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

Sentencing practice of the Special Court for Sierra Leone 141
Notwithstanding its limited appellate review, the Appeals Chamber
has in some instances set aside convictions by the Trial Chamber and at
times substituted a verdict of not guilty with a verdict of guilty in respect of
certain counts. For example, the Appeals Chamber set aside verdicts of
guilty for Sesay for planning enslavement in the form of mining and the
killing of a Limba man in Tongo Field. 151 After assessing the
considerations that influenced the exercise of the Trial Chamber’s
discretion, the Appeals Chamber came to the conclusion that the Trial
Chamber proceeded on an erroneous basis and therefore it had to review
the sentences. 152 The Trial Chamber had stated that the fact that Fofana
and Kondewa ‘stepped forward in the efforts to restore democracy to
Sierra Leone, and, for the main part, they acted from a sense of civic duty
... significantly impacted the influence to the reduction of the sentences to
be imposed for each count’. 153 Interestingly, the Appeals Chamber
emphasised that the SCSL was an international tribunal which punishes
international crimes ‘... and not political crimes, in which consideration of
national interest may be a relevant issue’. 154 According to the Appeals
Chamber what was paramount were international interests in protecting
humanity, hence in assessing an appropriate sentence it was obligated to
impose a sentence that reflected the revulsion of the international
community about the crimes for which the accused persons have been
convicted. 155 The Appeals Chamber accordingly revised the sentences
imposed by the Trial Chamber in respect of the charges and imposed
slightly heavier sentences. 156
The Appeals Chamber will only interfere with the decision of the Trial
Chamber as regards the sentence passed if the latter has committed a
discernible error in exercising its discretion or has failed to follow the
applicable law. 157 That is why in the Brima case, the Appeals Chamber
dismissed the defence’s appeal against the sentence imposed by the Trial
Chamber and held that the Trial Chamber had exercised its discretion
properly within the provision of the Statute of the Court. 158 The Appeals
151 RUF Appeal judgment para 477.
152 CDF Appeal judgment paras 554 - 555.
153 CDF Sentencing judgment para 94.
154 CDF Appeal judgment para 563.
155 CDF Appeal judgment paras 562- 566.
156 That is in respect of Moinina Fofana the sentences of 6 years each imposed by the Trial
Chamber on Counts 2 and 4 were increased to 15 years imprisonment, and the sentence
of 3 years imposed on Count 5 was increased to five 5 years imprisonment. In respect of
Allieu Kondewa, the sentences of 8 years each imposed by the Trial Chamber on
Counts 2 and 4 were increased to 20 years imprisonment. The sentence of 5 years
imposed on Count 5 was increased to 7 years imprisonment. In respect of Counts 1 and
3, the Appeals Chamber imposed sentences of 15 years imprisonment on Fofana on
each of the Counts, and sentences of 20 years imprisonment on Kondewa on each of
the Counts, with all the sentences to run concurrently.
157 CDF Appeal judgment para 309.
158 CDF Appeal judgment para 326.