
Today Human Rights Watch releases a report entitled
"Even a ‘Big Man’ Must Face Justice": Lessons from the Trial of Charles Taylor.
This past May, the Special Court for Sierra Leone sentenced Taylor, the former president of Liberia, to
50 years in prison for aiding and abetting the brutal 1991-2002 armed
conflict in neighboring Sierra Leone. While it has been a long road, the successful conclusion of the trial phase was a landmark for war victims, for West Africa, and for efforts to ensure perpetrators of the gravest crimes are held to account. (IntLawGrrls' Sierra Leone accountability series is
here.)
The HRW report – which I authored with editorial guidance from my fellow IntLawGrrl
Elise Keppler and which I summarize in this post – examines the conduct of Taylor’s trial, the court’s efforts to make its proceedings accessible to affected communities, and perceptions and initial impact of the trial in Sierra Leone and Liberia. It is based on interviews in The Hague, London, Washington, New York, Sierra Leone, and Liberia, as well as review of expert commentary, trial transcripts, and daily reports produced by trial observers.
Lessons for Trial Practice
Trials of high-level leaders for serious crimes can be complex, lengthy, and fraught. Yet the Taylor trial largely avoided major disruptions that could have marred the proceedings, and is notable for its relatively well-managed character.
Taylor’s representation by counsel appears to have contributed positively to the generally respectful and organized tenor of the courtroom. Moreover, the trial included a high-quality, experienced defense team.
The Taylor trial also provides a strong model for witness management. The
Special Court for Sierra Leone handled complex logistics and support for over 100 witnesses, including insiders who had admitted to extensive criminal activity and victims who had suffered severe trauma.
At the same time, lessons should be drawn to improve future practice in similar types of proceedings, with regard to trial management, representation of the accused, and interaction with potential witnesses and sources.
Notably, the judges adopted practices that sought to prioritize efficiency, but sometimes these practices contributed to delays; examples are the ambitious courtroom calendar in comparison to other tribunals, and the insistence on parties meeting certain deadlines.
Other practices – such as the Trial Chamber’s non-interventionist approach to witness testimony – lengthened proceedings.
More active efforts by the Trial Chamber and Registry to address defense concerns could have encouraged smoother proceedings. Taylor’s first defense team left the case due to concerns over inadequate resources and time to prepare; this led to the appointment of a second team and a hiatus in proceedings. In addition, a delay in rendering a decision on the pleading of joint criminal enterprise raised potential implications for Taylor’s fair trial rights.
Finally, although the provision of funds by the prosecution to potential witnesses and sources during investigations may be unavoidable, it was a contentious issue in the Taylor trial, one that should be managed more effectively in future proceedings.
The Impact of the Taylor Trial in Affected Communities
Trials of highest-level leaders are significant beyond the happenings in the courtroom. One crucial objective is to convey a sense of accountability to affected communities so that justice has local resonance. The Taylor trial suggests important lessons for outreach to maximize the impact of future proceedings, particularly those held far from the location of the crimes, as will typically be the case at tribunals like the
International Criminal Court.

Consideration of the trial’s impact is constrained by at least three factors:
► First, the
Trial Chamber handed down its verdict in April 2012, and it could be years before the trial’s full impact is realized;
(at right, © Peter Andersen/SCSL Outreach photo of Sierra Leoneans watching live broadcast of verdict)
► Second, there are inherent challenges to isolating the trial’s impact because, though significant, it is one factor of many in a complex landscape; and
► Third, analysis of the trial’s impact in the report is based largely on information drawn from interviews with civil society members, former combatants, government officials, journalists, and war victims in Monrovia and Freetown.
Despite these limitations, several noteworthy observations are possible: