The legacy of the Special Court, and its residual issues

I’ve just finished reading “From the Taylor Trial to a Lasting Legacy: Putting the Special Court Model to the Test,” an International Center for Transitional Justice report (written mostly by Thierry Cruvellier).  I learned tons about the Court, and some of its “residual” issues, like witness protection.  Below are highlights.  At points I copy directly from the text.

• The Court faces many residual issues I had never thought about.  Who should supervise enforcement of sentences or continued witness protection?  Who should conduct any eventual trial of Johnny-Paul Koroma (presumed dead, but the Court isn’t sure)?  What should happen to the Court’s site in Freetown?
• Taylor’s defense has argued that some insider witnesses testified to opportunistically show renewed loyalty to their own constituencies.
• Some Taylor supporters feared that Liberia’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission was the investigative arm of the Court.
• Stephen Rapp, the outgoing prosecutor in the Taylor trial, argues that the TRC served to legitimize Taylor’s trial by highlighting NPFL atrocities.
• The Court president permitted Taylor’s trial to be moved to The Hague due to security concerns for the Court itself.  However the main reason for the move was issues of long-term instability.  The Court’s argument holds little weight as Taylor stayed in a cell in Freetown for 3 months without incident.
• There is no internet access for reporters at the Court in Freetown.
• The testimony of Joseph Marzah, aka Zigzag, at Taylor’s trial  got attention in Western media, but not in local media.  For some reason European reporters were told about the significance of this testimony, but local reporters were not told he would be testifying.
• The Court stopped showing video clips of Taylor’s trial in Monrovia because people accused the Court of doctoring the clips.
• Taylor’s former head of security services, Benjamin Yeaten, was widely thought to be a candidate for indictment by the Court.
• Because of its narrow jurisdiction and small number of indictees, the Court has been less expensive than other international criminal tribunals.  However, the cost per indictee has not been much less than other tribunals.
• ICTJ believes the main reason the Court has been inefficient is due to lack of strong judicial leadership.  ICTJ argues that the international appetite for tribunals will diminish if they are not seen to be more efficient.
• It remains unclear what part of the population should be a reasonable target for an outreach program.
• The Court did not sufficiently integrate Sierra Leoneans into senior positions.  Part of the blame for this rests with the Sierra Leone government.  Many of the judges they appointed were foreigners.  Some say they did this to avoid brain drain from local courts.  Others say they did this to prevent local power brokers from getting access to sensitive political information the Court would handle.  Either way, this policy alienated Sierra Leonean lawyers from the Court.
• Sierra Leonean investigators can be better than expat investigators because of local knowledge, but also because they are available to work long-term.
• In the Taylor trial, all judges and legal support staff are foreigners.  Only 1 of 7 prosecution team members is Sierra Leonean.  None of the defense lawyers are Sierra Leonean or Liberian.
• A hope was that Sierra Leoneans who worked with the Court would later serve in some capacity in country’s justice sector.  Most of them express hope of obtaining work overseas.
• One explanation for lack of support for outreach efforts: Donors tend to be less than enthusiastic about what is perceived as a “side project” because they fear the Court will become a development agency rather than a small, symbolic enterprise in criminal justice.
• There is wide support in Sierra Leone for transfferring the Court’s convicts to other countries because Sierra Leone has a history of coups, and people are usually freed from prison during coups.  However, if prisoners serve there sentences far away from their families, it might violate their rights.