Dilemma as judges uphold war
crimes jail
sentence

The appeals chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone kept the 65-year-old former Liberian president’s conviction on 11 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, including terrorism, murder, rape and using child soldiers.

However, it also appeared to establish duelling sets of jurisprudence at two international courts on opposite sides of The Hague on the question of when senior officials can support one side in another country’s civil war – an issue world leaders must consider if they mull over arming rebels in Syria.

Taylor is the first former head of state convicted by an international war crimes court since the Second World War and yesterday’s confirmation was welcomed as underscoring a new era of accountability for heads of state.

“Taylor’s conviction sends a powerful message that those at the top can be held to account on the gravest crimes,” said Elise Keppler, of Human Rights Watch.

Stephen Rapp, the ambassador for war crimes issues at the US department of state and former prosecutor at the Sierra Leone court, said the ruling “sends a clear message to all the world that when you commit crimes like this it may not happen overnight, but there will be a day of reckoning”.

However in convicting Taylor the Sierra Leone appeals panel rejected a controversial February ruling by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, which said that the assistance offered has to be specifically directed at committing a crime. In that case, the former chief of staff of the Yugoslav national army was acquitted of aiding and abetting atrocities by Bosnian Serb forces even though he had sent them arms and other supplies.

Taylor’s case appeared to swing the pendulum back towards a lower burden of proof for prosecutors.

His lawyer have complained that the two rulings have created “entirely chaotic jurisprudence” at international tribunals.