•User Rating•: / 0
•Poor••Best• 

Charged with interrogating those who collaborated with former Liberian President Charles Taylor and later listening to the voices of Khmer Rouge victims in Cambodia, Geneva attorney Alain Werner is one of the pioneers of an evolving international justice system. Carole Vann, an editor and writer with InfoSud , a non-profit news agency focusing on humanitarian, human rights and other global issues, interviews Werner about his experiences. Readers can also take part in a presentation by Alain Werner on his experiences as prosecutor against Taylor  and for the victims of Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge : Friday, March 5th at 18h20 à 19h30, Maison des Associations, rue des Savoises, Geneva.

Geneva -- Swiss attorney Alain Werner, a native of Geneva, worked between 2003 and 2008 in the office of the Special Prosecutor at the Sierra Leone Tribunal (TSSL) as the head of a team charged with pursuing former Liberian President Charles Taylor. He actively participated at the trial currently taking place in The Hague. At the end of 2008, Werner took off for Cambodia where he spent a year on behalf of civil parties at the first trial of the Khmer Rouge Commander known as Duch, whose judgment is expected this Spring.

The process is under the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) for trying serious crimes committed during the Khmer Rouge regime (1975-1979). Invited by the Geneva NGO, TRIAL (Track Impunity Always), Werner shared his experiences in an interview with Carol Vann.

What are the main differences between the Sierra Leone tribunals and the one in Cambodia ?

The Special Tribunal for Sierra Leone is a process inspired by Anglo-Saxon (common) law.There is no judge nor civil parties in the process. It is up to the prosecutor to present proof of the guilt of the accused. On the other hand the Cambodian Tribunal is based on French civil (Napoleonic law. A judge is instructed to issue a ruling and hand the file over to magistrates who select witnesses on the basis of the parties involved and question them in court. In this system there are civil parties whose duty is to give evidence supporting the accusation and demand collective and moral reparations.

What has been your role in each case?

In Sierra Leone, I worked for the TSSL prosecutor. I participated in questioning ‘insiders’, that is to say, people inside the regime or in high places in the rebel movement who assisted Charles Taylor. In order to condemn Taylor, we needed their testimony to prove that crimes were committed, rape, amputation etc. The office of the prosecutor was obliged to collaborate with these ‘insiders’ with their dirty hands, who, in an ideal situation, would themselves have been prosecuted. We had to win their trust, protect them and handle them carefully to make them speak.

After some time, I found this difficult from a humane point of view. After all, I was there on behalf of the victims and not the collaborators. Because the real victims are still in the same difficult situation after their testimony. I’m thinking of the amputees in Freetown who are forced to become beggars after testifying in order to survive, while certain ‘insiders’ who have testified are today in our countries under witness protection programs so they are not assassinated.

The chance to work in Cambodia came out of the blue. Over there I was directly representing civil parties, the direct or indirect victims of the Khmer Rouge.

Did your work in Cambodia correspond to your expectations?

I was amazed to discover, during the trial testimony, the intensity of the suffering of the civil parties even after 30 years. During all that time, our clients had accumulated a lot of frustration and anger. Some are in dire financial situations, without means to feed their families.

Suddenly, things that are not apparent to a lawyer, are met with profound indignation like the fact that the accused appears well fed, nicely dressed and speaks freely during the trial. I realized that to be a lawyer for these civil parties called for an ability to understand these frustrations without losing the distance necessary to best represent their legal interests. In Sierra Leone as in Cambodia, the mandates of the special tribunals were limited to those with the most responsibility.

Did this pose a problem for people obliged to be so close to their former torturers?

The TSSL and CECT models were conceived differently than the International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia or that for Rwanda which were considered too expensive and too unwieldy. The idea was therefore to only try those carrying the most criminal responsibility during Sierra Leone’s civil war of 1996-2002 and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge in 1975-79. In Sierra Leone, the tribunal was supposed to last only 3 years (2002-2005). We are now in 2010 and the process against Charles Taylor has not yet ended.

It is clear that the balance sheet for these two tribunals must be addressed. But even if the only thing the TSSL accomplishes is to judge Charles Taylor, it completely justifies the Sierra Leone tribunal. It will be the first time a high level official in West Africa has been found guilty of such crimes.

But it is important to find other means to judge the lieutenants of these high officials and their men. Because they are the ones that literally have blood on their hands and it is they who are identified by communities as being directly implicated.

What kind of other means?

Mechanisms of justice and/or reconciliation within the countries where the crimes took place. South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission is the best historical example. There is also the Gacacas [Ed : popular tribunals] in Rwanda but opinion is divided on them. Unfortunately these mechanisms often lack transparency and impartiality because they remain in the hands of the same people in power.

There is also the notion of universal jurisdiction, which allows a national court to pursue international crimes even if the perpetrator is not a citizen of that country and if the crimes took place against foreigners outside the country.

It is according to this scenario that a Rwandan was condemned in Switzerland for crimes committed in Rwanda in 1994 against Rwandan victims in the Niyonteze case. It is imperative that this sort of process increases and in this regard, the work of TRIAL in Switzerland is indispensable.

Are the International Criminal Court (ICC) and international tribunals the best instruments for putting and end to impunity for dictators?

The fight against impunity will not be reduced by the work of tribunals. If the economy does not improve in Sierra Leone for example, and if the political elites don’t change their ways, it is likely that conflict will return. That does not mean that the TSSL was a failure. But it is misery, poverty and feelings of injustice that are the real causes of war.

My hope is that eventually the work of the ICC and other tribunals can change the behavior of combatants who will think twice before attacking civilian populations. In the evolution of international justice there is now a strengthening of defense lawyers taking cases involving crimes against humanity.

Is this a good thing for the victims ?

When I began this work in 2003, the defense teams were often weak, especially in Sierra Leone. Today they are of a very high quality, like the one for Charles Taylor. Now the prosecutor must climb higher. Such evolutions are indispensable in order that real justice is served.

Can you imagine that one day you might go over to the defense side ?

Of course. The work of the defense is also indispensable and can be a great thing. The first lawyers whom I admired for their talent and integrity were the penal defense attorneys in Geneva, like Michel Nançoz or Christian Zinnstag. I also applaud the work of lawyers like Karim Khan and François Roux (Duch’s attorney).

Nevertheless I find it difficult to imagine working for the defense in Cambodia or Sierra Leone because I have become very close to the victims. But after all, everything depends on the circumstances.

Translated from French by Pamela Taylor.

Readers can also take part in a presentation by Alain Werner on the experience of a Geneva attorney as prosecutor against Charles and for the victims of Cambodia’s Khmer Rouge : Friday, March 5th at 18h20 à 19h30, Maison des Associations, rue des Savoises, Geneva.

Carole Vann is an editor and writer with Infosud based in Geneva.