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

Painful peace: Amnesty under the Lomé Peace Agreement in Sierra Leone

No Abstrac

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