24.11.2012 Views

Prosecuting International Crimes in Africa - PULP - University of ...

Prosecuting International Crimes in Africa - PULP - University of ...

Prosecuting International Crimes in Africa - PULP - University of ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!