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

Sentencing practice of the Special Court for Sierra Leone 143
SCSL would contribute inter alia to rebuilding the criminal justice system
in Sierra Leone. 164 In this regard and as has been indicated, the application
of the sentencing practice of the Sierra Leone national courts has been of
little relevance in determining and influencing the sentencing practice of
the SCSL. This is particularly so because of the nature of the crimes that
fell within the jurisdiction of the SCSL. The converse is likely to be true for
crimes under article 5 of the Statute of the court. Unfortunately, offences
defined as such and punishable under Sierra Leonean law have not been
invoked by the Prosecutor before the court, notwithstanding that the court
has mixed jurisdiction ratione materiae. 165 Perhaps the sentencing
jurisprudence of the SCSL will be able to influence the future work of the
national courts of Sierra Leone in their administration of justice if it
happens that they choose to exercise universal jurisdiction over certain
international crimes.
7 Conclusion
The sentencing practice of the SCSL has not been subjected to enough
scrutiny. Perhaps this is largely due to the fact that the ICTY and the ICTR
have been subjected to scrutiny and have covered most of the issues that
eventually came before the SCSL. The fact that the decisions of the ICTY
and the ICTR have discussed some of the issues relating to sentencing is
likely to explain the manner in which the SCSL approached its decisions,
in that it has been brief in its determination of the appropriate sentences.
The objectives of sentencing as espoused by the SCSL are no different from
those of the other tribunals. The main purpose of sentencing at the
international level largely remains deterrence and retribution.
A popular argument is that international criminal tribunals should not
put forward retribution as the chief objective of punishment at the
international level. 166 It is submitted that such an argument is appealing,
admittedly for the sole reason that ‘it is theoretically unacceptable for ...
any tribunal created to respond to human rights violations to found its
operations chiefly on retribution’. 167 It is however imperative to note that
an argument that international criminal justice is not about victor’s justice
and retribution is divorced from reality. The international community is
out to punish perpetrators of international crimes and the wording of
international instruments, particularly the wording of the Rome Statute,
164 In terms its legacy, the Court acknowledged that ’in operating in a context such as
Sierra Leone, the prosecution of individuals must be pursued along with other
transitional justice strategies in order to achieve the desired objectives: the restoration of
the rule of law and the development of the national legal system, which are necessary
conditions for the prevention of future conflict’; see VO Nmehielle and CC Jalloh ‘The
legacy of the Special Court for Sierra Leone’ (2006) 30 The Fletcher Forum of World
Affairs 109.
165 Jalloh (n 163 above) 173.
166 Chirwa (n 19 above) 195.
167 As above.