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

142 Chapter 5
Chamber found no reason to interfere with the exercise by the Trial
Chamber of its discretion in sentencing the Appellants. 159
In the RUF Appeal, the Appeals Chamber came to the conclusion that
Issa Hassan Sesay was to serve a total term of imprisonment of 52 years;
Morris Kallon and Augustine Gbao were both to serve a total term of
imprisonment of 25 years with sentences to run concurrently. 160 The
Appeals Chamber highlighted that the Trial Chamber was correct in
declining to mitigate the sentences of the accused in light of the finding that
they are likely to serve their sentences outside Sierra Leone. It further
endorsed the position adopted by the ICTY Appeals Chamber that
sentences of similarly situated individuals should be comparable, more
particularly, that the determination of sentence involves the
individualisation of the sentence so as to appropriately reflect the
particular circumstances of the convicted person. 161 In the end, the
Appeals Chamber came to the conclusion that previous sentencing
practice is one among a host of factors which must be considered when
determining an appropriate sentence. 162
Arguably, the Appeals Chamber did not add much to the sentencing
practice of the SCSL, except to emphasise that the punishment meted out
to those brought before the court should display the disdain with which the
international community views their actions. It is also reasonable to
conclude that by necessary implication, the Appeals Chamber confirmed
the Trial Chamber’s approach in so far as the issue of sentencing or the
penal objectives are concerned.
6 Relevance of the jurisprudence of the SCSL
The importance of the jurisprudence of the SCSL cannot be disputed. It is
the relevance of the principles enunciated in the several judgments handed
down by the court that perhaps will influence the decision of tribunals and
national courts alike saddled with a similar mandate. 163 Most importantly,
it will be of persuasive value to future ad hoc international criminal
tribunals.
In terms of sentencing, are there any vital lessons that Sierra Leone
national courts could learn from the SCSL? This aspect is particularly
relevant when one considers that one of the reasons for situating the SCSL
in Sierra Leone, rather than outside Sierra Leone as is the case with the
ICTY and ICTR, was to have a ‘trickle down effect’ in the sense that the
159 CDF Appeal judgment para 329.
160 RUF Appeal judgment para 480.
161 RUF Appeal judgment para 1317.
162 RUF Appeal judgment para 1318.
163 CC Jalloh ‘The contribution of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’ (2007) 15 African
Journal of International & Comparative Law 173.