The transcripts of the trial of Charles Taylor, former President of Liberia. More…

  • Good morning, Mr Witness.

  • Mr Witness, can you give your name to this Court?

  • My name is Sahr Charles.

  • And are you able to spell your name for this Court?

  • S-A-H-R C-H-A-R-L-E-S.

  • Do you know your date of birth, Mr Witness?

  • Yes, they told me. My father told me.

  • And what is your date of birth?

  • I was born in 1959.

  • And do you know your place of birth?

  • What is your place of birth, Mr Witness?

  • I was born in Tombodu, Kamara Chiefdom.

  • And do you know in which district is Kamara Chiefdom?

  • Which district is that, Mr Witness?

  • Do you belong to any tribe?

  • I speak Kono and Krio.

  • And do you belong to any tribe?

  • Mr Witness, are you Kono by tribe?

  • And did you go to school, Mr Witness?

  • And what is your level of education?

  • I stopped at Class 7, because I have left school for quite a long time now. Standard 5.

  • And which languages do you speak, Mr Witness?

  • I speak Kono and Krio.

  • Now, Mr Witness, do you remember testifying in Freetown in January 2005 in the case Prosecutor v Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, the RUF case on the --

  • Yes.

  • Let me finish. During four days on 12 January, 13, 14 and 17 January 2005, do you remember that?

  • Could I ask a transcript to be placed in front - well, first to be shown to my learned friend.

  • Yes.

  • Your Honours, this is precisely the transcript of the case Prosecutor v Sesay, Kallon and Gbao, 12, 13, 14 and 17 January 2005. It's 333 pages and the CMS numbers are 18893 to 19225. Now on the first page of - on the very first page there is a typo and it indicates 2004, but when you look inside it is clear that it is actually 2005.

  • Mr President, your Honours, that same error is repeated at the beginning of the transcript for 13 January 2005. The cover page, like the one for 12 January, gives the year as 2004. This is an error that we've noticed before on other transcripts. I don't know how it has arisen. It's clearly not the fault of the Prosecution, but it's always safe to look at the text of the hearing to check against the date on the front cover page.

  • Thank you for that, Mr Munyard. We've got that error down on the record now, so I'm sure there won't be any confusion.

  • Mr Witness, if you can look at this transcript. Have you reviewed this transcript recently?

  • Is he looking at the English version, or the Krio version - the Kono version?

  • I'm going to ask him:

  • Mr Witness, did someone read to you the content of this transcript in a language that you can understand?

  • And do you adopt this transcript as your prior testimony?

  • Your Honour, we would request this transcript to be marked for identification. Now, again on two days there was a portion of the transcript in closed session and I'm going to give you now the portion. It was on the first day, 12 January 2005, there was five pages in closed session and the CMS numbers are 18920 to 18924. The second portion was on the third day, on 14 January 2005, 46 pages in closed session and the CMS numbers are 19018 to 19063. So again what we would propose is to have MFI-1A, the entire transcript except these two portions, and MFI-1B with these two portions. MFI-1A will be 282 pages and MFI-1B would be 51 pages.

  • Yes, the transcript of this witness's evidence from the trial of Prosecutor v Sesay, Kallon and Gbao given on 12, 13 and 14 January 2005 will be --

  • Your Honour, and the 17th.

  • 12, 13, 14 and 17, is it? Thank you. 12, 13, 14 and 17 January 2005 will be - I withdraw that. 12, 13, 14 and 17 January 2005, totalling 282 pages which range from page 18893 of the transcript to page 19225, will be marked for identification as MFI-1A. It is noted that on the cover page for the transcript of 12 January 2005 the year is incorrectly shown as 2004.

    Now for the closed session evidence given on 12 January 2005 which cover a total of 51 pages, and they are pages 189 - no, I beg your pardon. They cover a total of five pages for 12 January 2005, they are pages 18920 to 18924, and the closed session evidence of 14 January 2005, which cover 46 pages ranging from page 19018 to 19063, will be marked for identification as MFI-1B.

    Yes, Mr Werner.

  • Thank you, Mr President. Now, part of this transcript - now, Mr President, there was an exhibit in this trial, RUF exhibit 14, and it is a one page OTP disbursement to the witness. Could I have that page shown to my learned friend. I do not think that there is any use showing that to the witness and I would ask that to be directly marked for identification MFI-2.

  • Mr Werner, this document that you're now showing counsel opposite, was it one of the 92 bis documents?

  • Yes, your Honour. I apologise, I should have given the CMS number. CMS number is 19227, your Honour.

  • The document, which is a related exhibit 14 in the trial of Prosecutor v Sesay, Kallon and Gbao showing OTP disbursements to the witness and identified from those transcripts referred to as CMS 19227, will be marked for identification as MFI-2.

    Mr Werner?

  • Thank you, Mr President. We have nothing further.

  • Thank you. Mr Munyard.

  • Thank you, Mr President.

  • Good morning, Mr Charles.

  • I'm going to be asking you some questions from over here. If I ask you something you don't understand, would you please let me know and I'll try to put it in a different way to make it clearer to you.

  • Can you tell us when you were shown these transcripts, or when they were read to you in a language you understand? How recently was that done?

  • Well, they read it to me in Krio.

  • Yes, but all I want to know is when did they read it to you in Krio?

  • I can't tell the time.

  • Was it in the last few days?

  • They read it to me one or two weeks before I came.

  • Right. And how long ago did you come here to the Netherlands?

  • Today makes it one week.

  • Right. So they read it to you about two or three weeks ago, yes?

  • Yes, but not here.

  • We understand that. Was there anything in the testimony that was read back to you that you thought might be wrong?

  • Now apart from giving evidence in the trial back in 2005 you had given a number of statements to the Prosecution before you gave evidence, hadn't you?

  • Starting in November 2002 and then on three occasions in 2004, do you remember? You won't necessarily remember the dates, but do you remember being seen by the Prosecution and giving statements in 2002 and then again on several occasions in 2004?

  • Thank you. Were those statements read back to you recently in Krio, or just the transcripts of your evidence?

  • Well, my testimony - they had the document. The testimony that I gave was read to me and I confirmed it.

  • Right. What about the statements? The statements that you gave before your testimony, were they read back to you two or three weeks ago?

  • Yes, they read it out to me and asked me if that was my statement and I said "Yes".

  • And did you disagree with anything that was in the statements?

  • I don't think so. There was nothing I disagreed with.

  • Thank you. Just before we go into some of the aspects of the evidence and the accounts that you've given in the past, can I ask you are you currently working?

  • I am doing some farming.

  • And have you been doing farming throughout the years since the end of the civil war in Sierra Leone?

  • Yes, I've been a farmer ever since and a gardener as well.

  • Thank you. I want then to turn to some of the events that you've talked about in prior testimony, or statements. Your account starts in 1998, doesn't it, when rebels came to your area in Tombodu in about March of 1998? Is that right?

  • And the rebels who came then to Tombodu were SLA - Sierra Leone Army - rebels, weren't they?

  • Yes, they used to call them juntas. They were juntas. They were mixed.

  • Right, well I'm going to ask you about who they were. Who were they led by, these rebels who first turned up in your village in 1998?

  • Well at that time that they went, at the time that I was captured, Staff Alhaji was the leader for the rebels initially when they went there.

  • Was it Alhaji, or was it Savage?

  • Alhaji, Savage, they were there, but when I was captured I was taken to Alhaji.

  • Well we'll deal with when you were captured in a moment, but who did you understand the leader of the rebel group in Tombodu in March of 1998 to be?

  • It was Staff Alhaji who was there initially. Later the others came.

  • And what was Savage's role? Was he not one of the leaders?

  • He was a leader. At the time that I was captured and brought, I did not meet him there.

  • Do you remember the first time you ever saw the Prosecution, or the first time rather that you were interviewed by them, in November of 2002 saying that you left Tombodu and went to Guinea as a refugee after the SLA led by Savage and Staff Alhaji came to Tombodu and were killing civilians? Do you remember telling them that?

  • Yes, because when we were captured we were taken to Alhaji and when we came later I did not meet Savage there.

  • Well that may be the facts, but I'm asking you if you remember telling the Prosecution that the SLA rebels were led by Savage and Staff Alhaji. Do you remember telling the Prosecution that?

  • Yes, I can remember, but I - it was Staff Alhaji that I knew and he was the one that I named.

  • Yes, well do you agree that you named both of them?

  • Yes, they were there, but the person whom I saw I have named. He was the first person that I saw.

  • Yes, we have that point. I simply want to establish that you originally told the Prosecution that they were led by Savage and Staff Alhaji. Now they were both SLA, weren't they?

  • Can learned counsel please repeat his question.

  • Very well:

  • They were both SLA soldiers, weren't they, Savage and Alhaji?

  • Yes, at the time they were calling them juntas.

  • They may have been calling them juntas, but those two men were SLA soldiers, weren't they? Do you agree?

  • Thank you. Rambo was also amongst them, wasn't he?

  • He was also a soldier, wasn't he?

  • And was Rambo one of the leaders with those other two whose names we've mentioned?

  • All of them were juntas. Rambo, he was just like a leader. They were going around with their bodyguards.

  • And was Rambo equal in position to Staff Alhaji?

  • Was he above Staff Alhaji?

  • No, it was Staff Alhaji who was above.

  • Now, you gave evidence about an incident in which Rambo wanted to have you killed. Do you remember giving evidence about that and indeed mentioning it in your statements?

  • And why was it that you say Rambo wanted to have you killed?

  • Well, when they brought - when they attacked our town we went into the bush and he was the one who attacked us in the bush, together with my people, and he brought us to town.

  • Would your Honours give me just a moment while I turn to one of the transcripts, please?

  • Yes, certainly, Mr Munyard.

  • Now, you say that Rambo was the person who captured you and brought you into town?

  • Were you captured along with other people?

  • They captured me and brought me. There were many civilians there who were also captured and they were with them in the town.

  • Was Rambo wanting to kill all those other people as well, or just you?

  • Well, when they captured me and took me along he said I was a youth. I was a youth. He said he would kill me. He took all my properties and brought them.

  • Yes, I'm just trying to understand did he want to kill only you, or did he want to kill all the people who had been captured?

  • That was why I said I whom he captured, I was the one whom he said he would kill. I don't know about other people.

  • So can we assume that he didn't attempt to kill the other people and it was only you who he was wanting to kill? Is that a fair assumption?

  • If someone captures you and brought you --

  • Your Honours, can the witness kindly repeat his answer.

  • Mr Witness, I'll have to interrupt you. The interpreter did not get your answer. Can you please repeat the answer and speak more slowly. Remember that this evidence is not only being interpreted, but it's being written down as well. Now, do you need the question again?

  • Okay. Okay.

  • Perhaps ask the question again, Mr Munyard.

  • Can we assume that Rambo didn't attempt to kill the other people. It was only you that he was wanting to kill?

  • That was why I said he captured me in the bush and brought me to town. He said I was a youth. He will kill me. I don't know about other people.

  • All right, I'm going to move on from the other people. We'll concentrate on you. Why did he want to kill you because you were a youth?

  • He said we were the reason why they disarmed them and took their uniforms from them, the youths.

  • Well, let's just examine that in a little more detail. You were born in 1959, you say. This is 1998, isn't it?

  • And so how old do you say you were in 1998?

  • 1998, I was 42 then.

  • All right. Well the mathematics may not matter too much, but you say that you counted as a youth at that age, do you?

  • Yes, if they told you you were a youth.

  • Were you married with five children at that stage?

  • And how old was your oldest child at that time, March 1998?

  • My eldest child, 15 years.

  • And, Mr Charles, if you're a youth at aged around 40 and married with five children, at what stage do you become - sorry, at what age do you become a man as opposed to a youth?

  • What I am saying, I'm a traditional man. We do not calculate all of those years at that time.

  • I'm simply trying to understand why it was that you say Rambo wanted to kill you. You're telling us that he said he wanted to kill you because you were a youth, but you were around 40 years old, married with five children, the oldest one himself 15. Is this story true that you were targeted by Rambo because you were a youth?

  • Rambo - there were many. When they say juntas, there were many. He met me, he took my belongings and brought me to the town. So he was the one I knew, you see?

  • We understand all that. I'm trying to find out that, if your story is true, what was the reason that Rambo wanted to kill you?

  • If there is fighting in the country, nobody reasons. If that person wants to do something bad, he will just do it.

  • Well that may be so, but you've told us that he did give a reason and the reason was that you were a youth. That's what you've told us. Do you understand?

  • Yes, at that time when they saw young people they say "You are a youth" and they would capture you.

  • But, with great respect to you, you weren't a young person even in 1998, were you?

  • I think that's one of those yeses that could mean yes and could mean no. I had better explore it:

  • Are you agreeing with me that you were not a young person when you were aged around 40 and married with five children?

  • Mr Munyard, I'm just wondering perhaps your definition of a youth and the witness's definition of a youth may be at variance. It would be interesting to find out his definition of a youth.

  • Your Honour, certainly. That's exactly what I'm trying to find out; if he thinks that a man of 40, married with five children, counts as a youth:

  • Do you say that a man of 40, married with five children in Tombodu in Sierra Leone, would be regarded as a youth? That's a question to you, Mr Charles, it wasn't me responding to her Honour.

  • What I know, I said they captured me and they said I was a youth. I was not the only person. They were saying we were youths. They had guns. That the youths had taken their guns and clothes from them. So when they saw young people they will capture you. That was why I was captured and he said I was a youth.

  • All right. But you wouldn't have regarded yourself as a youth then, would you?

  • I am not an old man; I am a youth. Even now I can do whatever work you want me to do.

  • All right, I'm going to move on from the dangerous territory of who counts as an old or a young man. Now Rambo said that he wanted to kill you because you were a youth. Did you understand what the problem was that Rambo had with you being a youth?

  • That's what I have explained. I said that was what they said, that the youths are picking on them, that they were the ones who were taking guns from the soldiers and stripping them naked. That was the reason and that's what I have said.

  • Sorry, it may be me, but who was taking guns and stripping them naked?

  • I don't understand.

  • What you've just told us, the way it was translated is this: "I said that what they said, that the youths are picking on them, that they were the ones who were taking guns from the soldiers and stripping them naked." Who were taking guns from which soldiers and stripping them naked?

  • Well, the youths. They said the youths. And I never took guns from the soldiers or stripped them naked. But those who did it caused them to take all of us as the same, that we all did it.

  • Are you saying that there were youths, villagers, in Tombodu who were approaching the junta soldiers, taking their arms off them and then stripping them naked and getting away with it? Is that what you're telling us?

  • That one, the youths were there, they had their own job. There were youths that were there to work and there were other youths. When things happened somewhere all of them used to go there.

  • Yes, would you now answer the question I asked you. Are you saying that when the junta came to Tombodu that local youths were disarming the junta soldiers and stripping them naked and getting away with it?

  • Yes, it happened. There were people who did that. But it did not happen in our own town.

  • Well then, how do you know that this happened?

  • They themselves told us that the youths did that to them.

  • In which places?

  • They told us that Koidu, the youths did that there to them.

  • So this wasn't happening in your town or your village, but Rambo wants to kill you just in case you might do something like that. Is that what you're telling us?

  • Yes, because when there is fighting they did not come for only one person, they came with a bad mind. If they had come with a good mind it would be different, but they came with a bad mind.

  • And the account that you gave the Court when you were giving earlier testimony was that Rambo has you stripped naked and is going to have you shot; do you remember saying that?

  • He captured me and brought me. He asked me to strip myself naked. He said I was a youth. He said he would kill me. And I stripped myself naked.

  • Well, what you actually told the Court was, "They took all my clothes off me. The juntas, they undressed me." Now you're saying you were told to and you took your clothes off yourself. Which way round was it, for the benefit of --

  • They had guns and they said I should undress and I undressed and they said they will kill me. If somebody says strip and he was carrying a gun you would strip yourself naked.

  • For the benefit of those who have the transcripts it's 12 January 2005, page 25 and it's lines 9 down to 12. What you told the Court in the RUF trial, Mr Charles, was this:

    "When I was brought to Tombodu they took all my clothes off

    me.

    Q. Who is they, Mr Witness?

    A. The juntas. They undressed me."

    Why didn't you tell the previous court, "They held a gun to me and forced me to take my clothes off" if that's how it happened?

  • I beg your pardon? Are you saying that this transcript is wrong?

  • What they wrote, that they undressed me, it's true. It was the juntas. The person who captured me and brought me is a junta. I said that.

  • And now you're saying something different, do you agree, that it was you who undressed yourself?

  • No, it's not different. Somebody captures you and brings you, he had a gun, he said, "Strip yourself naked." I stripped myself naked and he told me he was going to kill me.

  • He said he's going to kill you and then you get taken to Staff Alhaji. Is that right?

  • And Staff Alhaji tells you to stand up, put your clothes on and go away. Is that right?

  • Yes.

  • Is any of this true, that Rambo's got you naked and about to shoot you dead and Alhaji - you're taken to Alhaji who simply says get dressed and go away?

  • Yes. I was sitting down and he told me to strip naked and he took an order from Alhaji. He said, "I have brought this man, he's a youth, I'm going to kill him." And Alhaji told me to get up, take your clothes and go. He told me to go.

  • So Alhaji spared your life?

  • Yes; God did not want me to die.

  • And this is the same Alhaji, is it, who you also gave evidence about who was responsible with Savage for burning people alive in their houses?

  • Yes, they were there, the juntas.

  • No, this is the same Alhaji, is it, who you told the Court in the RUF trial was responsible, with Savage, for burning people alive in their houses?

  • Yes. Alhaji, he was the one there. That was what happened.

  • And after Alhaji told you to put your clothes back on and go away where did you go?

  • I went - I returned to the bush but I did not see my people. I went and saw some civilians who went to Forekonya. There was a village after that called Gbensendoh. That was where we were.

  • In other words, one minute you're about to be shot dead and the next minute you're completely free to go and in fact you end up some months later in Guinea, yes?

  • No, it did not happen like that. I did not go on the same day. They cannot just release me and run away to Guinea. Going to Guinea would be more than a month or two. I did not know the place.

  • Mr Munyard, sorry to interrupt, but could we capture those spellings, please. Mr Interpreter, can you spell Forekonya.

  • Forekonya, phonetically it's F-O-R-E-K-O-N-Y-A.

  • And the second village, Gbensendoh.

  • Gbensendoh is G-B-E-N-S-E-N-D-O-H.

  • Thank you, Mr Interpreter.

  • Mr Charles, the place that we've been talking about here called Forekonya, where is that? What country is that in?

  • In between Guinea and Sierra Leone. If you are going to Guinea from Sierra Leone you go through Forekonya.

  • It's in Guinea, towards this end on the border.

  • All right. Is it in fact called Fakuniya, spelt F-A-K-U-N-I-Y-A?

  • Mr Witness, did you hear the question?

  • I don't understand.

  • The village that you've told us was in Guinea, the place you went to that we've just had spelt Forekonya, is it actually called Fakuniya?

  • Forekonya, Forekonya, yes.

  • Again, your Honours and my learned friends opposite, I am looking at the transcript of his evidence on 12 January 2005, page 27, when he says that he went to Fakuniya and it's in Guinea, lines 12 and 13, on page 27 of that transcript.

  • Mr Witness, the question is there are two places, Fakuniya and Forekonya. Are they one and the same place?

  • They did not write it properly. It's Forekonya. It's one town. Forekonya.

  • It is the same place that we're talking about, do you agree?

  • Yes, Forekonya. We went to Forekonya. From there we went to Gbensendoh.

  • But in your account to the Court in the RUF trial you told them that after Alhaji saved your life, by simply telling you to stand up, get dressed and go, that you went away. You went looking for your people and you found your wife and children - two of your children - and then they told you that your mother-in-law had taken the three other children to Fakuniya in Guinea. Is that correct? Is that what happened after Alhaji saved your life?

  • Yes. So is this the position, Mr Charles? That in March of 1998 you have a very brief encounter with the rebels in or near Tombodu in the course of which Rambo captures you and a lot of other people, he decides he's going to kill you, he either makes you strip, or his forces strip you, and he holds a gun to you, but then Alhaji says "Get dressed and go away" and that's all your dealings with the rebels - the junta - in 1998. Is that right?

  • At that time that I went, what they did to me that was not all. When we went and came back something else happened.

  • Well, when do you say you came back?

  • I don't understand.

  • You have just told us, "At that time that I went, what they did to me that was not all". Let me just try and start again at that point. All that happens to you in March of 1998 is that you're captured by Rambo, he threatens to kill you, Alhaji releases you and you go away, yes?

  • Yes.

  • And you go off in search of your family and you eventually some months later end up in Guinea, yes?

  • You told us a moment ago, "When we went and came back, something else happened". When is it that you say you came back?

  • At the time that we went? I want to understand the time I went, or the time I returned? Is that what you want to know?

  • By "came back" I understood you to mean returned. Is that what you meant when you said, "When we came back, something else happened"?

  • When we went and we were in Gbensendoh, we were there when we heard that ECOMOG have come to Koidu. That's the time we started trickling in again. That was how we returned.

  • Yes, I simply want to know when was that? We've been dealing with March of 1998. You have a brief encounter with the rebels - junta - and then you go off and find your family and end up in Guinea. When is it that you come back, please?

  • At the time that we returned that was in September, at the time that we heard about the coming of ECOMOG.

  • September of which year?

  • Well, before we deal with that - well, no, let's just go straight to that. Where is it that you go to in September of 1998?

  • We were in Forekonya - Gbensendoh when we heard that ECOMOG had come to Koidu. We the civilians were many, so we came up to Yorkodu. It was the Donsos who went to receive us and we came to Yorkodu.

  • Right. And the Donsos, are they a kind of Kamajor?

  • We called them Donsos, CDFs.

  • Donso, Kamajor. Some called them Kamajors. We called them Donsos.

  • I understand, but it's a different name for the same kind of people, do you agree?

  • Yes.

  • So you get to Yorkodu in September of 1998, but you don't actually go back into Tombodu until February of 1999, do you?

  • We were in Yorkodu and they took us - they said we should go to Kokuima to ECOMOG. At the time they had dislodged ECOMOG from there, so we returned. We returned to Yorkodu. We left Yorkodu and went to Wordu in the bush. We were there and the rebels took over the whole place and they said the civilians should come out of the bush to come to town and that they would do nothing to civilians. That was in February we were in Yarya. Yarya Town.

  • Thank you. So in the middle of February 1999 you yourself go back to Tombodu. Is that correct?

  • Yes, I went to Tombodu. At that time they said everybody should go to his or her place. That was in 1999.

  • And you went and looked at Tombodu and satisfied yourself that it was safe to bring your family back, didn't you?

  • Yes, I went and looked. Where we were there were rebels there, we had nowhere to go, so I went to my people and told --

  • Your Honours, can the witness kindly repeat his answer slowly.

  • Mr Witness, you are speaking too quickly for the interpreter and he has missed --

  • All right. Well in future if you could remember to speak more slowly, but the interpreter has missed some of your answer.

  • The interpreter has missed some of your answer, as a result of you speaking too quickly, so the last thing we heard from you was, "Where we were there were rebels there, we had nowhere to go, so I went to my people". Can you remember what you said after that?

  • Well, let them repeat the question so that I can explain.

  • Well I'll repeat the question, but I'm not sure if it will help:

  • You went and satisfied yourself that it was safe to bring your family back to Tombodu, correct?

  • Yes. When the rebels said - when the rebels took all of us out of the bush and said we should go to our homes, then I went and looked there because where we were there were rebels there too. They had taken over every place. So, I went and told my people that we should return to our place.

  • And you had gone from Yorkodu, yes?

  • Yes, we went to Yorkodu.

  • How far is Yorkodu from Tombodu?

  • The distance is long.

  • How many hours or days would it take you to walk from Yorkodu to Tombodu?

  • You wouldn't take a day. You wouldn't sleep on the way. A day.

  • Perhaps we could have a spelling of Yorkodu according to the transcript.

  • According to the transcript it's Y-O-R-K-O-D-U.

  • Thank you:

  • And you had come back from Guinea to Yorkodu, because it was safe enough at that stage. Is that correct?

  • Yes, the Donsos were everywhere. ECOMOG had come and all the places there were Donsos there.

  • I should have asked you earlier how long did it take you to get from Guinea - from where you were in Guinea to Yorkodu?

  • It's not one month, not two months. It's a long distance. We did not just come at one go. Sometimes we would come and stay at a place for quite a long time and we did that until we got to Yorkodu. It's a long distance.

  • Very well. So you go to Tombodu, you satisfy yourself it's safe to bring your family back and you bring them back a week after you first go to Tombodu, yes?

  • Yes, I came and looked at the place. That's my birthplace. That's why it was good for me to return there.

  • This is at the end of February 1999, correct?

  • When do you say you brought your family back to Tombodu?

  • At first when I came to look at the place it was in 18 February, then I returned. Then me and my people, on 26 February I took my people and we came back.

  • Yes, so you're agreeing with me it was the end of February which has only --

  • Yes.

  • -- 28 days in 1999 that you brought your family back and at that time the RUF were treating you all well. Do you agree?

  • Those whom we met there they were the ones who told us that, "Come, we don't kill people", and someone whom you are afraid of and tells you, "Come", you come. Those whom we met there did not initially do anything to us; those who were there.

  • Yes, thank you. Now, just help us with this. Were you a farmer at the time that we're talking about, 1998 and 1999?

  • 1998, before I went I was a farmer. I had rice. They took all from me.

  • I want to find out what other activities went on in the area around Tombodu before your first encounter with the rebels in 1998. Was - there was obviously farming. What other commercial activities went on in the area from which people earned a living?

  • At that time before we ran away? I want to understand if it was before we ran away?

  • Yes, before your first encounter in March of 1998 with the junta?

  • People used to do cassava farming, potato farming. There were food - there was foodstuff. We had yams from the bushes.

  • Mr Charles, apart from farming, were there any other commercial activities through which people earned their living in your area?

  • Tell us what they were, please.

  • Before we ran away they were petty trading - petty trading was going on. People used to come from the small villages, they bring foodstuff, they bring clothing. It was a business place. It's a very big town.

  • And was there any mining going on in your area?

  • Before we ran away?

  • Before we ran away mining was going on, but when we ran away nobody was mining. When we went we were doing the mining, the civilians, but when we went away mining was not going on until we came back. It was at that time that mining started.

  • Well, mining started again, you mean, after you came back. Is that what you're trying to tell us?

  • Yes. When we came back the rebels starting mining. The RUF starting mining.

  • So before all this happens, before March 1998, how significant, how important was mining in your local area?

  • Well, the word "mining" was there, there were acres there, licences, they used to work as per licences.

  • Do you recall a period of time between May of 1997 and February of 1998 when the junta was in power, in government in Freetown?

  • Yes, I can remember.

  • Was mining going on during that period of time in your area?

  • At that time, when we heard that the juntas have taken over the place, we the civilians who were doing the mining, we were not mining, it was the soldiers who were doing the mining up to the time that we ran away.

  • Right. You said, "We the civilians who were doing the mining". Do you mean by that that before the junta came to power in May of 1997 civilians were doing the mining?

  • Yes. Before - before the juntas came, we the civilians, we had our plots, we were doing the mining.

  • Were you one of the people who was doing any mining?

  • At that time when we had not run away, when the soldiers had not yet come, when the juntas had not come, we were mining. When you stayed there the only thing you had to do was to mine.

  • Were you personally doing mining before the junta came to power in May of 1997?

  • So as well as being a farmer you also worked in the diamond mining industry, yes?

  • Yes, it's a time for it. There is time to mine diamonds and there is time to farm.

  • When the junta took over you say that the civilians were no longer doing the mining, soldiers were doing the mining. Is that right?

  • Yes, they were there, they were in charge of the country. The civilians had no power then.

  • So on your account, from May of 1997, civilians were forced out of mining as opposed to forced into mining. Is that right?

  • At that time they did not force them to go to the mines at that time because everybody was worried, everybody ran away at that time. Everybody was scared because they had guns. We were afraid of them.

  • All right. So no civilians are mining between May of '97 and February of '98. You leave the area in March of 1998, we know. Between February '98 and March '98 did civilians go back and do the mining?

  • For me, at that time when they were disarmed, when the juntas came we were not mining. We had no chance to mine for me.

  • I'm talking about after the overthrow - sorry. After the intervention which restored President Kabbah to power, around February of 1998, but before you leave the area in March of '98, were civilians back in the mines again?

  • So is it the case that the mines simply weren't being worked in that period of time?

  • From 1998, is that what you mean?

  • No, between the intervention, the restoration to power of Tejan Kabbah, and you being told by Alhaji that you could go off and go away and you go eventually to Guinea, during that period, February to March, was any mining happening and if so who was doing it?

  • At the time we were not mining because the soldiers, the juntas, had all come there to Kono to that mining area. The civilians were not mining at that time. We were not there.

  • So the junta was still there between February '98 and March '98 and carrying on mining. Is that what you're telling us?

  • All right. And during the time that the junta were doing the mining, from May '97 onwards, were they using heavy equipment to dig out the gravel?

  • At the time that we returned - I want to understand if you mean the time that we returned.

  • No, I mean before you go away in March of 1998. You've told us that once the junta come into power in May of '97 it's the soldiers who take over the mining fields. When the soldiers took over the mining fields did they use heavy equipment to dig out the gravel?

  • Well, did you ever hear how the soldiers were doing their mining?

  • I said at the time I was not there and I can't - where we were - somebody who is running away would not be too smart enough to know what was going on. I was worried. I didn't know what was going on there.

  • I'm talking about May of '97 to March of '98, while you're living in and farming in Tombodu but no longer mining, did you ever hear how the junta were conducting their mining operations?

  • At that time - at the time that they came all of them had guns. At that time they were not paying attention to mining. They - all of them had guns. We the civilians ran away, all of us. We were not there.

  • All right. Before you all ran away, when the soldiers turned up with guns, was any of the mining being done by the use of heavy equipment to dig out the gravel?

  • That was later. I was not there. I was not there at the time.

  • No, I'm asking you at the time you were there I just want to find out if any mining was done by using heavy equipment, either at the time when you were mining or when the soldiers were mining before you left the area. Now you've dealt with the soldiers, you say you don't know how they did their mining. What about the time before the --

  • I have understood now. Before I left there were machines such as drag lines and Caterpillars, but I did not go to the mines.

  • We've got there. Thank you very much. Do you have any idea where those Caterpillars and drag lines came from? And if you don't have any idea, please say so.

  • I don't know anything about that.

  • Right. Let's move forward again, please. End of February '99 you bring your family back to Tombodu and for about the first month or so you're treated well by the rebels. Do you agree?

  • Yes. When we came initially those whom we met, I can't tell lies about that, they treated us well, because they had said we should come to live in the town.

  • Yes, and it's not until either late March or early April that things change. Do you remember giving evidence to that effect before?

  • Thank you. And do you have any idea why things changed by about April of 1999?

  • And what's your understanding of why the situation changed then?

  • What I knew - when we came the rebels who were there, they did not do anything bad to us because they were not many. But when - all the rebels scattered all over the place. When they scattered all over the place and their number increased they started capturing us and taking us away. They would tell us to go and take vehicles from the bushes at the time. They started bringing bullets and they were many. It was at that time that things changed.

  • And after that you, the civilians in the area, are both forced to carry loads and also forced to work for the rebels. That was your evidence. Do you agree?

  • Yes.

  • And the main things that you were forced to do was provide food and the transportation of materials for the rebels and also to mine for them. Do you agree?

  • They started at first - they first started telling us to go and take vehicles for them in the bushes. They were taking civilian property from the other villages, husk rice were - husking rice for them. At that time there was no mining. That was what they started with at first.

  • The main thing that they got first was food, food and property to live with. Is that correct?

  • That one, they used to take food. They used to take civilians to bring rice for them. They asked them to carry them on their heads. Apart from property they need to take food as well.

  • Yes. In other words, what they stole from the civilians was what they needed to live off. Is that correct?

  • It you take something else from somebody else it's true, but if you take it from that person and the person is not happy how do you see it?

  • No, I'm simply asking you: The things that they stole were the things that they needed to be able to live and eat. Do you agree?

  • Yes. They were not the owners but they took them anyway.

  • No, I'm not saying it was right, I'm saying their purpose in taking them was for them to be able to survive. Would you accept that?

  • Right. You say they also forced you and others to mine. Were you yourself forced into the mines?

  • And for how long were you made to do mining for the rebels?

  • It went up to two years doing the mining for them.

  • Not all the time for two years, was it, you personally doing mining for them?

  • Yes, I mined for them for long.

  • Well, isn't it right that after a couple of months the rebels lost interest in you and went off and captured other civilians from other villages and brought them to the mines?

  • Yes, they took them and brought them because they knew that those of us who were in the village would not run away, so they used to bring people from other villages. They used to tie them up to bring them.

  • But is it right that after a couple of months they lost interest in having you personally work in the mines?

  • You know, mining, it was done in shifts. If you work up to a time - they knew that you were many. Now you were all in the town. They didn't care too much about you because they had other people.

  • Right. So do you agree that after a couple of months you were left to get on with your own life and other people were forced into the mines instead of you?

  • They did not just leave us like that. They opened another mining. It was open-ended. They didn't just leave us like that. They used to bring some people to add them to us and we were all working. We were there in the town. There came to a time when they knew that we can't run away, we can't go anywhere, that was why they used to bring other people and added them to us.

  • Were you also doing some farming at that time?

  • No, we didn't even think about farming at that time.

  • And just tell us this: Did you see heavy material like drag lines and Caterpillars during the time that you were working in the mines in 1999?

  • Yes, I saw a Caterpillar and the person who was driving the Caterpillar, I knew him. They brought a drag line and they brought a washing plant.

  • And you have no idea where that machinery came from, do you?

  • I can't say anything about that because we were there. I wouldn't know.

  • For all you know it might have been the same machinery that had been used in the mines before the junta took over in May of 1997. Do you agree?

  • Well, I can't say anything about that because I did not know where they had come from.

  • Now at this time there was a disciplinary system operating within the rebels' organisation, wasn't there?

  • I don't understand this.

  • I'll put it in another way: The rebels had established a system whereby somebody was appointed to the post of G5 and civilians were able to process their complaints about their treatment through the G5, weren't they?

  • And the G5 in Tombodu in your time was called Sylvester Kaieh, I think. First of all, can you confirm he was called Sylvester and then can you tell us what his family name was?

  • His name was Sylvester Kaieh.

  • Thank you. And how do you spell Kaieh?

  • That one, K-A-I-E-H.

  • Thank you. And Sylvester Kaieh was a decent man, wasn't he?

  • Yes. You know, in whatever thing you cannot say everybody is bad. He was in between us and the rebels.

  • And he was actually helpful to the civilians, wasn't he?

  • Yes, he was a good man to them.

  • You could bring a complaint to Sylvester and he would ensure that rebels who had done wrong would be punished. Is that right?

  • Yes. Most of them were not listening to him, but he didn't tire.

  • Mr Charles, is it right that civilians could bring a complaint to Sylvester and he would ensure that the rebels who had done wrong would be punished?

  • Sylvester, at the time that he was there, when they said he was G5, but when the rebels came and their number increased they were not listening to him that much, but he used to talk for us. He did not relent.

  • But people - rebels were actually punished following complaints by civilians of mistreatment by the rebels, weren't they?

  • They did not do anything to them.

  • Who did not do what to who?

  • Well, I asked about rebels being punished. I take your Honour's point. It may be he's - I don't think he is saying civilians were never mistreated, but let's clarify that:

  • Mr Charles, rebels were actually punished for mistreating civilians, weren't they? Yes or no?

  • Are you saying that rebels were never punished for mistreating civilians?

  • They just advised them, but I did not see them being punished. They just advised them.

  • Your Honours, the interpreter would like to make a correction. Instead of "advised", they just warned them.

  • In other words, they got a telling off, that was all. Is that what you're saying? They got a telling off?

  • Mr Witness, what is your answer? Did you understand the question?

  • I understood. He said whether when these civilians did - when the rebels did anything, if they were punished. I said no, they did not punish the rebels. They just warned them to stop mistreating the civilians, but they did not listen because they were many.

  • So the worst thing that ever happened to a rebel was that he got told off for mistreating a civilian. Is that what you're telling us?

  • Yes, they would call them and warn them, but they did not listen. When they did something to a civilian they would be warned. In fact what they would do thereafter would be more than what they had done.

  • What does that mean? Mr Witness, can you explain what they would do thereafter would be more than what they had done.

  • Yes. He asked me if the G5 was there talking to the civilians and I said yes, but when the rebels did bad things to the civilians, when they mistreated them if - when he called them, when he talks to them, the next day what they did - what they would do would be serious, more serious than what they had done initially because they were not listening to the warnings that were given to them.

  • Right. Do you remember giving evidence about Sylvester when you gave evidence in the RUF trial?

  • Yes.

  • And do you remember saying - and it's 14 January 2005 on page 48 at lines 13 onwards - do you remember saying that when Sylvester was introduced to you as a G5 commander "And any time we had difficulties with the rebels we told him he was able to resolve them amicably." Do you remember using those words when you gave evidence in the RUF trial?

  • If Sylvester - if the rebels did something, if he was the one they went to for him to mediate, is that what you mean?

  • I don't understand.

  • Hold on. It's not what I'm dealing with at the moment. I'm asking you if you remember, when you gave evidence in the RUF trial, saying this:

    "When we arrived he was introduced to us as a G5 commander and any time we had difficulties with the rebels we told him, he was able to resolve them amicably."

    Do you remember saying that to the Court in Freetown?

  • Right. So he was able to sort out problems between civilians and the rebels, yes?

  • Let me explain again. At first when we went, when they were not many, those who were there were not doing bad things to us, but when they came - when the others came they never heeded what he told him.

  • Well, you've never suggested that before, Mr Charles. Do you agree that you've never said before that nobody heeded what he told them?

  • I said - I said those who were there initially were listening to him, but the others who came thereafter, the rebels who were coming never listened to him.

  • You've never said that before, have you?

  • But what I said, that Sylvester was a go-between between us and the rebels who were there, I said he used to talk for us. I said that.

  • And you're now trying to dilute what you've previously said about Sylvester's ability to sort out problems between civilians and the rebels, aren't you?

  • I have explained and I have repeated. I said he was a go-between for us and the rebels. That when the rebels did something bad he was the one that we reported to. I have said that.

  • Put Sylvester on one side for a moment, please. Did you ever hear of any occasion when --

  • I'm just coming to it. Did you ever hear of any occasion when rebels were beaten or arrested for mistreatment of civilians?

  • Can you remember telling the Prosecution that you were at one point acting town chief of Tombodu?

  • Yes, that was what happened. They selected me to lead the youths, to be --

  • Mr Charles, I'm going to stop you there. I'm not asking you what happened. I'm asking you do you remember telling the Prosecution that you were acting town chief of Tombodu at one stage?

  • Thank you. Do you remember telling the Prosecution that you saw the body of a young man who had been robbed and killed by rebels in the village of Mandi Kalah, which I'll spell in a moment?

  • M-A-N-D-I K-A-L-A-H. Do you remember telling the Prosecution that you were beaten by rebel command for failing to report seeing the body of the young man who had been robbed and killed by rebels in that village?

  • And do you remember telling the Prosecution that the perpetrators, those who'd robbed and killed that young man, were later arrested and one was actually killed by the rebels for his role in that. Do you remember telling the Prosecution that?

  • Your Honours, can the learned counsel repeat the question again.

  • Do you remember adding that to account that the perpetrators were later arrested and one actually killed by the rebels for their role in that young man's robbery and murder?

  • So there was a system of discipline among the rebels in which you actually were supposed to have had a role in reporting attacks on civilians. Do you agree?

  • Yes, but where this thing happened the distance is long. It did not happen in my town. Where I was, the distance was two miles to the place.

  • So something happened just two miles from where you lived and you were supposed to report attacks on civilians by the rebels, weren't you?

  • When this thing happened it was more than weeks before people knew that something bad had happened there. Nobody knew. When they killed that person they threw him or her in a pit. Nobody knew.

  • A forest instead of pit, sorry.

  • Let's just look at that in a little more detail. You were the acting town chief you told them. Is that right? Were you the acting town chief of Tombodu?

  • And Tombodu is a much bigger place than the village of Mandi Kalah just two miles away, isn't it?

  • And Mandi Kalah wouldn't have a town chief, would it?

  • There was a town chief, but they had all run away. It was a town where houses were, but nobody was there. Nobody was there. The only people who were there were the Limbas, but they had all run away.

  • And you had responsibility for reporting attacks on civilians in your area in and around Tombodu, didn't you?

  • In Tombodu Town whatever happened there I will know, but where that thing happened I did not know. Nobody knew. They had guns. They did the thing. I did not know.

  • Well, somebody knew because you got beaten for failing to report to it, didn't you?

  • You know, the rebels, they don't ask questions. When they say that you were the chief, when something happens they don't even ask you, they just beat you up. They don't even ask you.

  • Whether it was right or wrong to beat you up over that particular incident it is right, isn't it, that one of your responsibilities as acting town chief was to bring to the attention of the rebels mistreatment of civilians. Do you agree?

  • I wouldn't refute that, but what I'm saying is that if you do not know something how would you talk about it? If you don't know something how would you actually talk about it? These people did some - this thing. If I had known - that's the main road. If I don't know something how would I talk about it? That was why nobody knew. Other civilians did not know. They just saw the corpse and later they knew that it was done by one of them. That was after they had beaten me up, that it was done by one of them. That was the time that they told me to take things easy.

  • And how did you find out that the perpetrators of this unlawful act against a civilian were later arrested?

  • The way I knew, all of us went to that village and the Limbas who were there in that village, who had run away, they knew the person who had done that and these people were close by. Three rebels. One of them was called Fire Fire. They called him Fire Fire. And they went to their house. This person who was killed, they saw this properties with him, with them, so they arrested them and brought them. That was after they had beaten me up.

  • We understand that, but the rebels arrested the three people who were responsible, did they?

  • And they killed one of them for his part in the murder and robbery of the young man, yes?

  • Yes, that was what they said, that they had killed one of them. I was not there when he was taken away. I was not there any longer when they took him away but they said they had killed one of them. They said they wouldn't kill three people for one person.

  • Mr Charles, killing somebody for the murder of a civilian is rather more severe than telling him off, isn't it?

  • I do not understand.

  • You told us earlier that no rebels ever got more than a warning for mistreating civilians. Killing someone is a lot more than warning them, isn't it?

  • I can't say. I still have not understood your question.

  • It may be that you have forgotten what you told us earlier when you - do you remember saying to the learned judges that the only thing that ever happened to rebels, when civilians complained against them, was that they got a warning? Do you remember saying that about 20 minutes ago?

  • Yes, I did say that. Where we were in Tombodu, that was where this was happening, but in its surroundings - they were scattered all over the place. This law, it did not hold. Those people who came did not take it. In Tombodu where we were, yes, when we came initially they used to warn them, but when they went all over the place they were not under any other control.

  • It was important enough for you to remember and tell the Prosecution about it, wasn't it, this rebel being killed for his mistreatment of a civilian?

  • At that time when I gave this statement they did not ask me about that. They did not ask me.

  • So you mean you just volunteered the information because it was so close to the forefront of your thoughts. Is that what you're telling us?

  • No. It happened in my presence. That was why I talked about it. It happened.

  • Right. I'm going to move on to something else, please. Now, you've talked to us about being forced to mine in your area. You don't have any personal knowledge of what happened in any other areas, do you?

  • Where we were I know about there, but the mining was happening everywhere under them.

  • You can only talk about your own area, can't you?

  • Yes, where I was, what I saw is what I will talk about, what I saw.

  • Was the two pile system operating when you were being forced to mine in the Tombodu area?

  • Was a two pile system ever in operation in your area?

  • Before we ran away? At the time that we had not run away there was a two pile system, but when they came they were not doing it by two piles. They said government property at that time. Nobody did two pile system. At the time that we were working there there was no two pile system.

  • So what was the two pile system in operation before the rebels came?

  • Well, the way this two pile system was, when you went to work in somebody's acre and you excavate the gravel, the person who owns the acre would get one pile and you who excavate the gravel had one pile. That was the two pile system that was there.

  • And are you saying that during the whole time that you were forced to mine in 1999 onwards there was never a two pile system operated by the rebels in your area?

  • No, it was not there.

  • Did you ever hear of such a system being operated anywhere else where the rebels were in control of the mines?

  • That was why I said I only know about where I was. Mining was done everywhere. What I saw from where I was, there was no two pile system there.

  • Yes. You see, you say, "I only know about where I was" and then you say mining was done everywhere. You can't have it both ways, Mr Charles. Either you only know about your own area or you've heard about other areas as well. Which one is it?

  • Where I was, you know, it's close to a big river, that's the place I know. My own area, where we were working, where the rebels were working, that was where I knew. I did not go in search of other places. I knew about where I was.

  • Your evidence was that the diamonds were given to the rebel commanders. Is that right?

  • Yes. It was not a secret mining. It was done openly.

  • Where do you say the diamonds were given openly to the rebel commanders?

  • Where they were working, the civilians who were captured, it was not a hidden thing. We were the ones who were doing the work. Where we work it's the main road. When the plant washes the gravel, they put it together and they gave the diamonds to the rebels. The civilians would take the diamonds and give them to the rebels.

  • The civilians doing the mining would give the diamonds to a nearby rebel soldier presumably, is that correct?

  • After they would have washed the gravel they would pick up the big diamonds. It's a concentrate. It's a washing plant.

  • Who is "they would pick up the big diamonds"? Who is the "they" here?

  • The rebels themselves, they would pick them up. And the ones that would remain, they would start washing that. When the civilians washed the gravels they would take the diamonds and give them to the rebels.

  • Right. And when you say they would give them to the rebels you presumably mean a rebel soldier standing nearby, yes?

  • The rebels were there, all of them had guns. They were overseeing the mining. When you were working they would be guarding you. When the concentrate is overturned they would be standing there and they would gather the diamonds. The little one that would remain, they would wash them by the shaker and they would pick them up and give them to the rebels.

  • Right. And what would the rebels do with them when they got the diamonds from the civilians? Where would they put them?

  • When they gathered the diamonds their boss was there, General Issa. When he comes they would put the diamonds in a white paper and give them to him and he would take them along.

  • But there has got to be some stage in between, hasn't there? General Issa didn't spend all day and every day sitting in the mining area waiting to be handed diamonds, did he?

  • When the mining started, when the gravel is dug out he used to come there every day. I used see him. It was not hidden thing. It's an open mining. He used to come there every day.

  • And how long do you say he spent every day in the mining area whilst ECOMOG were presumably trying to close in on him and his troops?

  • ECOMOG was not there any longer. When we came back ECOMOG had been dislodged. They had taken over all the place.

  • How long do you say he spent every day in the mining area, Mr Charles?

  • Many times. When the concentrate is overturned there is a time he will come and when they would have picked up the diamonds they would give them to him. As long as it is gravel time he would come. I used to see him.

  • Your Honour, I'm going to have to explore this a little more I'm afraid, but I see the time.

  • Yes, thank you, Mr Munyard.

  • It's going to take more than a minute to deal with this account.

  • All right, thank you. Well, I think in that case we'll take the morning adjournment and we'll resume at 12 o'clock. Madam Court Manager, please adjourn.

  • [Break taken at 11.30 a.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 12.03 p.m.]

  • Yes, go ahead, Mr Munyard.

  • Thank you, your Honour:

  • Mr Charles, we were just dealing with Issa Sesay's presence at the mines when the mining started. This is April of 1999, is it?

  • The time that he used to go there, April 1999, we started the mining in the year 2000. That was when the mining started there.

  • Right. In the year 2000 Issa Sesay is the head of the RUF, isn't he?

  • Yes.

  • And how many days do you say you saw him coming along and spending time at your mining area?

  • I can't tell. A lot of times. When the mining started he used to come.

  • Just give us some sort of estimate of the number of days you claim to have seen him in your particular mining area waiting to be handed some diamonds?

  • Well, at the time that I saw him being given diamonds he went up to five to six times, but the mining he went there over 20 times.

  • Right. He goes over 20 times to your particular mining area, yes?

  • And it is right, isn't it, that it is not every day that diamonds are discovered in any particular mining area?

  • Diamonds, it has a period. Sometimes they work, they dig at the gravel, and even to wash that gravel has a particular time.

  • What I mean is, it is not on every day that the mine is operating that a diamond is found, is it?

  • Thank you. So, you are saying that Issa Sesay comes to the mining area that you see on 20 separate days in your own mining area in the year 2000? Is that what you are telling us?

  • Well, didn't he have a mining commander to oversee the mines, in your area, I mean?

  • So Issa Sesay takes the time to come to your mining area on 20 separate days to do what, if diamonds aren't actually being handed over to him on the remaining 14 or 15 occasions when you don't see him receive diamonds? What was he doing there on the days when he didn't get diamonds?

  • His people were there. He used to go there to see his people.

  • Well, you have said this was all terribly open, "We could see him being given diamonds." But where were his people that he was seeing and what was he doing with them?

  • He used to bring equipment. There was a commander there called Officer Med. Officer Med. When he brings the equipment he handed them over to him. You cross a bridge first and meet a town called Bendu II. When he comes that was where he stopped.

  • So are you suggesting that it was Issa Sesay himself who would bring the equipment to the mining commander?

  • The one who was there in charge of the mining, Officer Med, he sent him there to come and do mining, so whatever he brought his boss used to give it to him; that is Issa Sesay.

  • You are saying Issa Sesay himself took the trouble to bring mining equipment? Is that what you are telling this Court?

  • What I said was that there was a mining commander whom he put in charge of his mining. He gave them these equipments. I did not say he himself came, but he gave them to him to bring along.

  • All right. We now understand that you are not saying Issa Sesay himself brought the equipment, but you still maintain that on at least 20 occasions he came to the mine and spent how long there on each of those occasions, on average?

  • How long would he spend on these 20 occasions when he came there?

  • Sometimes when he comes he will spend one to two hours, then he will return.

  • In full view of you and the other miners? Was there - was he --

  • The interpretation.

  • I will try it again. When he came and would spend an hour or two hours there, were you able to see him the whole time, as you are toiling away in the gravel?

  • Yes, it was not hidden, it was in the open. It is a big road. It is not a hidden mining.

  • And he would stand around for up to two hours at a time with you all able to see him on 20 occasions whilst he was the leader of the rebel movement?

  • Yes, we saw him. We did see him.

  • Then you also told us that the people who found diamonds would have to hand them over to rebel soldiers, who then gave them to Issa Sesay, but what if it was a day when Issa Sesay hadn't dropped in to your particular mining area? What did they do with the diamonds then?

  • That was why he sent somebody there, a commander, Officer Med. He was in charge. He was the one who gave the diamonds to him.

  • No, you haven't understood me and I will try and phrase it in a different way. On a day when Issa Sesay chose not to visit your mining area, if diamonds were found and handed over to the rebel soldiers, what would happen to those diamonds, do you know?

  • No, I wouldn't know. What I saw, that is - that was what I said.

  • Right. And presumably they didn't leave the diamonds lying around on a piece of paper once it had been --

  • The diamonds would presumably be put away somewhere safe, out of sight of you and the other diamond miners. Is that correct?

  • What I saw, if it was picked up in my presence they would pass it over. If Issa did not come whatever was taken they will keep it and when their boss, Issa, comes, they will give it to him.

  • But you don't know what they would do with the diamonds that were picked up on any particular day, do you, if they were taken away by the rebels?

  • No, I did not know. When they picked them up they did not hand them over to me. I did not know what they did with them.

  • And are you saying that on five or six occasions you actually saw them give diamonds to Issa Sesay?

  • In full view of you all?

  • Yes, it was not a secret.

  • And are these diamonds that they had just - that had just been found when he happened to be there, or were these diamonds that they produced from some sort of safekeeping store and happened to hand over to him when he was there?

  • I did not know where he kept them. I did not know what he did.

  • No, what did the people who gave him the diamonds do? That is what I am asking you about. When you say you saw them hand over diamonds to him, were these diamonds the ones that happened to be found on that day before Issa Sesay arrived, or were these diamonds that they produced from some store place and handed to him because he happened to come by the mine?

  • When the gravel is washed they will call him and he will come. When he comes they would give them to him and he will put them in a white paper. I did not know what he did to them.

  • So, in other words, when they found diamonds they made Issa Sesay travel out to the diamond area rather than the diamond commander keeping them safely and taking them to the leader of the RUF. Is that what you are telling us? They made him come to the diamond mines to go them?

  • Yes, he sent them there. When they took diamonds they would wait for him. When he comes they would hand them over to him.

  • Well, I am not suggesting that you are telling the truth, I am not in a position to say one way or the other, but you certainly do not know what he did with the diamonds, do you?

  • No, I can't say. Whatever they did, I can't say.

  • One matter I want to deal with and I should have dealt with this earlier and it was an oversight on my part. When you were talking about Sylvester Kaieh, the G5 commander, you gave us his family name. Is that a Liberian name? Was he a Liberian, Sylvester?

  • He told me that his name was Sylvester Kaieh. He did not tell me he was a Liberian soldier. That was his name. He told me his name. I never knew his name. He himself told me his name.

  • And did you ever discover whether he was Liberian?

  • He speaks the Liberian language, what I know.

  • Right. And most people would not speak the Liberian language if they were not themselves Liberian. Was that your experience?

  • I, what I know, the language that he spoke, that is what I have said. I saw him speaking Liberian. He used to speak to us in Liberian language.

  • Thank you. And it is right, isn't it, that he saved a lot of people's lives?

  • I do not understand.

  • Do you remember when you were seen by the Prosecution on that - well, on the occasion that we have notes of your first interview on 16 November 2002, saying to them, "The G5 commander saved a lot of people's lives. He was kind to the civilians"? Do you remember telling them that?

  • Yes, I said it here that he used to speak on our behalf, the civilians.

  • And he saved a lot of people's lives, you told them. Do you agree?

  • Those of us who came, he used to talk on our behalf. They were the ones who said we should come. That was why a G5 was there. A G5 was somebody who spoke on behalf of the civilians.

  • Mr Charles, do you agree that what I am reading out from the copy of your statement given to us by the Prosecution is what you told them, "The G5 commander saved a lot of people's lives"?

  • Right. Now, I want to move on to a different topic which is the UN peacekeepers. A number of UN peacekeepers were captured in the mango season?

  • Yes.

  • The year - we had worked for quite some time. I think if I have not forgotten 2001, because I can't recall the time, but the diamond mining was on then. Probably I have forgotten, but the diamond mining was on when they were captured and brought there.

  • Right. And do you remember telling the Prosecution that you and other villagers took food to the peacekeepers who had been captured?

  • Yes.

  • That during the mango season you yourself and other townspeople from Tombodu would bring the captured Zambians some mangoes for food. Do you remember telling them that?

  • Then you added, "If we were caught doing this we would be punished by the rebels." Do you remember saying that?

  • What was the punishment?

  • When they brought them initially, they said nobody should give them food. When we took food to them, they punished us. They said we should not give them food. That was what they continued doing until the time came when they thought that they cannot feed them themselves so that was the time we started taking food to them.

  • Mr Charles, I asked you what was the punishment?

  • Oh, the punishment. When we went there, when they said we should not take food for them they were punishing us. They threatened us. They were threatening us, just like you would threaten someone.

  • Yes, but tell us what the punishment was, please?

  • When we took food for them and they said we should not take food for them they chased us out. They did not beat us up but they were threatening us that we should not take food for them.

  • The punishment was that you were shouted at. That is all, isn't it?

  • Yes, they were shouting at us, asking us why we were bringing food for them.

  • So why did you tell the Prosecutors in an interview in 2004 that people who were caught taking food to the Zambians were punished, if all that happened was that they were shouted at?

  • Well, when we took food for them, initially when we just brought them, they said we should not take food for them. The food that we took for them, they took all of that from us and they themselves ate the food.

  • Would you listen to the question, please. Why did you tell the Prosecutors in an interview in 2004 that people who were caught taking food to the Zambian peacekeepers were punished if in fact all that happened was they were shouted at?

  • That is it. If you shout at somebody who has taken food for another person, and you shout at that person and you push that person, telling him not to bring that food, that was it.

  • Now, is it right, as you told the Court in the RUF trial on 14 January 2005 - I am just pausing for a moment while the machine plays its part in these proceedings. Thank you very much. Mr Charles, is it right, as you told the Court on 14 January 2005, at page 115, that it was more than ten or 15 times that you took food to the Zambians? Is that correct?

  • Yes.

  • But you did not take food to the Zambians yourself, did you?

  • Your wife took food to the Zambians, not you. That is right, isn't it?

  • My wife? When I give my wife the food and she prepares it and takes that food along, I have given that to her.

  • You said in evidence, "It was more than ten or 15 times when I took food to them". Do you remember saying that?

  • And then you were asked how you had time to break off from your mining activities to go back into the town to start ferrying food to the Zambians and you explained that it was your wife who took the food to them. Do you remember?

  • Yes.

  • And you explained it further. You said:

    "I provided the foods and my wife prepared it and took it to them, so I mean if I provided food to be prepared is it not me giving the food to the Zambians?"

  • You were exaggerating your role in that activity, weren't you?

  • Equally you have tried to downplay the effectiveness of the G5 commander in securing discipline of rebels who mistreated civilians, haven't you?

  • No, it did not happen like that. They had their own job. The G5 had their own job. Their own job was if there was a dispute between you and the rebels, they looked after that. We were civilians. These people had come to fight for us. If they brought them and I was feeling sorry for them, that was why we were giving those foodstuffs to them, mangoes, potatoes. That was not the G5's job.

  • Could he be precise? Who are these people who came to fight for us?

  • Fine. I am perfectly happy to have the witness's answer explained:

  • Could you explain that, please?

  • Which one?

  • Well, I will read back your answer:

    "No, it didn't happen like that. They had their own job. The G5 had their own job. Their own job was if there was a dispute between you and the rebels they looked after that. We were civilians. These people had come to fight for us. If they brought them and I was feeling sorry for them, that was why were we giving those foodstuffs to them, mangoes, potatoes. That was not the G5's job."

    Now, I think what you have done there, Mr Charles, is that you have blended together an answer about the G5's role with your supplying mangoes to the Zambian peacekeepers. Can we try and separate them out, please. I have moved off the mangoes and the Zambians and I am suggesting that in your evidence before this Court you have tried to play down, to reduce, the positive impact of the G5 commander in establishing discipline against rebels who mistreated civilians. Do you agree that you have been playing down the effectiveness of Sylvester certainly in the early part of your evidence today?

  • No.

  • But there is a big difference between nobody taking any notice of him and him being responsible for saving many people's lives, isn't there?

  • If I said that - at the time that we came - I have explained this thing that before we settled there he was a go-between for civilians and the rebels, but when things changed and at that time that things changed the G5's control was not holding any more.

  • Mr President, those are my questions. Thank you.

  • Thank you, Mr Munyard. Any re-examination, Mr Werner?

  • Yes, Mr President.

  • Good afternoon, Mr Witness.

  • Yes, good afternoon.

  • Mr Witness - and for my learned friend I will be referring to page 37 of the LiveNote this morning. You testified, Mr Witness, this morning that when you first returned to Tombodu in 1999 at some point there were many rebels there. Then page 37, line 25, to page 38, line 1, you testified that, "Apart from property they used to take food as well". Mr Witness, what kind of property did they take other than food?

  • At the time they came they went into the bushes taking vehicles, vehicles which were abandoned there. They took vehicles and they told us to push those vehicles up to Koidu. They took those vehicles and the civilians' properties which they abandoned in the bushes, they took them as well. They put them under gunpoint and asked them to take those things. The rice that was left there also, they asked us to carry them on our heads. We did carry those things.

  • And when you talk about civilian properties, what kind of properties, Mr Witness?

  • There were things in the bush like - just things that humans do have. Things that we use. I have talked about a vehicle. They used to take people's vehicles. People's rice, they used to take them as well. There were other things, clothing and other things. If you had a tape recorder - some people hid their tape recorders in the bushes. They took those as well at the time.

  • Thank you, Mr Witness. Now, Mr Witness, this morning Defence counsel asked you a question about Sylvester Kaieh and he asked you - I am referring to LiveNote page 44, line 18, to page 45, line 5. Defence counsel asked you:

    "Q. Well, you have never suggested that before,

    Mr Charles. Do you agree that you have never said before

    that nobody heeded what he" - and he was referring to

    Sylvester Kaieh - "told them?

    A. I said - I said those who were there initially were

    listening to him, but the others who came thereafter, the

    rebels who were coming never listened to him.

    Q. You have never said that before, have you?

    A. But what I said that Sylvester was a go-between between

    us and the rebels who were there. I said he used to talk

    for us. I said that .

    Q. And now you are trying to dilute what you have

    previously said about Sylvester's ability to sort out

    problems between civilians and the rebels, aren't you?"

    Do you remember that exchange this morning, Mr Witness?

  • Yes.

  • Now, if we look at your evidence in the RUF trial - and I will be referring to the transcript in open session of 17 January 2005 and, for my learned friend's benefit, the exchange on that portion started on page 46 when there was a line of questioning regarding Sylvester Kaieh, but I will be referring to page 48, starting lines 20, up to page 49, line 24. Mr Witness, I am going to read to you an exchange between what was at the time the Defence counsel for Augustine Gbao, his name was Andreas O'Shea, and yourself. So the Defence counsel for Augustine Gbao asked you:

    "Q. Witness, try if you can to remember any specific

    examples of this sympathetic attitude that you have spoken

    about.

    A. Well, when we returned he was introduced to us as the

    G5" - and it is clear from the context that you are

    talking about Sylvester Kaieh - "and any time we had

    problem with the rebels we went to him. He called them and

    advised them that we were people that they should have

    sympathy for, they should not treat us as if we were

    animals, and he did amicably resolve most of the conflict

    that we had with them. That was good on his side.

    Q. Did the rebels listen to him?

    A. Most of them couldn't take his advice.

    Q. Were you ever present when Sylvester Kaieh gave an

    instruction to a rebel?

    A. Yes.

  • Sorry, did you say that most of them did

    not take to Kaieh's advice?

    MR O'SHEA: Yes, that is what he said, your Honour.

  • Most of them didn't take his advice.

    MR O'SHEA:

    Q. Now, my last question to you was that you were present

    on at least one occasion when Sylvester Kaieh gave an

    instruction to a rebel.

    A. Yes.

    Q. How would the rebels react in front of Sylvester

    Kaieh?

    A. I advised them on the spot. Sooner they leave they

    go and do other things that would be worse than what they

    have done before.

    Q. That may have been my fault. You are present.

    Sylvester Kaieh gives an instruction to a rebel not the

    treat the civilians like animals. Does the rebel respond

    verbally to Sylvester Kaieh?

    A. Before him they would say okay, they would refrain, but

    as soon as he left they did all of the worst things not

    expected of them."

    Mr Witness, do you recall saying that in the RUF trial?

  • Yes.

  • I have no further questions, your Honour.

  • Mr President, your Honours --

  • I want to ease myself.

  • Is what you are going to say going to take some time, Mr Munyard?

  • What I am going to say can be said in the witness's absence.

  • All right, thank you. Well, Madam Court Manager. Yes, Mr Munyard?

  • [In the absence of the witness]

  • Your Honour, I understand the point that my learned friend is making in highlighting that one passage of Professor O'Shea's cross-examination. However, in doing so my learned friend does come close to impeaching the witness, because he has agreed that he told the Prosecution that Sylvester Kaieh saved a lot of people's lives. Now he can't both be completely ignored by the rebels who then do far worse things to the civilians behind his back and save a lot of people's lives. There is an inherent contradiction in those two propositions, and so by highlighting this my learned friend is effectively cross-examining his witness and putting forward a different basis - in fact putting forward a totally contradictory position on the role of Sylvester Kaieh.

  • Your Honour, the only point I was addressing is the Defence counsel's contention, and I will use his own words, that the witness never said that nobody heeded what Sylvester Kaieh told them. That is exactly the point I was addressing.

  • I accept that, which is why with I prefaced my comments. I want to make that clear that I accept that, but the effect of it is to impeach the witness.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

  • The thing that puzzles me about that objection, Mr Munyard, is this: That Mr Werner was asking those questions and referring to the prior transcript to establish that, in fact, contrary to what you had suggested to the witness the witness did at some earlier stage suggest that Sylvester's advice had not been heeded. Now, you are saying that because the witness had also said in his testimony that Sylvester had saved a lot of lives, therefore, that evidence that I just referred to led by Mr Werner is virtually impeaching the credit of his own witness.

    Now, my problem with that submission is this: That in what way was Mr Sylvester said to have saved a lot of lives and what connection would that have had with the rebels ignoring his advice?

  • Your Honour, the context in which he said that he had saved a lot of lives was the passage that I read to him from his interview. What I am really in effect doing is inviting the Prosecution to find out from the witness which it is. Did he save a lot of people's lives, or was he constantly ignored? The two can't stand together. What I read to him, from an interview in 2002, was, "The G5 commander saved a lot of people's lives. He was kind to the civilians". Well, he is talking there about the G5 commander presumably in his role as G5 commander, i.e., the person who processes complaints by civilians.

  • Yes. My point is, unless I have missed some of the evidence, my point is that the possibility exists that the G5 commander may have saved a lot of people's lives regardless of the fact that the rebels ignored his advice. He may have saved them by some other method, and perhaps you could help me on the evidence that would point to the fact that the only way he could have saved a lot of people's lives was if the rebels heeded the G5 advice.

  • Well, I have to say I thought it was self-evident that when he is talking about the G5 commander he is there talking about him in his capacity as G5 commander.

  • [In the presence of the witness]

  • Mr Munyard, I wonder if I could pitch in with my tuppence worth of comments. I think the re-examination by Mr Werner focused on the words that you put to the witness, "Well, you have never suggested that before, Mr Charles. Do you agree that you have never said before that nobody heeded what he, that is Sylvester, was referring to, Sylvester Kaieh told them." Then the witness had answered, in response to you, "I said those were initially were listening to him but the others who came thereafter, the rebels who were coming, never listened to him." In other words, the witness is saying to you that he did say before and now I think Mr Werner goes back into the transcript to dig out evidence that is almost exactly the same --

  • Consistent.

  • -- to prove that he did in fact say before that Sylvester did try to warn these rebels but they never took heed.

  • I think that was the only point of the re-examination. That, of course, does not remove the apparent contradiction which is on the record for us to make what we will of it.

  • Well, that was my point, that having re-examined on that particular issue it then does throw up an apparent inconsistency in the witness's evidence.

    Now, Justice Lussick makes the point that the G5 commander saved a lot of people's lives, he was kind to the civilians, might not have been referring to him in his capacity as G5 commander; that is to say, doing his job as the complaints processor. And I was really concerned in my objection to raise the fact that this contradiction now does appear on the face of the record and it may be appropriate to try and resolve it.

  • Yes, yes, but, Mr Munyard, that contradiction, though it may be there, I don't agree with you that Mr Werner is by having re-examined therefore impeaching his own witness. I don't think so.

  • The witness's evidence, in and of itself, is perhaps inherently contradictory, but Mr Werner is only confirming that in a prior transcript this witness did say something that he has now repeated in these proceedings.

  • Right. I am content to leave it there. If the Court feels that there is something that needs clarifying about the statement that he gave to the Prosecution in 2002 then of course you have your own inherent power to ask the witness questions.

  • Yes, we do indeed, Mr Munyard, and we appreciate the nature of your objection, but it is quite evident from what my learned colleague says that we are of the same mind on this, that the question asked by Mr Werner was simply to refute the suggestion by you, Mr Munyard, that the witness had never before said that the rebels did not heed the advice of Sylvester.

    Now, whether that has any implications or effect on the rest of the evidence as it stands is a matter that you can certainly argue in your final arguments as, in fact, you have argued today and it is a matter that the Court can take into account in weighing the evidence itself, but just as an objection to Mr Werner's question I don't think it carries the day and we will overrule the objection and allow the question and the answer.

  • Very well.

  • So, your Honour, there were two MFIs and we would tender both as exhibits now. For the benefit of the Bench, because it was a bit complicated with two portions of closed session, we have done the break down for what was MFI-1 would be the first exhibit.

  • Wait on. There are three marked, isn't there? Isn't there MFI-1A and B and MFI-2?

  • Yes, exactly. Talking about MFI-1A you will remember that it was page 18893 to 19225. Now, the problem was in the middle there was two portions. We have done the break down for you to tell you exactly from which page to which page is what is now MFI-1A, so maybe I can give it to you.

  • That is very handy. Thank you, Mr Werner.

  • So it would be 18893 to 18919, 18925 to 19017 and then 19064 to 19225, and we would ask that MFI-1A becomes the next exhibit.

  • Yes, Mr Munyard, do you have any objection to these transcripts going in?

  • No, your Honour. Nor indeed to the exhibits, as I am on my feet.

  • Thank you. Yes. Well, the transcripts previously described somewhat differently, when marked for identification 1A, are now admitted into evidence as Prosecution exhibit P-199 - 199A that should be, is that correct? Madam Court Manager, have I got the right number there? 199A?

  • Your Honour, that is correct.

  • Thank you. 199A and they are the pages of the transcript of this witness's evidence given in the Prosecution against Sesay and others trial, and marked as CMS pages 18893 to 18919, 18 -- what is the next number?

  • 18925 to 19017, and 19064 to 19225, a total of 282 pages.

  • [Exhibit P-199A admitted]

  • And then there was MFI-1B, page 18920 to 18924, and page 19018 to 19063 and we would request it to be the next exhibit.

  • Thank you. Well, the --

  • And of course that would be confidential, which was the point of having MFI-1B.

  • Is there any issue there, Mr Munyard?

  • None, your Honour.

  • Mr Werner, if you don't mind could you please repeat those pages slowly. They are not captured on the transcript.

  • Of course, your Honour. 18920 to 18924 and then 19018 to 19063.

  • Thank you, Mr Werner. Well, those pages of the transcript of the evidence of this witness given in the RUF trial, previously referred to and marked for identification as MFI-1B, specifically the pages given in closed session and identified by CMS 18920 to 18924, and 19018 to 19063, that is of evidence given in closed session, will be admitted into evidence as exhibit P-199B and marked confidential.

  • [Exhibit P-199B admitted]

  • Yes, thank you, your Honour. And then there was MFI-2, the disbursement, which was at the time the exhibit in the RUF trial P-14. We would request that to be the next exhibit. 14. There was no Prosecution or Defence. It was exhibit 14 in the RUF trial.

  • That is right, yes, thank you. And the document previously marked for identification MFI-2, that is the document that was exhibited as exhibit 14 in the RUF trial, being disbursements for this witness and shown at page 19227 of the relevant transcript, will be admitted into evidence as exhibit P-200.

  • [Exhibit P-200 admitted]

    Thank you, Mr Witness. That finishes your evidence now and you are free to leave court. You will be escorted out now. Thank you very much. Do you have another witness, Mr Werner? Yes, Ms Hollis.

  • Mr President, the next witnesses in order will be TF1-195, TF1-206, TF1-197. These three witnesses are the subject of a pending decision based on a Prosecution pleading 586 regarding a Rule 92 bis admission of the evidence of these witnesses. TF1-198 was also included in that pleading but was unable to travel and is not here. So we are in the situation we were yesterday, your Honours.

  • I understand that, Ms Hollis. I can tell you this, that the motion has been decided by the Trial Chamber subject to our now checking one particular detail and we would be able to give an oral decision straight after lunch, but there is something that we have thought we ought to check. So what I intend to do, unless there are any objections, is adjourn early and we will resume at 2 p.m. and that will give us time to check this information that we see fit. I beg your pardon, we will return at 2.30, at the normal time. I will make that clear. We will adjourn now but come back at 2.30 at the normal time and that will give us the time we need. So, Madam Court Manager, if you will adjourn the Court, please.

  • [Lunch break taken at 12.55 p.m.]

  • [Upon resuming at 2.30 p.m.]

  • Yes. I note the Prosecution Bar has got some different appearances this afternoon, is that correct, or have you just changed seats.

  • Good afternoon, Mr President, good afternoon your Honours, good afternoon counsel opposite. We have just switched seats. The appearances are the same.

  • Thank you. Well, I mentioned an oral decision just before we adjourned. We have had a chance to look at the detail that we needed to check and we are now able to make the following order, but before I read it out I will advise the parties that a written decision will be following either this afternoon, or first thing in the morning.

    The following is the Trial Chamber's decision on the public, with confidential annexes A to G, Prosecution notice under Rule 92 bis for the admission of evidence related to inter alia Kono District - TF1-195, TF1-197, TF1-198 and TF1-206. That Prosecution motion was filed on 11 September 2008.

    The Trial Chamber grants the application in part and orders that:

    1. The prior transcripts and related exhibits relating to the testimony of witnesses TF1-195, TF1-197, TF1-198 and TF1-206.

    2. The statement of witness TF1-198 contained in confidential annex E to the motion, and

    3. The statement of witness 206 contained in confidential annex G to the motion".

    I will pause here to note that annex G has mistakenly been marked as annex F. I will say that again. For 3 the annex G to the motion has mistakenly been shown annexed to the motion as annex F.

    Well in regard to those three sets of documents I've just mentioned, they shall be admitted into evidence pursuant to Rule 92 bis provided that the Prosecution shall make the said witnesses available for cross-examination by the Defence.

    As I said, a written decision will follow this afternoon or tomorrow morning.

    One other decision relating to that motion which I should have read out is that the Trial Chamber further dismisses the Defence application for recision of protective measures in respect of witnesses TF1-195, TF1-197, TF1-198 and TF1-206.

    Now while we are on the subject of written decisions, yesterday this Trial Chamber delivered an oral decision on the Prosecution motion, or rather the Prosecution notice under Rule 92 bis for the admission of evidence related to inter alia Kono District - TF1-218 and TF1-304.

    I said at the time that the Trial Chamber would file a written decision once Judge Doherty was available to sign it. However, the Trial Chamber has since taken the view that it's not necessary to delay the written decision and consequently it also will be filed today, or first thing in the morning.

    Mr Santora?

  • Thank you, Mr President. The next witness for the Prosecution is TF1-195. Before calling that witness, the Prosecution has an application with regard to that witness's protective measures.

    Your Honours, after consultation with this witness she has expressed her willingness to testify openly. Currently this witness is covered by the protective measures ordered in the 5 July 2004 decision of Trial Chamber I for the Special Court in which this witness was granted protective measures granted to witnesses falling under Category A. The witness was listed in the prior Prosecution filing in annex A as the ninth witness, so currently the measures that apply to this witness from that 5 July 2004 decision are provisions (a) through (g). At this point the Prosecution would apply to lift those provisions except for provisions (b) and (c) as pertaining to the witness's current address.

  • Thank you, Mr Santora. Mr Griffiths?

  • Our position is as before, your Honour. Nothing to add.

  • All right, thank you.

  • [Trial Chamber conferred]

    Yes, well the recision of protective measures applied for by Mr Santora is granted. However, we do note that the provisions of protective measures (b) and (c) contained in the decision of Trial Chamber I of 5 July 2004 will remain in force to the effect that the address of the witness will still be protected.

    Yes, call the witness please.

  • At this point the Prosecution will call TF1-195. The witness will testify in Kono and is a Christian and so is of a Christian religion.