VZCZCXRO8103
RR RUEHPA
DE RUEHFN #1028/01 3521722
ZNY CCCCC ZZH
R 181722Z DEC 06
FM AMEMBASSY FREETOWN
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 0596
INFO RUEHZK/ECOWAS COLLECTIVE
RUCNDT/USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 0217

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 04 FREETOWN 001028 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SIPDIS 
 
E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/17/2016 
TAGS: KJUS PREL PGOV PHUM SL
SUBJECT: SPECIAL COURT FOR SIERRA LEONE: NEW SPECIAL 
PROSECUTOR AND USG VISITORS 
 
 
Classified By: AMBASSADOR THOMAS N. HULL FOR REASONS 1.4 (B) AND (D). 
 
------- 
SUMMARY 
------- 
¶1. (C)  The Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) recently 
announced the  appointment of Stephen Rapp as the new Special 
Prosecutor.  Mr. Rapp  called on the Ambassador December 14. 
In separate visits by AF/W Director  Phil Carter on November 
15 and Special Advisor to the Ambassador-at-Large  for War 
Crimes Mark Stamilio on December 7, SCSL officials raised 
issues  along common themes, including Court funding levels, 
the pace of trials,  resources for the defense, preparations 
for the Charles Taylor Case, and  indications of a possible 
delay from the planned April 2 start date for  the Taylor 
trial.  Meetings included the Court's president, Prosecutor's 
 office, Registrar, and representatives from the Defender's 
office. The  Court has completed one trial and will begin the 
Charles Taylor and continue the RUF trials next year.  All 
SCSL officials expressed strong appreciation for continuing 
USG support for the Court. END SUMMARY. 
 
-------------------------------------------- 
AMBASSADOR MEETS SCSL NEW SPECIAL PROSECUTOR 
-------------------------------------------- 
 
¶2.  (C)  On December 14, the Ambassador met with new Special 
Prosecutor  Stephen Rapp.  Rapp assured the Ambassador that 
his office would work closely  with S/WCI, and that after the 
Status Conference on January 26,  he would speak to the 
Department about funding issues.  The Ambassador  said that 
the funding issue remains unclear while we are under a 
continuing resolution, and that the Department is discussing 
approaches to  avoid zeroing out ESF to Sierra Leone in order 
to support the Court.  The  Ambassador encouraged Rapp to 
pursue other donors and cautioned him that  fundraising could 
be a large distraction.  Rapp informed the Ambassador  that 
he would likely travel to Washington with President of the 
Court  Justice Gelaga-King in January. The Ambassador also 
encouraged Rapp to  keep Acting Prosecutor Chris Staker on 
staff as his deputy, both for  continuity and for Staker's 
expertise in appeals.  Rapp responded that he  was interested 
in retaining Staker. 
 
¶3.  (C)  The Ambassador raised the status of the fund for 
protection of  witnesses that the USG had funded.  Rapp was 
unaware of this fund and said  he would ask the Chief of 
Investigations for details. 
 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
AF/W DIRECTOR MEETING WITH PRESIDENT OF THE SCSL 
--------------------------------------------- --- 
 
¶4.  (C)  On November 15, AF/W Director Phil Carter met with 
President of  the SCSL Justice Gelaga-King at the Special 
Court's compound in Freetown.   King reported that the Court 
was discovering a number of administrative  challenges in the 
upcoming trial of former Liberian President Charles  Taylor, 
and that he was keenly aware that the Court needed to show 
that it  was continuing to move forward efficiently.  Carter 
encouraged King to  keep all trials on track with no 
surprises according to the completion  strategy and commended 
the Court's groundbreaking work for adding value to  the 
democratization process in Sierra Leone. 
 
¶5.  (C)  King said that the Court was developing a revised 
completion  strategy to ensure that it stayed on course and 
that a number of proposed  changes would make the Court 
"leaner and meaner." He noted proposals to  have the 
President of the Court reside in Sierra Leone full-time, and 
that  appeals judges would live in Sierra Leone next year 
saving considerable  travel time and expenses.  He assured 
Carter that the judges were  committed to expediting the 
trials and staying within the completion  strategy.  He added 
that the Court continued to face funding difficulties  and 
that the voluntary funding process by donors had not worked. 
He  explained that without a guaranteed funding stream, 
long-term planning was  impeded and staff retention was 
weakened.  He ended the meeting by  expressing his 
appreciation for USG support for the Court. 
 
--------------------------- 
MEETINGS WITH THE REGISTRAR 
--------------------------- 
 
¶6.  (C)  On November 15, AF/W Director Carter met with 
Registrar Lovemore  Munlo, who assured him that the Court was 
sticking to a reasonable time  frame and operating 
efficiently despite considerable constraints.  Munlo  said 
that the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) case, 
which  started in March 2005, and the Civil Defense Force 
 
FREETOWN 00001028  002 OF 004 
 
 
(CDF) case, begun in  June 2004, had finished in Trial 
Chamber Two, and estimated that the  Justices would take 
three to four months to write judgments.  (Note:  Closing 
arguments were held on December 8, as planned.) 
 
¶7.  (C)  Munlo told Carter that the Court's management team 
had decided to  use Trial Chamber Two to try the Taylor case 
in The Hague.  He anticipated  that the Taylor case would 
start around early April and would last 24 to  30 months. 
Munlo planned to travel to The Hague to sign an agreement and 
 negotiate funding for security for the trial.  The ICC was 
insisting on  separate funding to provide security and had 
proposed charging by the  hour, which would be extremely 
costly.  He planned to discuss alternative  billing options 
for security. 
 
¶8.  (C)  Munlo said that if the judgments for the AFRC and 
CDF judgments  were written next year, that would only leave 
the Revolutionary United  Front (RUF) case, begun in July 
¶2004.  He estimated that the RUF trial  would conclude during 
¶2008. 
 
¶9.  (C)  Munlo told Carter that there was a great reluctance 
by African  countries to provide prison facilities for anyone 
convicted by the Court,  but that the UK had agreed to take 
Taylor.  He said that if no other  countries step forward, 
the Court would probably need USG assistance to  encourage 
other countries to take the prisoners. 
 
¶10.  (C)  Munlo complained that donor support continued to 
wane, and that  the Court only had enough funding to last 
until early March 2007.  He said  that the management 
committee had devised a backup plan to streamline  Court 
operations, and that before it went to donors to seek 
additional  assistance, would write a completion strategy by 
July 2007. When asked for  a ballpark funding figure, Munlo 
responded that he would be better able to  provide a final 
figure in 2007.  He noted that the Court had already begun 
to scale back on staffing.  Carter suggested that the 
management committee  more aggressively pursue donors and 
reiterated USG support for the Court.   Munlo said that the 
Court's President, Justice Gelaga-King, would visit 
Washington in January to continue these discussions. 
 
¶11.  (C)  Munlo told Special Advisor to the 
Ambassador-at-Large for War  Crimes Issues Mark Stamilio 
during their December 7 meeting that the Court  was in 
unchartered waters as it began groundbreaking operations in 
The  Hague for the Charles Taylor case.  He said that many 
challenges lay  ahead, including identifying office space, 
transferring staff, resolving  outstanding technical issues, 
and allowing both the prosecution and  defense the necessary 
time to prepare for trial. 
 
¶12.  (C)  Munlo said that the Court would begin transferring 
staff to The  Hague in March, and that the Taylor case would 
probably be delayed  possibly as late as July or September to 
allow the defense more time to  prepare.  Stamilio inquired 
if the prosecution would oppose the delay. Munlo responded 
that the prosecution agreed that the defense needed more 
time.  For the recently completed CDF and AFRC trials, Munlo 
said that the  judgments would be finished around April and 
May.  He also said that the  lone remaining trial, for the 
RUF, would begin in May. 
 
¶13.  (C)  Stamilio asked Munlo about the recent visit of 
Judge Antonio  Cassese to Freetown.  Munlo said that he had 
"mixed reactions" to the  visit.  (Note: Cassese, in his 
soon-to-be released assessment report of  the Court's 
productivity, is critical of the Registrar's performance.) 
 
¶14.  (C)  Stamilio reminded Munlo that the Court needed to 
continue  showing progress, and that the Registrar needed to 
exercise stronger  leadership to manage the judges.  He added 
that donor fatigue was likely a  product of donors feeling 
like the trials had gone on long enough.  Munlo  responded 
that he heard the message "loud and clear." 
 
¶15.  (C)  Munlo said that Germany had pledged 1.4 million 
Euros but gave  specific instructions that the money not be 
used for the Taylor case.  Stamilio told Munlo that the 
Department was still waiting to hear from the Court about a 
list of countries the Department should contact on the 
Court's behalf for assistance.  Stamilio also told Munlo that 
discussions amongst various offices in the Department were 
ongoing regarding funding.  Munlo thanked Stamilio for USG 
leadership on the funding issue. 
 
----------------------------- 
MEETINGS WITH THE PROSECUTION 
----------------------------- 
 
FREETOWN 00001028  003 OF 004 
 
 
 
¶16.  (C)  In Carter's November 15 meeting with then Acting 
Special  Prosecutor Chris Staker, Staker hinted that the 
Taylor defense team would  not be ready to start the trial in 
April.  He said that he felt that if  the Defense requested 
an extension, it would be granted one.  According to  Staker, 
a status conference originally planned for the end of October 
had  been pushed back to January 26.  He added that there was 
a possibility of  slippage in dates of the RUF trial as well. 
 
 
¶17.  (C)  Staker said that there was a push in the CDF trial 
to refer the  case to the national Courts in the event that 
Johnny Paul Koroma was  captured following the conclusion of 
this trial. 
 
¶18.  (C)  Staker sought Carter's views on the best method for 
archiving  the evidence following the conclusion of the work 
of the Court.  Staker  felt that the evidence could be made 
available to other law enforcement  agencies to help with 
other cases and should be preserved in a way that  case files 
could be accessed and reconstituted.  He offered a number of 
general archival ideas, which included setting up an 
arrangement between  all war crimes tribunals to maintain 
records jointly or appointing a  permanent institution, like 
the ICC, to be the records repository.  He  mentioned another 
possibility of creating a new institution to archive  records 
or appointing one country to take on archiving 
responsibilities.   Carter told Staker that he would raise 
the issue when he returned to  Washington. 
 
¶19.  (C)  Stamilio met with Chief of Prosecutions Jim Johnson 
on December  7.  Johnson said that it was unrealistic that 
the Taylor case would start  in April, and that the Defense 
would file a motion for a start date in  September.  He added 
that Judge Cassese thought that this was acceptable.   He 
said from the beginning, the preference had been for a July 
start date,  followed by an August recess, and resumption in 
September.  He said that  the Prosecution would not oppose 
the delay, and actually conceded that a  summer start date 
was reasonable with the amount of necessary  preparations. 
He thought that it was to the Prosecution's advantage to 
start later. 
 
¶20.  (C)  Stamilio reiterated that it was necessary to see 
progress in the  trials as it becomes harder to secure 
funding for the Court.  He said that  the Court risks being 
labeled as inefficient since it has not returned any 
verdicts in nearly four years.  Johnson agreed that the three 
cases should  have been completed a year ago, but said that 
he could appreciate the  Defense's plight given the amount of 
evidence they received noting, in particular, that the flow 
of new information and evidence has increased significantly 
since Charles Taylor's capture.  He was not  overly concerned 
that the trial times would be extended further and added 
that the better prepared both the Prosecution and Defense 
are, the more  streamlined the process will be. 
 
¶21.  (C)  Johnson mentioned that the Court was starting to 
fully grasp the  challenges of the Taylor case, many of which 
it had not anticipated.  He  noted many logistical questions, 
including how witnesses would travel to  trials. Many of the 
witnesses are coming from Liberia, but would be afraid  to 
travel to The Hague via Freetown for fear of reprisals.  The 
Court  would try to keep attorneys, and witnesses, time in 
The Hague to a minimum  to reduce expenses.  He said that the 
Court has not ruled out video  teleconferencing, but would 
probably want most witnesses in the  courtroom.  Stamilio 
suggested that Court officials contact the tribunal  in Iraq 
for advice on how they handled similar issues. 
 
¶22.  (C)  Johnson commented that he had seen a draft of the 
soon-to-be  released Cassese report that critiqued the 
Court's performance.  He said  that it focused primarily on 
needed improvements to communications in the  Registrar's 
office.  He appreciated Cassese's identification of the 
challenges ahead in administering a long-distance trial. 
 
¶23.  (C)  Johnson said that the decision on a new prosecutor 
was welcome,  as it will allow other things that had 
previously been on hold to fall  into place.  He concluded 
the meeting by requesting assistance in  expediting the 
numerous requests made by the Special Court for certain USG 
personnel to provide expert testimony in the Charles Taylor 
case. 
 
----------------------------------------- 
MEETINGS WITH PRINCIPAL DEFENDER'S OFFICE 
----------------------------------------- 
 
¶24.  (C)  Deputy Principal Defender Elizabeth Nahamya raised 
 
FREETOWN 00001028  004 OF 004 
 
 
defense  funding concerns with Carter.  She said that 
something must be done to  provide the defense with 
comparable resources to the prosecution.  She  explained that 
the Defense had finalized a contract for Taylor's legal 
team, but that there were no funds for the Defense office in 
Monrovia for  investigations and witnesses.  She estimated 
that the Defense would need  approximately $195,000 per 
quarter during the pre-trial stage to pay the  bills.  She 
projected that the trial would cost the defense $3 million: 
$1.7 million in 2007; 1.8 million for 2008, and $700,000 for 
¶2009.  She  said that any extended presence in The Hague 
would raise those figures.   Unlike Staker, she did not 
mention that the Defense had asked for the  Taylor trial to 
be delayed, and said it would begin April 2. She  anticipated 
that final judgments would be written in 2009 and appeals 
might last four months. Nahamya said that the RUF case would 
begin May 2,  and judgments would most likely be written in 
early to mid 2008. 
 
¶25.  (C)  Nahamya said that family members of the defendants 
in these  trials would suffer hardships if the convicted were 
imprisoned outside of  Sierra Leone.  She argued that this 
would preclude large numbers of  relatives from visitation. 
 
¶26.  (C)  During a December 7 meeting, Principal Defender 
Vincent  Nmehielle told Stamilio that the main issue for the 
Defense was funding  equity, and that the credibility of the 
whole process would turn on the  level of resources made 
available to defense counsel.  Nmehielle considered the 
creation of a Principle Defender's Office an improvement over 
earlier tribunals, giving the Defense more independence, 
though still not enough independence, in his opinion.  He 
informed  Stamilio that none of the accused had retained 
private counsel, but that it was likely that Charles Taylor 
would do so, although to this point, no one has been able to 
identify assets he may have hidden.  Taylor claims to be 
indigent.  (Comment: Despite what Nmehielle described as 
inadequate remuneration for court-appointed defense counsel, 
the  SCSL has been able to retain fully qualified counsel who 
have provided all the defendants effective representation. 
End Comment) 
 
------- 
COMMENT 
------- 
 
¶27.  (C)  The Court is entering a critical phase as it winds 
up the AFRC  and CDF trials, and begins the Taylor case and 
continues with the RUF trial.  In particular, the  challenges 
presented by the Taylor trial will test the Court's 
leadership.  Although designed to avoid the difficulties that 
previous  tribunals have faced, the Court continues to 
struggle with operational  efficiency and must show progress 
to maintain credibility with its  donors.  As the Court moves 
into judgment and appeals processes, it will  be important 
that it retain staff who possess much-needed institutional 
history and experience.  END COMMENT. 
 
¶28. (U) This cable has been cleared by AF/W P. Carter and 
S/WCI M. Stamilio. 
HULL