Prosecuting International Crimes in Africa - PULP - University of ...
Prosecuting International Crimes in Africa - PULP - University of ...
Prosecuting International Crimes in Africa - PULP - University of ...
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Prosecution and punishment <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational crimes by the Special Court for Sierra Leone 115<br />
breach<strong>in</strong>g the rule’. 105 From this, a violation <strong>of</strong> a fundamental rule <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational law attracts <strong>in</strong>dividual crim<strong>in</strong>al responsibility. Taylor was<br />
charged with crimes aga<strong>in</strong>st humanity and war crimes under <strong>in</strong>dividual<br />
crim<strong>in</strong>al responsibility. 106<br />
Article 6(1) <strong>of</strong> the Statute <strong>of</strong> the SCSL sets parameters <strong>of</strong> personal<br />
responsibility for crimes. 107 The SCSL held that article 6(1) does not limit<br />
crim<strong>in</strong>al responsibility ‘to only those persons who plan, <strong>in</strong>stigate, order,<br />
physically commit a crime or otherwise, aid and abet <strong>in</strong> its plann<strong>in</strong>g,<br />
preparation or execution’. It ‘extends beyond that to prohibit the<br />
commission <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>fences through a jo<strong>in</strong>t crim<strong>in</strong>al enterprise, <strong>in</strong> pursuit <strong>of</strong><br />
the common plan to commit crimes punishable under the Statute.’ 108 This<br />
<strong>in</strong>troduces a new development on jo<strong>in</strong>t crim<strong>in</strong>al enterprise 109 <strong>in</strong><br />
<strong>in</strong>ternational crim<strong>in</strong>al law.<br />
2.7.2 Jo<strong>in</strong>t crim<strong>in</strong>al enterprise<br />
Jo<strong>in</strong>t crim<strong>in</strong>al enterprise is a form <strong>of</strong> crim<strong>in</strong>al responsibility which is<br />
sometimes referred to as ‘common plan’, ‘common purpose’, or ‘common<br />
plan liability’. 110 It is a theory <strong>of</strong> crim<strong>in</strong>al responsibility which requires the<br />
prosecutor to prove several elements. 111 Basically, under jo<strong>in</strong>t crim<strong>in</strong>al<br />
enterprise the prosecutor must prove that ‘a group <strong>of</strong> people had a common<br />
plan, design, or purpose to commit a certa<strong>in</strong> crime’, the accused<br />
‘participated <strong>in</strong> some fashion’ <strong>in</strong> the jo<strong>in</strong>t common plan to commit a crime<br />
and, that the accused ‘<strong>in</strong>tended the object <strong>of</strong> the common plan’. 112<br />
105 Prosecutor v Norman para 26, but see paras 27-51 (the SCSL referred to ICTY <strong>in</strong><br />
Prosecutor v Tadic Case IT-94-1-A, Judgment <strong>of</strong> the Appeals Chamber, Jurisdiction, 15<br />
July 1999 para 94).<br />
106 Prosecutor v Taylor Case summary accompany<strong>in</strong>g the amended <strong>in</strong>dictment paras 1-6, 22,<br />
31-34 and 59.<br />
107 Prosecutor v Kondewa Decision and order on defence prelim<strong>in</strong>ary motion for defects <strong>in</strong><br />
the form <strong>of</strong> the <strong>in</strong>dictment, 27 November 2003 para 9; Prosecutor v Sesay (Case SCSL-<br />
2003-05-PT); Brima (Case SCSL-2003-07-PT), Gbao (Case SCSL-2003-09-PT), Kamara<br />
(Case SCSL-2003-10-PT), Kanu (Case SCSL-2003-13-PT), Decision and order on<br />
prosecution motions for jo<strong>in</strong>der, 27 January 2004 paras 22-24; Prosecutor v Norman<br />
(Case SCSL-2003-08-PT), F<strong>of</strong>ana (Case SCSL-2003-11-PT), Kondewa (Case SCSL-2003-<br />
12-PT) Decision and order on prosecution motions for jo<strong>in</strong>der 27 January 2004 para<br />
11.<br />
108 Prosecutor v Norman, F<strong>of</strong>ana and Kondewa para 130.<br />
109 On jo<strong>in</strong>t crim<strong>in</strong>al enterprise, see Bhoke (n 6 above) 179-180; AM Danner ‘Jo<strong>in</strong>t<br />
crim<strong>in</strong>al enterprise and contemporary <strong>in</strong>ternational law’ (2004) 98 American Society <strong>of</strong><br />
<strong>International</strong> Law Proceed<strong>in</strong>gs 186; N Piacente ‘Importance <strong>of</strong> the jo<strong>in</strong>t crim<strong>in</strong>al<br />
enterprise doctr<strong>in</strong>e for the ICTY prosecutorial policy’ (2004) 2 Journal <strong>of</strong> <strong>International</strong><br />
Crim<strong>in</strong>al Justice 446; AM Danner and JS Mart<strong>in</strong>ez ‘Guilty associations: Jo<strong>in</strong>t crim<strong>in</strong>al<br />
enterprise, command responsibility, and the development <strong>of</strong> <strong>in</strong>ternational crim<strong>in</strong>al law’<br />
(2005) 93 California Law Review 75-169.<br />
110 The ICTY first used these terms <strong>in</strong> Prosecutor v Tadic (Case IT-94-1-A) Judgment 15 July<br />
1999 paras 175, 177, 186, 193, 196, 219-222, 224 and 227.<br />
111 Prosecutor v F<strong>of</strong>ana and Kondewa paras 206-219 (<strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g three categories <strong>of</strong> jo<strong>in</strong>t<br />
crim<strong>in</strong>al enterprise).<br />
112 Danner (n 109 above) 187.