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

Sentencing practice of the Special Court for Sierra Leone 129
the defence’s objections and stated that it did not take into account the
documents submitted together with the prosecution brief. 72 The Chamber
did not state reasons behind its decision to uphold the defence’s
arguments. Considering the importance of the question raised, that is,
whether it was fair that evidence relevant to sentencing should only be
adduced during the case in chief, one would have expected that the
Chamber would state reasons behind its decision. An opportunity was
therefore missed by the Court to fully support the bifurcated nature of its
trials. 73
Unlike the ICTY and the ICTR, the SCSL holds sentencing hearings
following a conviction or a guilty plea. That the SCSL holds sentencing
hearings has been held as indicative of the importance the Court attaches
to the sentencing stage of the trial process. Conversely, that the ICTR
abandoned its distinct sentencing hearings and instead announced
sentences along with judgments has been said to be evident of the lack of
attention by the ICTR to sentencing. 74 This inadequacy has been described
by Sloane as treating sentencing as a mere afterthought which in turn
‘inhibits the common law evolution of a mature penal jurisprudence that
can contribute to the long-term normative goals of international justice’. 75
The attitude of international criminal tribunals towards sentencing has
been noted by Sloane in the following words: 76
In general, they [international criminal tribunals] recite the crimes of
conviction; emphasize their gravity; list, without elaboration, the
conventional goals of punishment; set out the relevant portions of the Statute
and Rules; reference Rwandan law to confirm that it has been ‘duly
considered’; note the duty to individualize sentences, taking account of
aggravating and mitigating circumstances; list those circumstances; and then
pronounce the sentence, often offering no more by way of analysis
(particularly where, as is frequently the case, the sentence is life
imprisonment) than a variant of this conclu[ding] statement: ‘Having
reviewed both mitigating and aggravating circumstances, the Chamber finds
that the aggravating circumstances outweigh the mitigating circumstances in
the Accused’s case.
The SCSL has not departed – except for the bifurcated nature of its trials –
from the approach adopted by other international criminal tribunals. Its
sentencing judgments follow more or less the same style as highlighted by
Sloane in the above quotation. In its discussion of the objectives of
sentencing, which are generally not exhaustive of issues relevant to the
objectives of sentencing, the SCSL duly endorsed the position that
72 As above, para 8.
73 King and La Rosa (n 14 above) 316-331.
74 Sloane (n 48 above) 713.
75 As above.
76 Sloane (n 48 above) 716.