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

All right, certainly. Certainly, your Honour. So, again, that was corroborated. Now, your Honours, if we look at the next one, which is "Operational Support - Communications", and that's at the top of page 6, this was corroborated and we direct you to paragraph 3830 of the Judgement and our Response, paragraph 565. We would also suggest to you this is not quadruple hearsay, as alleged. If you read it closely, you see that Lansana is recounting something Bockarie told him and there's no evidence that Bockarie is recounting the statements of anyone else, rather what he is observing. Now, it's important when we look at all of this that we don't just take isolated paragraphs, but we look at the context and we look at the reasoning that the Court used to arrive at its findings. You can't select one paragraph out of a whole section and say, "This means X or Y," and that's particularly important here because, if we look at what is in the centre box here, we see reference to Foday Lansana's testimony and TF1-338's testimony. Now, in looking at 338, it's important to look at the transcript of 2 September 2008 at pages 15203 to 205 and 1 September 2008 at pages 15114 to 116, because this is the explanation for the basis of knowledge of 338, and that's important to know when you are assessing his testimony. But more importantly, if you look at the far right box, it says, "The Trial Chamber recalls that it had no general reservations regarding the credibility of TF1-338, Mallah or Lansana." Well, where's Mallah? Where's Mallah in the middle box? He's not there. He's not there but, if we look at the findings that lead them to talk about Mallah on this issue, at paragraph 31 -- 3831, the Trial Chamber states that Mallah gave a first-hand account of Foday Sankoh using the NPFL network to communicate to Sam Bockarie. So, what was the full basis for their conclusions? It's important to look at the full context, the full deliberation, the full assessment of evidence and the full findings. Now, if we move very quickly to "Aiding and abetting crimes through operational support," talking about the 448 messages, Mr Taylor's awareness that his subordinates were sending 448 messages is not based only on AB Sesay's evidence. The Trial Chamber also found that Taylor's radio operators sent 448 messages to the RUF, based on the evidence of five witnesses, and we direct you to the Judgement at paragraphs 3906 and 3911, and we also direct you to the Trial Judgement at paragraphs 3907 and 3910. Now, if we move on to the next page, "Alleged Support and Training," that's page 7, "Aiding and abetting crimes through the preparation of the Fitti-Fatta mission in mid-1998," this evidence is corroborated, and we direct your Honours to paragraph 4086 and also 4084, 4077, 4075, and also to our Response at 584 to 588. Quickly looking at the example given on page 8, "Aiding and abetting the commission of crimes through the instruction to open a training camp," this is corroborated. The Trial Chamber found corroboration, and we direct your Honours to paragraphs 4102 and 4107 of the Judgement and our Response at paragraph 547. And, your Honour, if we look at "Provision of Military Personnel" at page 10, it's a bit unclear what portion of the finding the Defence has an issue with. It appears that there are two issues here; two findings. The finding in relation to issue number 1, that NPFL members were in the Red Lion Battalion. Now, in relation to that finding, Sesay's evidence was corroborated, and that is at pages -- or at paragraphs 4372 of the Trial Judgement and 4373. The second finding, that crimes were committed on the way to Freetown by the Red Lion Battalion, this finding is also corroborated, and we would refer your Honours to paragraph 4389, footnote 9832, and paragraph 4387 of the Trial Chamber Judgement. And the allegation -- the allegation that the accused facilitated the crimes through the Magburaka shipment, that finding was corroborated and we would refer your Honours to paragraph 5393 and our Response at paragraphs 430 to 438. As to, on page 11, the "Use of Matériel Supplied or Facilitated by the Accused, Operations in Kono in early 1998," that also is corroborated, and we would refer your Honours to paragraphs 5593, 5587 to 5589, and we suggest there is corroboration there. And, in addition, if we look at Bobson Sesay's testimony, paragraph 5567 relates to one particular operation, the recapture of Koidu Geiya. The findings of the Trial Chamber at paragraph 5593 relate to matériel supplied by Taylor for operations in the entire Kono District. Now, in relation, your Honours, to page 12, "The December 1998 Offensives and the Freetown Invasion," in addition to the evidence of Bobson Sesay, the Trial Chamber relied on the testimony of Perry Kamara, TF1-375, Komba Sumana and TF1-174 at paragraphs 5706 to 5708 to support the finding at 5720. Your Honours, the Defence asserts that, when it comes to whether or not a Trial Chamber should have sought corroboration and whether or not the hearsay evidence relied upon was reliable, that's a question of law. We suggest that that is incorrect. Rather, that the question of a Trial Chamber's assessment of evidence will not be disturbed unless no reasonable fact-finder could have concluded otherwise, or the finding was wholly erroneous. Now, if your Honours find that the Trial Chamber applied the wrong law to those facts, then you would apply the correct law and determine if you, applying the correct law, found these facts beyond a reasonable doubt. But we suggest they did not erroneously apply the law, because the law that we're discussing, whether it exists or not in this question, it does not exist. There is no rule that prohibits a Trial Chamber to rely solely on uncorroborated hearsay, even if it is truly uncorroborated, for proof of an incriminating fact. And even the law about convictions is no longer the law. It has been replaced by, "What should be the appropriate measure?", and that is, looking at the proceedings as a whole, were they fair? We suggest they were. We suggest the Trial Chamber engaged in an exhaustive analysis of a huge amount of evidence and it arrived at the proper conclusions, the proper findings of fact, in relation to the areas that are contested by the Defence. Thank you very much.

Keyboard shortcuts

j previous speech k next speech