Court Watch
was elected President of Liberia, the opportunity to prosecute Taylor arose when Nigerian President Obasanjo announced that Taylor would be turned over to a newly elected Liberian government upon request. Taylor was extradited back to Liberia by Nigerian President Obasanjo at Sirleaf’s request on March 17, 2006. The Special Court focused on whether Taylor was liable under doctrines govern- ing child recruitment, head of state immunity, and joint criminal enterprise. As to the charge of child recruitment, Taylor argued for the inadmissibility of certain evidence relating to who is or was a child, because the Special Court did not have a definition for “child.”
Taylor also argued that under customary interna- tional law, the head of state immunity doctrine, which shields high-ranking officials from criminal prosecution for official acts, applies to bar his pros- ecution. The Special Court found that the head of state immunity doctrine does not apply because the trial was international in scope and thus, pre- cedence of other tribunals, such as Nuremberg and Yugoslavia, apply here to deny application of the head of state immunity for the types of crimes for which he was indicted. Furthermore, Taylor also violated several international law doctrines includ- ing, Article 4(c) of the Special Court statue, the 1977 Additional Protocol II, the 1989 UN Conven- tion on the Rights of the Child, which prohibit child soldiers; and the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, which prohibits human rights abuses such as war crimes and crimes against hu- manity.
The Special Court held that perpetrators can be held personally liable under the joint criminal en- terprise doctrine, which attaches personal liability to any person who knowingly or complicity takes any action in which the intended or foreseeable crimes involve a common plan, design, or purpose. Taylor failed to argue against the joint criminal en- terprise doctrine because traditionally he would be immune under the head of state immunity doctrine and because this is the first time that the
joint criminal enterprise doctrine has applied to a former head of state.
* Submitted by Tia Haywood Kenyan Leaders on Trial at the ICC
Kenya, despite its strong economy and reputation as one of the most stable nations in Africa, has a history of election violence due to its ethnic diver- sity. Kenya is made up of over 70 distinct ethnic groups, the five largest being Kikuyu, Luo, Luhya, Kalenjin, and Kamba, representing 20 percent, 13 percent, 14 percent, 11 percent, and 11 percent of the population respectively.
The December 27, 2007 presidential election saw the incumbent Mwai Kibaki of the Party of Nation- al Unity (PNU) defeat Raila Odinga of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) in an election that outside observers, including the EU, stated was marred with fraud. Within minutes of the election results being declared, the country broke out in inter-ethnic violence that claimed the lives of over 1,000 people and displaced over 500,000 civilians. The allegations against Kenya’s Deputy President William Ruto by the International Criminal Court (ICC) center on his role in planning the violence.
Prosecution by the ICC
The ICC has charged Ruto with the crimes against humanity of murder, forcible transfer of popula- tion, and persecution. The ICC alleges that Ruto, along with his co-conspirators, created a network of Kalenjin perpetrators made up of Kalenjin el- ders, local leaders, ODM members, members of the media, and former Kenyan military and police.
The ICC alleges that Ruto, as the leader of this network, created a hierarchical structure of com- manders and subordinates to carry out the at- tacks, to identify targets, to transport the attackers to and from the targets, and to collect and store weapons. The perceived goal of this alleged plot was to target civilians who were loyal to the PNU
ILSA Quarterly » volume 22 » issue 2 » December 2013
7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88