4 research outputs found
The Complementary and Conflicting Relationship Between the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Most countries in transition from civil war face limited choices when
imposing accountability for past atrocities. Some, like Mozambique, opt
to grant unconditional amnesty. Other countries, like South Africa, have
instituted a truth and reconciliation commission and granted limited
amnesty, while yet others, like Rwanda, prosecute perpetrators of
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. These solutions are
not mutually exclusive. Following a ten-year, bloody war characterized
by widespread killings, amputations, rape, slavery, enforced prostitution
and extensive use of child soldiers, Sierra Leone has chosen a unique
blend of institutional mechanisms. At first, the government purported to
grant an unconditional amnesty to the perpetrators while establishing
a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. When the agreement
establishing the latter foundered, the government established a Special
Court in addition to the Commission. Amnesty pardons all, the
Commission seeks truth, reconciliation and healing for past wrongs, and
the Court aims at prosecuting the most culpable perpetrators. This Note
examines two of these seemingly conflicting mechanisms - the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court. The Note compares
the mandates of the respective bodies, as well as their basis, composition
and jurisdiction and discusses their respective roles in Sierra Leone. The
Note highlights several areas in which these bodies need to cooperate
while maintaining their independence and emphasizes the need to define
the relationship between the two institutions in order to preserve their
effectiveness
The Complementary and Conflicting Relationship Between the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Most countries in transition from civil war face limited choices when
imposing accountability for past atrocities. Some, like Mozambique, opt
to grant unconditional amnesty. Other countries, like South Africa, have
instituted a truth and reconciliation commission and granted limited
amnesty, while yet others, like Rwanda, prosecute perpetrators of
genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. These solutions are
not mutually exclusive. Following a ten-year, bloody war characterized
by widespread killings, amputations, rape, slavery, enforced prostitution
and extensive use of child soldiers, Sierra Leone has chosen a unique
blend of institutional mechanisms. At first, the government purported to
grant an unconditional amnesty to the perpetrators while establishing
a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. When the agreement
establishing the latter foundered, the government established a Special
Court in addition to the Commission. Amnesty pardons all, the
Commission seeks truth, reconciliation and healing for past wrongs, and
the Court aims at prosecuting the most culpable perpetrators. This Note
examines two of these seemingly conflicting mechanisms - the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission and the Special Court. The Note compares
the mandates of the respective bodies, as well as their basis, composition
and jurisdiction and discusses their respective roles in Sierra Leone. The
Note highlights several areas in which these bodies need to cooperate
while maintaining their independence and emphasizes the need to define
the relationship between the two institutions in order to preserve their
effectiveness