Human Rights in Negotiating Peace Agreements ... - The ICHRP

engagement as a Chapter VII peace-enforcement mission and it became the largest UN
peacekeeping mission in the world.
99. During July the human rights community convened a number of meetings on the issue of an
international court at which some common positions were developed. In the first place it was felt
that the personal jurisdiction, targeting just the RUF, was unacceptably narrow. Secondly it was
considered that the court should be entirely internationalized, without the involvement of Sierra
Leone judges or its laws. It was also agreed that the court should exist side by side with the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission. Finally, it was argued that the amnesty provision of the Lomé
Agreement should be considered null and void.
100. These views were conveyed to relevant parts of the UN system, notably the Office of Legal
Affairs, (which at least at that time appeared to have limited experience of engagement with civil
society actors), as well as to the government. There was general agreement regarding all but the
proposals for complete internationalization of the court. International human rights NGOs, such
as Human Rights Watch, had also, in their advocacy, conceded the possibility that the court have
a mixed national/international character.
101. On 14 August, the Security Council proposed establishment of a court, to be termed a Special
Court to, “prosecute persons who bear the greatest responsibility” for perpetration of, “crimes
against humanity, war crimes and other gross abuses of international humanitarian and Sierra
Leonean law.” lv It was left to the Secretary-General to propose the various details to the Council
for its subsequent consideration. These views were contained in a report to the Council, dated 4
October, lvi which had benefited from extensive consultation on the ground, including with the
Human Rights Committee membership. The proposals in the report were broadly welcomed by
the human rights community, notwithstanding some concerns regarding the formulation of the
personal and temporal jurisdiction, worries over the part-national nature of the court, the manner
in which it might choose to prosecute children, and the eventual relationship with the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission.
Were mechanisms for accountability provided for? What crimes/abuses did these cover?
102. See references to the amnesty and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission
Were these then implemented?
103. Ibid.
If not provided in the agreement, did any mechanisms for dealing with the past, or issues of
amnesty, or provision for victim's rights later emerge (or had they existed previously outside
of the agreement)?
104. See above
To what extent was the question of international requirements of accountability a
controversial issue, perceived to be in conflict with the requirements of peace-making?
105. See above.
20