international and national in order to advance accountability for serious international crimes.


2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (04) ◽  
pp. 48-52
Author(s):  
Erkin Humbat Musayev Humbat Musayev ◽  

Key words: international law, international criminal law, genocide, war crimes, transnational crime


2015 ◽  
Vol 84 (3) ◽  
pp. 515-531
Author(s):  
Harmen van der Wilt

This article traces the development of the foreseeability test in the context of the nullum crimen principle. While the European Court of Human Rights has introduced the ‘accessibility and foreseeability’ criteria long ago in the Sunday Times case, the Court has only recently started to apply this standard with respect to international crimes. In the Kononov case, judges of the European Court of Human Rights exhibited strongly divergent opinions on the question whether the punishment of alleged war crimes that had been committed in 1944 violated the nullum crimen principle. According to this author, the dissension of the judges demonstrates the lack of objective foreseeability, which should have served as a starting point for the assessment of the subjective foreseeability and a – potentially exculpating – mistake of law of the perpetrator. The Court should therefore have concluded that the nullum crimen principle had been violated.


2015 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 953-975 ◽  
Author(s):  
ATHANASIOS CHOULIARAS

AbstractThe article focuses on one of the most intriguing and, at the same time, controversial issues of international criminal law: whether the state policy requirement should be considered as a constitutive element in core international crimes. Adopting a criminal policy perspective, my intention is to contribute to the ongoing discussion by offering a doctrinal and criminological corroboration of the position that answers in the affirmative. Nevertheless, I am not necessarily promoting a normative choice entailing the amendment of the definition of core international crimes, but I rather call for a policy choice of focusing on cases that presume a state policy component.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 788-821
Author(s):  
Talita de Souza Dias

The principle of fair labelling has informed the creation of international crimes and other concepts of international criminal law since the modern inception of this discipline. In particular, it was the symbolic and condemnatory import of international labels such as genocide and crimes against humanity that partly motivated their introduction as offences separate from domestic ordinary crimes. Paradoxically, fair labelling has received marginal attention in legal scholarship and practice. Moreover, frequent instances of relabelling known as ‘recharacterisation of crimes’ may not be entirely consistent with that principle, inviting further analysis thereof. In this context, the purpose of this article is to provide a more systematic and comprehensive analysis of the principle of fair labelling in international criminal law, particularly in light of the phenomenon of recharacterisation of crimes. Its central claim is that fair labelling is as a fair trial right which precludes recourse to recharacterisation in certain circumstances.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document