A full explanation of the motion available here.

The UN Panel of Experts Report available here.

There shall only be pardon, commutation of sentence, or early release if the President of the Special Court, in consultation with the judges, so decides on the basis of the interests of justice and the general principles of law, but an early release shall only occur after the prisoner has served a minimum of two thirds of his original sentence.

The Liberia section of peacebuildingData.org has information on knowledge of the Charles Taylor trial.  Generally the southeastern counties have the least knowledge of the trial.  Other highlights:

• 92% of Liberians have heard of the trial.  This is interesting, because only 72% of Liberians had heard of the TRC.  I’ve been under the impression that there has been far more awareness of TRC activities than Special Court for Sierra Leone activities.  (For those of you interested in the TRC, the site has tons of data on perceptions of it.)
• More than 75% of Liberians know the trial is in The Hague.
• More than half of Liberians know Taylor is on trial for crimes committed in Sierra Leone.  A little less than 25% of Liberians (inaccurately) think Taylor is on trial for crimes committed in Liberia.
• None of Liberians surveyed think Taylor is on trial for escaping prison in the US.

Petrou received thousands of pages of document pertaining to Reeves’ case from the Canadian Immigration Refugee Board through an access to information request.  Petrou has determined that the government lacks any information that would go against Reeves’ case. In his latest article Petrou highlights extraordinary government incompetence:

• One of the government lawyers, Brenda Lloyd, did not know what MI-5 was.
• Lloyd doesn’t think Reeves would really be in danger back home, because if he was legit worried he wouldn’t have spoken with Petrou for previous articles in Macleans.  This makes no sense.  If I was worried about being deported I would definitely go to a reporter to make my case better known among people of the potential host country.
• Reeves’ family has been allowed to stay in Canada on the basis that it would be too dangerous for them to return to Liberia given their association with Reeves.   So how could it possibly be safe for Reeves to return?  This is absurd.

Petrou quotes part of an affidavit submitted by Christopher Santora, one of the Charles Taylor trial prosecutors: “I can state unequivocally that Cindor Reeves is one of the few people in this whole conflict that did the right thing when the opportunity presented itself. I state this as someone who has dealt with hundreds of ‘insiders,’ former commanders and direct perpetrators…”  Reeves has redeemed himself and deserves to stay in Canada.

Petrou writes: “Reeves has received a removal order from Canada Border Services Agency. His last chance to stay in Canada — temporarily — is a pre-removal risk assessment, now underway.”

Artz found, among other things, that while a majority of Serbs and Croatians advocated non-cooperation with the ICTY, Sierra Leonean concerns about the SCSL were more narrow, relating to technical issues of implementation.

The article [gated] is here.

Ratko Mladic looks set to politicize his trial, much in the way Charles Taylor and the Civil Defence Forces defendants did.  From the NYT:

At one point in the hearing, Mr. Mladic straightened himself and told the court, “I am here defending my country and my people, not Ratko Mladic.” That drew a quick response from Judge Orie: “I would like to remind you that you are charged as an individual.”

This trial has nothing to do with personality.  We are unconcerned whether the court approves of Charles Taylor as an individual.  What concerns us is the need to address the evidence coldly and clinically, devoid of emotion, for emotion is no useful guide to a fact-finder in his or her task.  We submit that such an objective, independent, impartial approach to the evidence will lead to but one conclusion: verdicts of not guilty on all counts.

That’s the last paragraph of the defense final brief for the Charles Taylor trial.  It is now online, in its entirety.  (572 pages.) 

Anyone know if the prosecution final brief is online?  Also, does anyone know when the verdict is expected?

The prosecution had filed a motion claiming that several AFRC convicts incarcerated in Rwanda attempted to bribe and intimidate prosecution witnesses to recant their testimony and lie in a way that might lead to the release of the AFRC convicts.

The defense said the motion should be dismissed on a number of grounds.  I’ll highlight three of their arguments.  First, my favorite: They claim the annex of the prosecution’s motion exceeded the page limit for annexes.  (The judges noted that if the annex was put into the body of the motion, the motion would not exceed the page limit, so they can consider it.)

Second, defense argued that this Trial Chamber lacks jurisdiction over this issue.  The judges disagreed.  Being the only remaining Special Court Trial Chamber, if they don’t have jurisdiction, no one does.  (I wonder who will adjudicate these residual issues once this Trial Chamber concludes their work.)

Third, defense argued that there is no proof that the alleged intimidation worked.  One witness refused to recant his testimony.  The judges cited rulings from the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to determine that an attempt to intimidate is sufficient grounds for contempt of court.  The intimidation need not be successful.

In their ruling the judges determined there is no reason to assume Taylor’s defense played any role in pressuring prosecution witnesses.  So they only accepted the prosecution’s motion in part: They appointed an independent counsel to investigate witness interference allegations and report back as to whether there are grounds to start contempt proceedings.