This morning Trial Chamber II of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) issued the Court’s first sentences in the case of alleged Armed Forces Revolutionary Counsel (AFRC) leaders Alex Tamba Brima, Brima Bazzy Kamara and Santigie Kanu. Presiding Justice Julia Sebutinde read the judgement that sentenced Brima and Kanu to fifty years in prison and Kamara to forty-five years with credit for the time they were detained pending trial. While the Trial Chamber issued sentences below the Prosecution’s requested sixty years for Brima and Kamara, it granted the Prosecutor’s requested fifty years for Kanu. In granting identical sentences to Brima and Kanu, the Chamber seemed to imply they were equally responsible and thus disagreed with the Prosecution about the relative culpability of the three accused.

As a full courtroom listened, Justice Sebutinde first identified retribution and deterrence as the main goals of sentencing in this case, and dismissed rehabilitation as an irrelevant aim. She then outlined the factors that the Court considered in issuing its judgement pursuant to Article 19 of the Statute for the SCSL and Rule 101 of the Court’s Rules of Evidence and Procedure: the gravity of the offence, the individual circumstances of the accused, and the mitigating and aggravating circumstances surrounding the commission of the crimes and the accused’s behavior after the end of the conflict. The judgement also ruled on two issues raised at the sentencing hearing on Monday, 16 July: the legality of the Prosecution’s attempt to introduce new evidence for sentencing purposes that it had not introduced during the trial, and the appropriate role of sentencing practices from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The Chamber found that the Prosecution could not introduce new evidence at the sentencing stage and therefore did not consider that evidence in determining its judgement. It also pointed to Article 19(1) of the Statute of the SCSL in deciding that it would consider both ICTR and ICTY sentencing practices, but that neither bound its decisions. Nor would it be bound by the sentencing practices of Sierra Leone, given that none of the accused were charged with crimes under Sierra Leonean law.

After a lengthy and graphic description of the crimes for which the accused were convicted, the judgement discussed the Prosecution and Defence submissions and Trial Chamber deliberations on each sentencing factor for each accused. While Defence theoretically benefited from only needing to satisfy a balance of probabilities in establishing mitigating factors, rather than the Prosecution standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” the Chamber still rejected all proposed mitigating factors. It further rejected all arguments that the personal circumstances of the accused such as their good character, family dependants or ill health should mitigate the sentence. In contrast, the Trial Chamber accepted virtually all Prosecution submissions about aggravating factors, though it disagreed with the Prosecution’s assertion that participation in the AFRC government itself could aggravate an accused’s culpability. While the Chamber found that a command position could not serve as an aggravating factor for crimes for which the defendant was convicted via command responsibility because it already served as an element of those crimes, it could serve as an aggravating factor for crimes where the defendant was convicted via direct responsibility. After describing the considerations surrounding the Chamber’s deliberations, the judgement condemned each accused to a single, aggregate sentence designed to reflect his overall culpability. Brima, Kamara and Kanu begin serving their sentences today.

The AFRC trial began on 7 March 2005 after the SCSL joined the cases and consolidated the indictments in early 2004. Trial Chamber II issued its judgement on 20 June 2007, and held a sentencing hearing on 16 July 2007. In determining the appropriate sentence, the Chamber considered both the oral submissions from all parties at the sentencing hearing and the written submissions previously filed with the Chamber. With this sentencing, the trial has now closed, but these sentences, along with the judgements themselves, are expected to be appealed.