Crane’s brief is to target those behind the terror of the war, which ended last year. But some analysts and U.S. officials believe the Special Court could serve a broader role too: as a model for the future prosecution of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein and members of his inner circle.
Washington has been instrumental in creating and funding the Sierra Leone tribunal–which Crane describes as the “next generation” court. The Special Court, created by an agreement between the Sierra Leone government and the United Nations, is intended to be more streamlined and less bureaucratic than the U. N. tribunals created to prosecute war criminals in the Balkans and Rwanda–and to cost much less to operate. Unlike the tribunals for Rwanda and the Balkans, this hybrid court will hold hearings in the country in which the crimes were committed, using both foreign and local lawyers and judges.
Crane and his staff of 40 have spent recent months traveling around the country to seek out witnesses and evidence, and to explain their mandate in town hall-style meetings. While no indictments have yet been issued, those who may face charges include military, political and business figures. The most sensitive indictment could involve Charles Taylor, the president of neighboring Liberia, who traded guns and shelter in his country to rebels in exchange for uncut diamonds. Liberia remains mired in civil war and faces a potentially tense election later this year.
Crane, who has three years in which to finish his work, spoke to NEWSWEEK’s Eric Pape in the Sierra Leone capital Freetown. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: How do you see your job?
David Crane: My clients are the people of Sierra Leone, the victims both gone and current. Everybody in this country right now is a victim, a witness or a perpetrator, or a combination really. These are survivors. There isn’t one human being who lives in Sierra Leone who wasn’t affected by this conflict.
How do you define those with the “greatest responsibility” for the crimes committed in Sierra Leone?
It becomes very apparent as you follow the evidence that the conflict was not local. It is not just about Sierra Leone, it is regional and international and in some instances it is worldwide, and it boils down to diamonds.
We are not just going after military commanders. We’re going after the politicians. We’re going after those who financed and supported this conflict through a plan or scheme that was very specific. At any one time in the beginning of December, I had investigators in North America, Europe, West Africa and Sierra Leone. We are dealing with some very, very dangerous people who are involved in this. We are moving witnesses in some instances in life and death situations.
For many people in Sierra Leone, won’t the person who bears greatest responsibility be the kid who cut off a hand in their village or who raped and killed there?
These are the very same questions we get in town hall meetings and I tell them: ‘I do respect and understand what people saw and suffered, but I am going to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law those who created the plan that caused the conditions to allow this to happen. I will do that vigorously. Your justice is that I will go after the big fish’ or, as they like to call them, ’the Kakatua’-and they understand that.
At the town hall meetings, what question has surprised you most?
Just two weeks ago, it was: How do we know that you are not on the take? I thought it was brilliant. I said, ‘Who here thinks that I could be on the take?’ Some hands rose. ‘Who here thinks that I wouldn’t?’ Some hands rose. ‘Who thinks maybe?’ Some hands rose. It was fascinating. It allowed me to understand how they’re looking at it…I consider it an honor and a privilege to, in some small way, seek justice for these people. I see [the damage] everywhere I go, I read about it everyday in the evidence. The horror is beyond public description.
The Bush administration has refused to join the International Criminal Court and is impatient with the slow pace of the tribunals for Rwanda and the Balkans. Can the Special Court model be seen as an alternative to the ICC for countries with dysfunctional legal systems?
The ICC is an important organization. We don’t compare ourselves to it. And I just happen to be an American, but I was appointed by [U.N. Secretary General] Kofi Annan after going through an international selection process. It is coincidental. It has nothing to do with the United States being behind the Special Court. This is not being touted as an alternative to the ICC….And, unlike Rwanda or Yugoslavia where the tribunals were forced on the region and the country under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, this tribunal was actually invited in by the Sierra Leone government.
Given that some people in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda felt detached from tribunals that acted outside of their countries and without their involvement, how is Sierra Leone different?
We are the next generation tribunal in some ways. You have a tribunal that is of the U.N., but not in the U.N., so there is freedom to have an organization that is flexible, focused. And we are putting the court right in the crime scene so that people can see justice right in front of their eyes because they don’t really understand justice. They haven’t had a real good example. We were able to learn from the past tribunals. I am given flexibility that Carla Del Ponte [head prosecutor at The Hague] is not.
Could the example of this court be applied elsewhere?
One could see situations in Iraq maybe, at the end of a potential conflict; in Afghanistan regarding allegations of abuses of prisoners of war; in Cambodia. I hate to list these things, but we are going to have these again and a special court arrangement can be very efficient and quick in dealing with an issue that may not fit itself within the framework of the ICC.
You said that diamond trafficking was behind the war in Sierra Leone. But dissatisfied youth and government corruption also played a role in hostilities.
Corruption is endemic in this country. It certainly is a seedbed for discontent, but you have to understand that this is the most black-and-white, good-versus-evil situation that I have ever seen in 30 years of public service. They didn’t start this conflict for ethnic, political, cultural or religious reasons–not that this excuses anything.
This was a cynical attempt to take over a country to control diamonds to make money to buy guns and weaponry to keep them in power so they could influence others in the region. The bottom line is, it boils down to the diamonds in eastern Sierra Leone… [Diamond-buyers should remember that] diamonds are a wonderful gift, but some are dipped in blood.
You have said that you are not able to disclose who or how many people will be indicted, but can you give a sense of scale on the number of indictments–a handful, a dozen, dozens?
To even allude to the scale is problematic.
Can you indict anyone no matter where they are in the world and regardless of their nationality?
I intend to do that. There will be international indictees. This case is much bigger than just Sierra Leone.
Could you indict the leader of a neighboring nation?
I have the appropriate legal power to indict those who I think bear the greatest responsibility. You can logically follow that through to wherever you’d like to go.
How will people be arrested?
They will be indicted and arrest warrants will be issued, and we will execute those warrants through appropriate authorities–it could be through the Sierra Leone police or others.
What if it is abroad?
We are making arrangements.
When will indictments come? I don’t want to say when, but this is moving sooner rather than later. When we do pull the lid off it, it will be international and it will be big.
