ICTJ in the News

September 12, 2007

Sierra Leone Tribunal Confronts Funding Woes With Taylor Still Awaiting Trial

World Politics Review

By Lauren Gardner

The hybrid war crimes tribunal set up by the government of Sierra Leone and the United Nations achieved what international observers described as a major milestone in July when it delivered sentences of 45 and 50 years to three men convicted of committing war crimes during Sierra Leone's late-1990s civil war.

The ruling at the Special Court for Sierra Leone marked the first-ever conviction of an African warlord for using child soldiers, and it came just a few weeks before a second round of convictions, on Aug. 2, in which two other former militia leaders were found guilty of war crimes.

While these advances have drawn praise from the international community, they've occurred in the shadow of the Special Court's lack of progress in the trial of Charles Taylor, the former president of neighboring Liberia indicted for crimes connected to exacerbating Sierra Leone's war.

From the start, the Special Court has been troubled by financial woes, which observers say can only be expected to grow in the months and years to come. Already, the court "doesn't have enough money," says Elise Keppler, counsel to the International Justice Program at New York-based Human Rights Watch.

Keppler, who contends that the court will need more cash when the current round of litigation is finished, told World Politics Review that judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers often don't know how much money the court will receive in donations well enough in advance to plan effectively for trials and to maintain necessary staff levels. She added that court staffers are regularly put in the position of having to take time away from their jobs to raise funds.

David Crane, who served as the court's chief prosecutor from 2002 until 2005, says that about 70 percent of his work was spent dealing with politics and diplomacy, which included fundraising from both governmental and non-governmental sources.

"You're always thinking about money," he said.

It is possible that the court's financial problems are simply a design flaw, according to a March 2006 report by New York-based International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ).

The report, titled "The Special Court for Sierra Leone Under Scrutiny," (pdf file) outlined how the court was intentionally set up differently from the International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, which created a financial drain on U.N. resources.

The result, according to the report, is that the Sierra Leone court's budget is only about $25 million a year, compared to some $120 million per year for each for the Yugoslavia and Rwanda tribunals.

Human Rights Watch asserts that the court's defense office has lacked sufficient funds. While "[we are] all for cost efficiency," said Keppler, everyone involved in the court still needs the appropriate resources to function.

The Role of 'Interested' States

Marieke Wierda, who co-authored the ICTJ report and serves as a senior associate with the organization, says that while the court operates autonomously from other U.N. bureaucracy, it is still subject to the oversight of a management committee.

The committee is comprised of "interested states," which, says Wierda, include the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada and the Netherlands -- the four countries that have donated the most to keep the court going.

The United States is the biggest donor, contributing about $35 million between 2002 and 2006.

The U.N. Secretariat and Sierra Leone are also on the management committee, which was established to take the place of the U.N. Secretariat in managing donations received for the court. Unlike the funding for the Rwanda and Yugoslavia tribunals, the donations are made voluntarily, rather than being mandated by the United Nations.

Despite funding problems that have plagued the court, Crane, the former prosecutor, defended the court's financial autonomy from the United Nations.

In an interview with WPR, Crane maintained that it was a good decision to keep operations outside of the United Nations' assessed funding system as a means of limiting the extent to which U.N. bureaucracy could slow the court's progress.

"[The current system] does work -- it just has to be consistent, that's all," he said.

According to the ICTJ report, the committee is not allowed to advise the court on any judicial matters. Its central role is to ensure that the court's funding levels are maintained, and to encourage other countries to contribute funds. However, the report maintains that the committee has failed to rally the political and financial support needed for the court's future.

Members attending committee meetings regularly are legal advisers, with no financial training and busy schedules, the report's authors wrote.