Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE LANDMARK conviction of former Liberian president Charles Taylor on war crimes and crimes against humanity has been welcomed by human rights groups as providing justice for victims.
Taylor was yesterday convicted by the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone of several charges including rape, murder, sexual slavery, and the recruitment and deployment of child soldiers. The court found him guilty of aiding and abetting the Sierra Leonean rebel group the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) in carrying atrocities during the 11-year civil war in Sierra Leone.
He is the first former head of state to be convicted by an international court since the Nuremberg trials of Nazi leaders after the Second World War.
Thousands of people who had gathered at special viewing sites in Sierra Leone to watch yesterday’s verdict live applauded when the conviction was read by the presiding judge.
Human Rights Watch senior international justice counsel Elise Keppler said the conviction “sends a message to those in power that they can be held accountable for grave crimes”.
“Powerful leaders like Charles Taylor have for too long lived comfortably above the law,” she added. “This is a victory for Sierra Leonean victims of Taylor’s brutal crimes, and all those seeking justice when the worst abuses are committed.”
Child Soldiers International, which campaigns against the use of children as soldiers, said the court had reached a “critical milestone” in establishing the criminal responsibility of a former head of state.
“Today’s verdict is yet another step towards ending impunity for those that recruit and use child soldiers,” the organisation’s director Richard Clarke said in a statement. ”This judgment establishes that providing arms and supporting armed groups that recruit and sue children in hostilities is a criminal offence.”
The group also said that pressure is mounting for the arrest of others involved in the recruitment and use of child soldiers, such as Joseph Kony or Bosco Ntaganda.
The director of Amnesty International Sierra Leone Brima Abdulai Sheriff said that the Taylor verdict carries the message “no matter who you are or what position you hold, you will be brought to justice for crimes”.
“While today’s conviction brings some measure of justice to the people of Sierra Leone, Taylor and the others sentenced by the Special Court are just the tip of the iceberg,” he said.
“Thousands of persons suspected of criminal responsibility for unlawful killings, rape and sexual violence, mutilations and the use of children in Sierra Leone’s armed conflict have never been investigated, much less prosecuted.”
As the special court was limited to activities in Sierra Leone, Human Rights Watch has called on the Liberian government to initiate proceedings over war crimes perpetrated there during the conflict.
Reparations
Amnesty has also called for wider reparations for the victims of the violence.
Colm O’Gorman of Amnesty International Ireland said that reparations are “essential to achieve justice for the victims and assisting them to rebuild their lives”.
“Sadly, only a limited number of Sierra Leone’s thousands of victims have received reparations, despite the Lomé Peace Accord and the clear recommendations by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission”.
Sierra Leone’s National Commission for Social Action has a programme for providing reparations to the victims of the conflict, though child soldiers are excluded from the scheme as ‘former combatants’.
UNICEF says that around 14,000 children who were used as human shields, sex slaves and mine labourers in the war were released after the conflict, of which around half were reunited with their families.
The organisation says that some of the children were given assistance to reintegrate which included receiving plastic surgery to help remove branding and scarring they were subjected to by their captors.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
“Give me unlimited power” but you don’t get to know what power I get until I have it
@Adam Rekio: They can hide from their incompetence behind these laws. Restrict peoples freedoms and make it seem like they’re doing a good job, but in reality they’re doing nothing to improve things in any sector that its needed for people to be able to “live with covid”. They’ve also now got people in to such a fearful state that the majority are willing to freely give up those freedoms and not ask questions. It has taken long enough for the opposition to start to ask these types of questions, I wonder will they be labelled anti-vaxxers now?!
@bob hope: whist or you’ll have the ‘what freedoms have we given up’ brigade then be laballed an anti vaxer for voicing an opinion that offends them as they do not want to acknowledge what is happening in front of their very eyes.
@Hear me now: Baa baa black sheep have you any wool!
It’s all about keeping control folks
@Maurice O Neill: can you expand?
@Paul Clancy: Join the dots yourself Einstein
@James Daly: all we ever hear is “it’s about control” no one has ever said exactly how. Simple one liners are the bread and butter of conspiracy theorist.
@Paul Clancy: I’m not helping you Paul. You’ll have to join the dots by yourself.
The emergency powers should have been phased out months ago. The vaccine uptake has been great. It’s ridiculous that these powers need to be extended again and again. Time to just live with Covid for everyone, vaccinated and non vaccinated. Its been two years.
Donnelly is so incompetent giving him free reign does seem a bit much….
Does no one else see how odd this is ? This makes no sense at all.
@Bobby Jones: Odd that it’s taken them so long to start asking questions about the violation of people’s civil liberties?
It almost like some crazy tin foil hat conspiracy theory that was only recently being ridiculed, just came to life…
@David Van-Standen: Next they will have to stop general elections as it could spread covid
@Adam Rekio: there’s a reason there hasn’t been election in quite some time.
@neuromancer: since last year,you mean?
@Adam Rekio: not possible to stop them.
I think we’re going down the wrong road with this. This is dangerous. There are precedents being set here. Under no circumstances should any elected official have powers that are not open to scrutiny. It only takes one headbanger to abuse these powers and you’re living in tyranny where discrimination and coercion are the norm. Minorities will be isolated and redeculed. Bodily integrity will become meaningless.Your freedom of choice will be out the window. Who wants to live in a world like that.
@James Daly: have an old read of the constitution. You’re some man for scare mongering.
@Paul Clancy: sure the constitution gives you your fundimental rights but, and big but.. Fundamental rights are not absolute – they can be limited or restricted by the Oireachtas for certain reasons, for example, for the common good or public order. Then all bets are off. The safeguards against headbangers like Donnelly abusing his position in such instances are debate and scrutiny. Exactly what he doesn’t want to happen. Wonder why?
Donnelly is like a dog with two knobs at this stage…. Too much control for one TD to hold and that’s the problem with this whole Covid crapola show is for all parties to work together to find solutions not just the ones that hold the house….
How has it taken two years for opposing TD’s to start asking the right questions. The mind boggles how we have people out there that are “fully vaccinated “and are supporting these restrictions. These are the types of klowns that start their comments with “ I’ve had my two jabs and I’m getting my booster on Wednesday “
Smacking of arrogance as this undoubtedly does and desirable as it would be to have Dáil scrutiny would it make any difference to the outcome? Most T.D.’s are terrified of speaking out in any meaningful way against these emergency powers in case they’re labelled ‘anti-science’ or of playing politics with people’s health and lives. It’s a very easy stick to beat them with. It would definitely be interesting though to see how it would go…
@William Tallon: Any decision any government makes should be open to scrutiny, and any resistance to that scrutiny should set more alarm bells ringing than the decisions themselves. TDs are only people who are in the position they’re in because of people who voted them in to the position. Some people go on like they’re gods who must be obeyed at all costs!
@bob hope: Not all Government decisions are open to scrutiny though. Article 28.4 of the Constitution states “The confidentiality of discussions at meetings of the Government shall be respected in all circumstances save only where the High Court determines that disclosure should be made in respect of a particular matter…” I think this is a principle most democratic governments subscribe to and probably for good reason in many cases. That doesn’t mean by the way I don’t favour more transparency…
@William Tallon: That states Government discussions, and not decisions. Regardless this would be superceded by our own constitutional rights and civil liberties, hence the reason why things like this need to be backed by a majority in a vote by TDs and other levels, and hence the argument at hand. They also need to be signed off by the President, who only recently raised a concern about some of the things being pushed through by this government without the time for proper scrutiny. Without a doubt trying to take advantage of the situation as it is and the penny ot seems is only starting to drop in certain quarters!
@bob hope: Discussions are a prerequisite for decisions so if you want to scrutinise Government decisions you’ll need to know how they were arrived at which would mean having access to those Cabinet level discussions and that is precluded by the Constitution. So far as I can tell there is no other provision in the Constitution that grants the individual the right to supersede this provision. I’d be interested to know if you’re aware of such a provision though.
@William Tallon: It’s one of the main principles of democracy, so will always supercede any decisions that go against that principle. I wouldn’t have thought that would need an explanation?
“Health Minister Stephen Donnelly said to have debate and scrutiny on the emergency legislation would more or less take 33 weeks, six hours a day, three days a week.” – I don’t see how it would take that long. I liked Donnelly when he was an SD, I was skeptical when he jumped ship to FF but decided I would give him a chance, he’s had his chance now and has proved to be useless and a hypocrite
Where was Alan Kelly from Labour in this debate? No word from him about democracy and Civil Rights?
If there is hope it lies in the proles.
Paradoxical that
have your say