After serving three years as chief prosecutor at the Special Court for Sierra Leone, David Crane will be leaving his post on 30 June. On 25 and 26 June, he chaired a work session in Freetown with the prosecutors of the International Criminal Court [ICC] and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda [ICTR] and the deputy prosecutor of the Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. In an interview given to International Justice Tribune on the eve of the meeting, Crane reflected on the lessons learnt from the Sierra Leone experience. He said that the investigations into businessmen involved in the conflict are still ongoing and assured that it is only a matter of time before Nigeria arrests Charles Taylor and hands him over to the Special Court.
Three years after it was established, what lessons can be drawn from the Special Court?

The mandate is correct: prosecuting those who bear the "greatest responsibility" is and should be the standard at the international level for those who have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Secondly, the genius of the Special Court for Sierra Leone is the fact that it is here in the middle of the crime scene. The people of Sierra Leone can actually see justice begin and end, right in front of their eyes and in a politically acceptable timeframe. Another reason why this court works is that we have a big outreach and legacy program. I have met with every major district head, I have walked in every town, in every district. People know who their prosecutor is, what he is doing and why he is doing it. We are connected with the society. We include civil society and NGOs in our discussions and you can only do that when you have an international tribunal physically present in the countryside. The challenge for the other tribunals is that they are not located in the place where they need to be. This is going to be a huge challenge for the ICC, even if the ICC's prosecutor certainly recognises the difficulties of being physically absent from the areas where tragedies take place.

You decided to indict only 13 individuals and have sometimes been criticised for operating an overly narrow understanding of your mandate. Why such a limited number of indictments?

People thought it was a difficult decision. But if you understand the case, the situation and the circumstances, in this particular conflict it was not hard to identify those who bear the greatest responsibility. I am satisfied with the decisions that I have made. The circumstances do not dictate further prosecutions other than the ones we are continuing to investigate. We are not done. We are about 98% done but the chapter on financiers is not closed.

Was it because the Special Court is unable to try more people within the timeframe that you decided not to issue more indictments?

No, this is all according to a plan. I have always had a 10-phase plan. We are into phase 10. This is something that has been carefully planned up. We know the ramifications, the timeframe and the timetables. Another reason why this particular court has succeeded is because we knew exactly how to start, where we were going and when it was over. If you start something and you don't know when you are finished, you are never finished.

The plan was initially for the court to last 3 years and cost 60 million dollars. With the prospect of trials ending in 2006 at a cost of up to 120 million dollars, hasn't the plan changed?

We are right on schedule. This is a subjective world. There have been decisions made by the judges that I can't comment on and that have slowed the process down a bit. The whole process is largely driven by judges and not by prosecutors and registrars. Instead of doing it in three years, we will probably do it in four years. It is not a perfect science. It may not go exactly as fast as we would like but doing it in around four years at a cost of 25 million dollars a year is a very efficient and effective way of delivering international criminal justice. That was the ultimate question that I was asked back in April 2002 by the UN Security Council: can international criminal justice be effectively and efficiently delivered in a politically acceptable timeframe? The concept of a hybrid international tribunal is showing that with a proper plan you can do this.

A year ago you said that you couldn't make the link between businessmen and the crimes [see IJT n°3+. Now you are saying that these investigations are not closed. What has changed?

The concept of financing and supporting is not just about business. It is about individuals who are involved in many levels of supporting these regional tragedies. We are still working at following through and finishing up investigations on certain individuals who are involved in this. Appropriate decisions will be made whether to prosecute or not. We were very much looking at Gus van Kouwenhoven *a Dutch businessman accused of having breached the arms embargo on Liberia, see IJT n° 22+ Even though we could not, in my mind, get him to a level of greatest responsibility, we were very supportive and worked very closely with our Dutch counterparts to build a case against him at a domestic level. As you know, he has been arrested and charged with violations of Dutch law. So we are going after financiers but the result may be that they are tried at the domestic level rather than at the international level.

Have national courts proved to be better suited to such prosecutions?

No, it is circumstantial. It may be that at this particular time domestic law provisions make it easier. But we need to continue to look at financiers, businessmen and corporations and their involvement in regional tragedies. Businesses have to understand that they will be held accountable, either domestically or internationally. I think we have sent a strong signal with Gus van Kouwenhoven. We haven't been able to try him here for greatest responsibility but the result is going to be the same.

Pressure on Nigeria to turn over former Liberian president Charles Taylor to the Special Court has increased over the last few months. But the Nigerian authorities don't seem convinced of evidence that Taylor continues to be a threat to peace in the region. How do you see this issue?

I think we are 95% towards having Charles Taylor turned over. The issue no longer is if he should be turned over but when. On May 24, all fifteen members of the UN Security Council stated that Charles Taylor needs to be turned over to the court. It sends a strong signal to the world and to Nigeria. Taylor is very much on the front burner in New York. He is a meddler and a terrorist as well as a war criminal and people are convinced of that. The US Congress has demanded that he be turned over. There will certainly be sanctions over time, in the next couple of months, if this doesn't happen. Having talked to several senior members of Congress, I can assure you this: Nigeria will never get debt relief unless Charles Taylor is turned over. That is a fact. Also, Nigeria's potential for having a seat on the Security Council is largely going to be based on Charles Taylor and how they react to it. The US Congress is very focused on this, as is the European Parliament. The world knows, Africa knows what has to be done. It is going to happen. It may not happen during my timeframe but my name and signature are on the indictment and what I wanted to show is that with the stroke of a pen the most powerful warlord in Africa was brought down, politically stripped of his power and is now sitting in Calabar waiting to be turned over to an international court. To me that is showing the people of West Africa that the rule of law is more powerful than the rule of the gun.