Charles Taylor Oral Appeal Hearings–Tuesday Jan. 22 and Wednesday Jan. 23 2012

The Appeals Chamber of the Special Court for Sierra Leone will hear oral submissions from prosecution and defense lawyers in the Charles Taylor appeal on Tuesday January 22 and Wednesday January 23 2012. The hearings will commence on 10:00 AM each day.

The statement below was issued by the Public Information Section of the Court, explaining the issues that will be covered in the oral hearings, and the sequence in which the parties will address the Appeals Chamber.

1. The Parties shall be prepared to respond to oral questions posed by the Justices about issues raised in their Written Submissions; and

2. The Parties will otherwise be asked to limit their submissions to the following issues pursuant to Rule 114 of the Rules of Procedure and
     (i) Whether the Trial Chamber correctly articulated the actus reus elements of aiding and abetting liability under customary international law.
         The differences and similarities between aiding and abetting, instigation and ordering as forms of liability under Article 6(1) of the Statute.
          Whether customary international law recognizes that certain forms of liability set forth in Article 6(1) of the Statute are more or less serious
          than other forms of liability for sentencing or other purposes.

     (ii) Whether the Trial Chamber’s findings meet the mens rea standard of purpose.
     (iii) Whether acts of assistance not “specifically directed” to the perpetration of a crime can substantially contribute to the commission of the
           crime for aiding and abetting liability.  Whether the Trial Chamber’s findings meet the “specific direction” standard.

     (iv) Whether acts of assistance not to the crime “as such” can substantially contribute to the commission of the crime for aiding and abetting
           liability. Whether the Trial Chamber’s findings meet the “as such” standard.

     (v) Whether the sources of law identified in Rule 72 bis (ii) and (iii) establish that uncorroborated hearsay cannot be relied upon as the sole
          basis for specific incriminating findings of fact.

     (vi) How the Appeals Chamber should apply existing jurisprudence relating to adjudicated facts under Rule 94(B) in the context of a
           defence motion for the admission of adjudicated facts following the close of the prosecution case.

Subject to adjustments where appropriate, the timetable for the Appeal Hearing shall be as follows:

Tuesday 22 January 2013

Morning: Prosecutor’s submission on the stated issues
Afternoon: Taylor’s submissions on the stated issues

Wednesday 23 January 2013

Morning: Prosecutor’s Response; Taylor’s Response
Afternoon: Prosecutor’s Reply; Taylor’s Reply


  1. Graet job!, show us the actus reus and the mens rea that point to President Taylor guilt. International Law is about to play here. May God bless and protect President Taylor in this fight for freedom.

  2. “The requirement that is consistent among all convictions for aiding and abetting is the cognitive element; the accused must have either known that his act would contribute to the principal crime, or he must have known that the crime itself would be committed. There are, however, different knowledge and intent requirements depending on the circumstances of the case, and aiding and abetting liability must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis”. This requirement(s) was not in any way satisfied by the trial chamber 2 yet they came up with a narrative of Kono and Freetown planning; a cooked-up Red Lion battalion; exchange of diamond claims with no concrete proof except for hearsay; etc. The appeal chamber does not have my confidence . Sierra Leone has been made a laughing stock by the greedy American goons and their accomplices.

  3. Well, I see a tinge of optimism here for this innocent man whose freedom has been seized with crippling paralysis of a well concocted international scam. At least this time around the Appeal Chamber is determined to know if the grounds on which the Trial Chamber sentenced President Taylor meets the test of “Aiding and Abetting, especially when Judge Lucsick (Presiding Judge) said there was no clear evidence that this innocent man ordered the commission of crimes. What standard of measurement did the judges use?

    1. Yes, Jose Rodriguez, this time around we will get final decision that may clarifies the claims of ‘this innocent man’s appeal,’ according to your understanding. I will not pick a fight with you this time because you are being courteous and respectful in putting your argument here. But let me make it clear; there is no doubts taylor ‘instigated, assisted, knowingly,and consciously participated in the internal affairs of the Republic of Sierra Leone, for which he was tried and senteced for 50 years! I love the fairness of this trial, especially for one who never gave such to others, but rather used summary judgement, and next execution for all who stood in his way! Thanks to the WESTERN JUSTICE SYSTEM!

  4. My hope is that as we begin to express ourselves and debate whatever that we will be hearing from the Appeal precedence, people mentality is switched from looking at the matter from one direction but rather to be objective in whatever we say here. It is unfortunate that because we are all invisible here at this point, many intend to say things in line with personal feelings of differences. Happy New Year to all here. Thanks Alpha for the hard work and welcome back.

Comments are closed.