Charles Taylor appeals at The Hague
The oral arguments in ‘The Prosecutor v. Charles Ghankay Taylor are being delivered today and tomorrow before the Appeals Chamber in The Hague. (Photo: Charles Ghankay Taylor)
Judges, (left to right) Alternate Judge Justice Philip Waki, Justice Jon Kamanda, Justice Emmanuel Ayoola, Justice Shireen Avis Fisher (presiding), Justice George Gelaga King, and Justice Renate Winter. In the lower row, seated second from the right is Registrar Binta Mansaray
Prosecution
The Appeals Chamber has asked both Prosecution and Defence to address the six questions below. Each party will make their submissions today, and responses and replies on Wednesday.
Whether the Trial Chamber correctly articulated the actus reus elements of aiding and abetting liability under customary international law. The differences and similarities between aiding and abetting, instigating and ordering as forms of liability under Article 6(1) of the Statute. Whether customary international law recognizes that certain forms of liability set forth in Article 6(1) of the Statute are more or less serious than other forms of liability for sentencing or other purposes.
- Whether the Trial Chamber’s findings meet the mens rea standard of purpose.
- Whether acts of assistance not “specifically directed” to the perpetration of a crime can substantially contribute to the commission of a crime for aiding and abetting liability. Whether the Trial Chamber’s findings meet the “specific direction” standard.
- Whether the acts of assistance not to the crime “as such” can substantially contribute to the commission of the crime for aiding and abetting liability. Whether the Trial Chamber’s findings meet the “as such” standard.
- Whether the sources of law identified in Rule 76 bis (ii) and (iii) establish that uncorroborated hearsay cannot be relied upon as the sole basis for specific incriminating findings of fact.
- How the Appeals Chamber should apply existing jurisprudence relating to adjudicated facts under Rule 94(B) in the context of a defence motion for the admission of adjudicated facts following the close of the prosecution case.
Stay with Sierra Express Media, for your trusted place in news!
© 2013, https:. All rights reserved.
