RSS Feed     Twitter     Facebook

Posts Tagged ‘Court’

Liberia’s Charles Taylor to deny war crimes

Former president stands accused at The Hague of murder, rape and torture during Sierra Leone civil war

Lawyers for the former president of Liberia Charles Taylor, who stands accused of leading a systematic campaign of murder, rape and torture during the civil war in Sierra Leone, will today claim he was “not involved”, and that he “was a peacemaker, not a warmonger”.

The 61-year old’s defence began this morning at the UN-backed special court for Sierra Leone in The Hague, where he denies charges that include enlisting and drugging child soldiers, enforcing sexual slavery and commanding and arming rebels from his presidential palace, in Monrovia, during the 11-year conflict, which ended in 2002.

Taylor, the first African head of state to be tried by an international court, has pleaded not guilty to 11 charges in a hearing that has 91 witnesses since January 2007. His defence is being led by Courtenay Griffiths, a British lawyer. Taylor will take the stand tomorrow for what is expected to be several weeks of testimony in his own defence.

The court has already heard witness testimony of radio exchanges between Taylor and the rebels, arms smuggled from Liberia to Sierra Leone in sacks of rice, and diamonds sent back in a mayonnaise jar. One former aide said he had seen Taylor eat a human liver.

“We say, and have said all along, that they are lying,” Griffiths said of the prosecution witnesses. “His case is that he was not involved – that he was a peacemaker, not a warmonger.”

The defence team has a list of more than 200 witnesses, including unnamed former African heads of state and high-ranking UN officials. Griffiths will argue that Taylor was asked by the 15-member Economic Community of West African States and the UN to help halt the atrocities in Sierra Leone.

Some 500,000 people are estimated to have been killed or systematically mutilated, or to have suffered other atrocities, in Sierra Leone’s civil war.

Some of the worst crimes were carried out by gangs of child soldiers given drugs to desensitise them to the horror of their actions. Taylor is accused of arming them in exchange for diamonds.

Taylor was forced into exile after being indicted in 2003, and was finally arrested in Nigeria in 2006. He was sent for trial in The Hague because officials feared staging the case in Sierra Leone could spark further violence.

He boycotted the start of his trial, in June 2007, and fired his attorney, holding up proceedings until January 2008, when prosecutors called their first witness.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Liberia’s Charles Taylor to deny war crimes

Former president stands accused at The Hague of murder, rape and torture during Sierra Leone civil war

Lawyers for the former president of Liberia Charles Taylor, who stands accused of leading a systematic campaign of murder, rape and torture during the civil war in Sierra Leone, will today claim he was “not involved”, and that he “was a peacemaker, not a warmonger”.

The 61-year old’s defence began this morning at the UN-backed special court for Sierra Leone in The Hague, where he denies charges that include enlisting and drugging child soldiers, enforcing sexual slavery and commanding and arming rebels from his presidential palace, in Monrovia, during the 11-year conflict, which ended in 2002.

Taylor, the first African head of state to be tried by an international court, has pleaded not guilty to 11 charges in a hearing that has 91 witnesses since January 2007. His defence is being led by Courtenay Griffiths, a British lawyer. Taylor will take the stand tomorrow for what is expected to be several weeks of testimony in his own defence.

The court has already heard witness testimony of radio exchanges between Taylor and the rebels, arms smuggled from Liberia to Sierra Leone in sacks of rice, and diamonds sent back in a mayonnaise jar. One former aide said he had seen Taylor eat a human liver.

“We say, and have said all along, that they are lying,” Griffiths said of the prosecution witnesses. “His case is that he was not involved – that he was a peacemaker, not a warmonger.”

The defence team has a list of more than 200 witnesses, including unnamed former African heads of state and high-ranking UN officials. Griffiths will argue that Taylor was asked by the 15-member Economic Community of West African States and the UN to help halt the atrocities in Sierra Leone.

Some 500,000 people are estimated to have been killed or systematically mutilated, or to have suffered other atrocities, in Sierra Leone’s civil war.

Some of the worst crimes were carried out by gangs of child soldiers given drugs to desensitise them to the horror of their actions. Taylor is accused of arming them in exchange for diamonds.

Taylor was forced into exile after being indicted in 2003, and was finally arrested in Nigeria in 2006. He was sent for trial in The Hague because officials feared staging the case in Sierra Leone could spark further violence.

He boycotted the start of his trial, in June 2007, and fired his attorney, holding up proceedings until January 2008, when prosecutors called their first witness.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Liberia’s Charles Taylor to deny war crimes

Former president stands accused at The Hague of murder, rape and torture during Sierra Leone civil war

Lawyers for the former president of Liberia Charles Taylor, who stands accused of leading a systematic campaign of murder, rape and torture during the civil war in Sierra Leone, will today claim he was “not involved”, and that he “was a peacemaker, not a warmonger”.

The 61-year old’s defence began this morning at the UN-backed special court for Sierra Leone in The Hague, where he denies charges that include enlisting and drugging child soldiers, enforcing sexual slavery and commanding and arming rebels from his presidential palace, in Monrovia, during the 11-year conflict, which ended in 2002.

Taylor, the first African head of state to be tried by an international court, has pleaded not guilty to 11 charges in a hearing that has 91 witnesses since January 2007. His defence is being led by Courtenay Griffiths, a British lawyer. Taylor will take the stand tomorrow for what is expected to be several weeks of testimony in his own defence.

The court has already heard witness testimony of radio exchanges between Taylor and the rebels, arms smuggled from Liberia to Sierra Leone in sacks of rice, and diamonds sent back in a mayonnaise jar. One former aide said he had seen Taylor eat a human liver.

“We say, and have said all along, that they are lying,” Griffiths said of the prosecution witnesses. “His case is that he was not involved – that he was a peacemaker, not a warmonger.”

The defence team has a list of more than 200 witnesses, including unnamed former African heads of state and high-ranking UN officials. Griffiths will argue that Taylor was asked by the 15-member Economic Community of West African States and the UN to help halt the atrocities in Sierra Leone.

Some 500,000 people are estimated to have been killed or systematically mutilated, or to have suffered other atrocities, in Sierra Leone’s civil war.

Some of the worst crimes were carried out by gangs of child soldiers given drugs to desensitise them to the horror of their actions. Taylor is accused of arming them in exchange for diamonds.

Taylor was forced into exile after being indicted in 2003, and was finally arrested in Nigeria in 2006. He was sent for trial in The Hague because officials feared staging the case in Sierra Leone could spark further violence.

He boycotted the start of his trial, in June 2007, and fired his attorney, holding up proceedings until January 2008, when prosecutors called their first witness.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Taylor starts war crimes defence

Charles Taylor 7.1.08

Lawyers for Charles Taylor, the former president of Liberia on trial for crimes against humanity, have begun his defence.

He denies 11 charges, including murder, rape and torture, at the Special Court for Sierra Leone in The Hague.

Prosecutors say he controlled rebels who carried out atrocities during Sierra Leone’s decade-long civil war.

Mr Taylor, who denies the charges, is expected to give evidence in his own defence on Tuesday.

He is the first African leader to be tried by an international court.

Claire Carlton-Hanciles, of the court’s defence office, told the BBC that Mr Taylor was ready to defend himself.

"Mr Taylor is ready and his lawyers who were employed by the office have ensured that that they have prepped him for the past month-and-a-half," she said.

TAYLOR TIMELINE

  • 1989: Launches rebellion in Liberia
  • 1991: RUF rebellion starts in Sierra Leone
  • 1995: Peace deal signed
  • 1997: Elected president
  • 1999: Liberia’s Lurd rebels start insurrection to oust Taylor
  • June 2003: Arrest warrant issued
  • August 2003: Steps down, goes into exile in Nigeria
  • March 2006: Arrested, sent to Sierra Leone
  • June 2007: Trial opens in The Hague

Profile: Charles Taylor

Q&A: Trying Taylor

"I saw Mr Taylor about two days ago. He is in high spirits."

In May, judges rejected a request by Mr Taylor’s defence team to acquit him because of a lack of evidence.

The prosecution says Mr Taylor planned atrocities committed by Revolutionary United Front rebels during Sierra Leone’s civil war, which ended in 2002.

The RUF were notorious for using machetes to hack the limbs off civilians.

Mr Taylor is accused of passing guns to the RUF in exchange for diamonds from Sierra Leone.

His lawyers are expected to argue that he in fact tried to bring peace to the region and that there is no evidence directly linking him to the RUF.

Mr Taylor started Liberia’s civil war in 1989, before being elected president in 1997.

After a period of exile in Nigeria, he was eventually extradited from Liberia in 2006.

The trial, being held by the UN-backed Special Court for Sierra Leone, was moved to the Netherlands from Sierra Leone’s capital, Freetown, amid fears it could create instability in the country and neighbouring Liberia.</p


This article is from the BBC News website. © British Broadcasting Corporation, The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites.

Stephen Kaus: Fighting Sotomayor, Republicans Falsely Advance Fire Fighter Ricci as the White Man’s Rosa Parks

On Ricci, Sotomayor is in line with four of the nine current members of the U.S. Supreme Court. It is not she who is starting a race war.

Kids recant abuse claims after dad jailed 20 years

VANCOUVER, Wash. — Former Vancouver police officer Clyde Ray Spencer spent nearly 20 years in prison after he was convicted of sexually molesting his son and daughter. Now, the children say it never happened.

Matthew Spencer and Kathryn…

The Cast Of Characters For Sotomayor’s Confirmation Hearings

WASHINGTON — Live from the Capitol, Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings promise high political theater this week, beamed to the world in dramatic, historic, perhaps comedic glory.

When the curtain rises Monday on Sotomayor’s nominat…

Nicholas Stephanopoulos: A Law Worth Saving

Racial discrimination in voting, while much reduced since the Voting Rights Act’s passage in 1965, remains all too prevalent in many parts of the country.

INTERNATIONAL OLYMPIC COMMITTEE STATEMENT

While we are pleased that the Games can now proceed as planned, we strongly disagree with the court’s analysis that the IOC acted in a discriminatory manner. As previously explained, our decision was based on technical issues, without regard to gender.
 
The IOC will continue to follow the development of women’s ski jumping and remains open to considering its possible inclusion in the Sochi Games in 2014. We understand and appreciate how important inclusion is to the dedicated athletes who participate in the sport.

 

We also welcome the court’s recognition that that “the IOC in recent years has supported the inclusion of women in the Olympics and in amateur sports." and the observation that, “The IOC has implemented a wide range of initiatives to increase women’s involvement in leadership and administration within the Olympic movement and the wider sporting community."

 

The judgment goes on to say, “VANOC points out that these are not empty words or empty policies; women now compete in approximately 48% of the events at the Winter Olympics and the percentage of female athletes has steadily increased to just over 40%” (quote from pages 34-35 of court decision)

 

 
###
For further information, please contact the IOC Communications Department, Tel: +41 21 621 60 00, email: pressoffice@olympic.org

Nan Aron: Let the Hearing Begin

The Senate Judiciary Committee will convene Monday morning at 10:00 a.m. to begin the hearing on Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to become an associate justice of…

Judges attack MoD over Iraq information

Three senior judges today delivered a blistering attack on the Ministry of Defence, accusing its officials of misleading the high court and of “lamentable” conduct over attempts to suppress information on the interrogation of Iraqi detainees.

Lord Justice Scott Baker and Mr Justices Silber and Sweeney described claims made by defence ministers in gagging orders as false. The claims led to decisions that the court had made, to suppress evidence, that were “wrong”.

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, was forced this week to concede an independent inquiry into allegations that 20 Iraqis taken as prisoners to Camp Abu Naji, an army base in Amara, north of Basra, were interrogated and tortured before being killed. Six others were allegedly abused. The MoD says the 20 who died were killed “on the battlefield” and that only nine prisoners were taken to the camp, all of whom were left alive.

Ainsworth was forced to make his concession because of the MoD’s failure to disclose key documents.

In a move reflecting their fury at the ministry and what they have castigated as a “complete waste of time”, the judges awarded lawyers for the Iraqis an interim order of $1m. They have already ordered that the MoD must pay the total cost of the hearings – a legal challenge to claims that the MoD did not carry out a proper investigation at the time of the incident – estimated to amount to tens of millions of pounds.

In their ruling today, the judges stated: “The court was misled into making a number of rulings on a false basis all of which were wrong and should never have been made.” They said they did not blame Ainsworth, but officials advising him.

The central issue is the MoD’s claim that there would be “real harm” to national security if documents relating to the interrogation by soldiers of detainees were disclosed. The MoD admitted this week that some of the information had already been disclosed, some in evidence at a court martial, some to the public inquiry into the death of Baha Mousa, a Basra hotel receptionist, in the custody of British soldiers, in 2003.

The picture that emerged from the MoD’s handling of the case, and assertions its officials had made, were “truly alarming”, the judges said. The history of the case was “lamentable”, they said.

MoD officials must have known that documents they now wanted to suppress were already in the public domain, the judges added. “There have been … both systemic and individual failures within the MoD on a substantial scale in this case. Put bluntly the left hand did not know what the right hand had done, or was doing, and even when it did, nothing was done to seek to correct the situation.”

How MoD officials could make “grossly erroneous” claims remained unclear, the judges added. The MoD denies the allegations but now faces an independent inquiry to make its case.

guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2009 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds


Sotomayor’s confirmation

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings have begun. Senators are sure to ask her tough questions about statements and decisions she has made in the past.

What do you think should be the standard for confirming her? Should members of the Senate Judiciary Committee look at her qualifications to serve as a Supreme Court justice, or should her political views also be considered? Is it fair to ask her about statements she has made or views she has held in the past?

Share your views on video with the iReport.com community.