Abstract
Principle 1 of the International Law Commission demands that any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under international law is responsible and therefore liable to punishment. This is supported by various other international treaties, obligations, and also under customary international law. The mandate of the Special Court for Sierra Leone (The Special Court) rests with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1315(2000); to prosecute those who bear the greatest responsibility for serious international crimes committed during the country’s civil war, which lasted from 1991-2002. To be clear, there were many protagonists in the conflict. However, the Special Court, which lasted between 2002 and 2012, prosecuted only thirteen members from selected groups, who were alleged to have committed such offences. Although there was considerable evidence to have supported additional prosecutions from the other warring factions in the conflict. As it was the responsibility of the Prosecutor to select those who were to be prosecuted; was the prosecutorial discretion robust enough in the case selection of those that were prosecuted, or was it a case of selective enforcement, or was it even discriminatory whilst trying to achieve the Court’s mandate? This paper aims to evaluate the exercise of prosecutorial discretion at the Special Court, with a view to determining, whether the manner in which it was exercised may have led to the Prosecutor underachieving the Court’s mandate.
Highlights
The obligation to investigate and prosecute persons alleged to have committed crimes under international law, is firmly established and it applies to both international and non-international conflicts. This obligation lies in the principle of non-impunity for offences committed during conflicts, which has its roots arguably in the first modern day international criminal trials held at Nuremberg, in 1945
Where it was held; “crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”[1]
This position of prosecuting individuals who commit such crimes has been reflected during the conflicts, in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda and in Sierra Leone
Summary
The obligation to investigate and prosecute persons alleged to have committed crimes under international law, is firmly established and it applies to both international and non-international conflicts. This obligation lies in the principle of non-impunity for offences committed during conflicts, which has its roots arguably in the first modern day international criminal trials held at Nuremberg, in 1945 Where it was held; “crimes against international law are committed by men, not by abstract entities, and only by punishing individuals who commit such crimes can the provisions of international law be enforced.”[1]. Which are primarily focused on holding individuals accountable by punishing such perpetrators, whilst such punishments should serve as deterrents, and offering justice to the victims of such crimes Central to achieving this aim, is the responsibility of the Prosecutors at any international court or tribunal, which is to investigate and prosecute persons alleged to have committed crimes that fall under international law
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
