Human Rights Watch (HRW), in its report published on 8 September, urges the Special Court for Sierra Leone not to limit its prosecution to the thirteen people it has indicted so far (of who only nine are in custody). «The indictments issued to date reflect an inappropriately narrow interpretation of the court's limited mandate,» says the American human rights organisation, whose specialist on Sierra Leone, and co-author of the report, Corinne Dufka, worked as an investigator for the office of the prosecutor for a year. HRW notes that when the court was created in Freetown, «it was generally understood that the Special Court would try no more than twenty to thirty persons». Donor countries were concerned to avoid a proliferation of indictments in order to fulfil a mandate that was strictly limited in time and money. But now the concern is quite the opposite: will the Special Court ultimately only try nine individuals?

According to information given to HRW, «no more additional indictments are expected unless Charles Taylor is taken into custody, in which case a few individuals might be indicted». The organisation calls for more prosecutions against a handful of lower-ranking commanders, who have become symbols for many Sierra Leoneans of the violence committed against them. The report is very specific about this. The number of these extra «targets» is «very limited» and could amount to three named individuals: two commanders in the AFRC military junta, Savage and Al Hadji Bayoh, as well as the commander in the Civil Defence Force, Musa Junisa.

Tremendous advances

The 45-page report by the international organisation gives a mostly upbeat assessment of the Sierra Leonean experience, which it describes as «an historic initiative, which has made tremendous advances in a short time frame and on a tight budget». However, its limited financial resources poses a real problem, says HRW. Of the 76 million dollars finally allocated to the Special Court over three years (less than the sum just granted to the ICC for a single year, before a single trial has opened), only 49.3 million has been paid by donor states. This serious financial gap, writes HRW, has already «undermined the court's operations». On this point, the Sierra Leonean «model» fails to make the grade. «These problems underscore that funding a court through voluntary contributions is extremely problematic,» writes HRW, which now urges the United Nations to make up the rest of the funding gap until the court's mandate expires in December 2005.

Curiosly, judges spared criticism

The report also highlights concerns over the resources for defence teams and the inflexible system of fee-payment instituted by the Special Court to avoid escalating costs experienced by UN tribunals. The lump-sum payment «establishes a cap regardless of the complexity of the case, the amount of witnesses involved, and the number of hours counsel will appear in court», say the authors. The establishment of a defence office in Freetown «represents a deepening of practical experience drawn from the work of the ad hoc tribunals», acknowledges HRW. But lack of material and disproportionate resources allocated to the office of the prosecutor could threaten the fairness of trials. In particular, the report highlights the gross lack of resources available for defence investigation. HRW recommends recruiting an international investigator for each defence team and reviewing the length of investigators' contracts. This is all the more necessary, says the report, since «many of the names of witnesses are not disclosed until six weeks before being called to testify during the trial». Although the report identifies this institutionalised practice of disclosure, inherited from the ICTR, as part of the problem, it fails to analyse it. While HRW rebukes the judges for their tardy delivery of certain decisions, it curiously spares them any criticism for their disruptive personal quarrels during the month of March, exactly the same time as the HRW team was carrying out its mission.