September 4, 2023 [Finland] Day 59: The prosecution’s closing arguments
Prosecution final pleadings
The prosecution began their final pleadings by going through the evidence count by count following the indictment.
They began by examining the numerous witness testimonies relating to count 4.1, ‘Murders in Kamatahun Hassala’. According to the prosecution, most of the witnesses had witnessed the events directly, and some had heard of them through someone else. Many of the witnesses described a similar series of events, of people brought to Kamatahun Hassala from various villages and the surrounding bush. Witnesses also mentioned that when RUF soldiers came to the villages, they were accused of being LURD spies and this was at least partially the reason why they were captured. As for the perpetrator, many witnesses testified that a commander called Angel Gabriel gave orders to put people inside a house and light it on fire. In addition to civilians, two soldiers present at the scene, Soldier 12 and Soldier 50, testified that Gibril Massaquoi gave the order. Soldier 50 testified that Gibril Massaquoi used the name Angel Gabriel during the operation.
A separate chain of events, count 4.1.3 (iii), was the rape of seven women, who were taken behind the blacksmith’s kitchen to be raped and killed. Multiple civilians described the details of these events. Civilian 70 testified that he saw the incident himself, how women, including his wife, were taken there. He also saw the bodies the next day. Many other witnesses described the events similarly and there was no reason to doubt their testimony. Despite the minor differences between the testimonies in the lower court and in the court of appeal, the witnesses generally described the same locations, buildings and events in both hearings. They also named Angel Gabriel as the commander responsible for the event.
For count 4.2, the murder on Moinjama in Nyandehun, the prosecution explained that the sole witness testifying to this incident gave a consistent and credible account of how he personally saw Angel Gabriel killing Moinjama.
As for count 4.5.3, of forced labor in Lofa County, the prosecution explained how four civilians were mentioned in the indictment. Their testimonies support the indictment, they also named Gibril Massaquoi as the commander ordering them to carry goods for the soldiers.
Civilian 35 and Civilian 40 testified, in relation to count 4.5.5, how Gibril Massaquoi gave the order to cook a heart that was cut out of a man’s body in Kamatahun Hassala. Civilian 40 named the perpetrator as Angel Gabriel.
In relation to count 4.5.7, of assault in Kamatahun Hassala, the witness who testified to this event used the names Angel Gabriel and Angel Massaquoi.
The prosecution then examined the events in Monrovia under count 4.3. He described the general situation in Waterside, where civilians were looking for food. There was shooting at the market, soldiers shot into a crowd following the orders of their commanders. According to the prosecution, both civilians and soldiers had testified similarly when it comes to the events in Waterside. There are more soldiers as witnesses when compared to the events in Lofa. Many witnesses mentioned RUF troops fighting in Monrovia and that the Liberians called the Sierra Leoneans aqbah. Many soldiers testified that Gibril Massaquoi was a commander for the aqbah and he used the name Angel Gabriel. A large number of witnesses had described events of civilians being captured and taken to a base under or near a bridge, where they were killed. The events at 99 Steps were discussed separately, the prosecution relied mainly on the witness testimonies or former fighters who had described Gibril Massaquoi’s role in the incident.
After going over the witness testimonies and the indictment, the prosecution turned towards the written evidence that Gibril Massaquoi’s defense had presented. The prosecution had prepared a timeline based on the written evidence and witness testimonies presented by the defense. For the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 the prosecution demonstrated the time periods where Gibril Massaquoi’s whereabouts could not be verified based on the evidence presented.
For the year 2001, the prosecution presented a list of dates and locations that could actually be verified. According to the prosecution, credible pieces of evidence only accounted for 29 to 31 days in total in 2001, meaning that despite the vast evidence presented, Gibril Massaquoi had many opportunities to commit the alleged acts as his whereabouts could not be confirmed. The prosecution argued that the written evidence presented by the defense could not refute the possibility that Gibril Masssaquoi could have been in Kamatahun Hassala during the time the alleged acts were committed.
The prosecution also analyzed the defense witness testimonies. Gibril Massaquoi himself had testified that he lived in Makeni in summer 2001 and moved to Freetown in October 2001 after his evacuation. Defense 01 had testified that Gibril Massaquoi had moved to Freetown in November 2001. Defense 10 had testified that he lived with Gibril Massaquoi in Freetown from January 2001 to 10 March 2002. This conflicted with the written evidence presented by the defense. Defense 13 testified that Gibril Massaquoi had lived in Freetown from 1 January 2001 to early 2003 and that they had met every two to three days. This testimony conflicts with the written evidence presented. Defense 14 testified that Gibril Massaquoi lived in Freetown in 2001 and went to Monrovia in May 2001. Defense 21 testified that Gibril Massaquoi lived with him in Makeni from 2000 to October 2001. While this testimony was compatible with Gibril Massaquoi’s own testimony and the written evidence presented, it included multiple gaps where he was gone for weeks. The prosecution argued that this would not prevent Gibril Massaquoi from being in Kamatahun Hassala during the time when the alleged acts were committed in 2001.
The prosecution then moved to 2002. They presented a timeline of written evidence and argued that none of the evidence could be used to verify Gibril Massaquoi’s whereabouts. The only concrete dates for Gibril Massaquoi being present in a particular location where on 5, 11 and 18 July and 5 September 2002, when he was meeting with Corinne Dufka. The prosecution then went over the witness testimonies. A particular uncertainty was related to the timing of the fishing project, as witnesses had placed the dates of the project differently. The prosecution argued that the testimonies of the timing of the project and the possible measures Gibril Massaquoi had taken to prepare for the project were not uniform. It was also maintained that the project could not have prevented Gibril Massaquoi from being in Liberia at any point in time. A similar uncertainty related to the paramount chief elections in Gallinas Perry. Based on witness testimonies and written evidence, the prosecution argued that the timing of the elections had not been verified and therefore the claims that Gibril Massaquoi was participating in campaigning in 2000-2001 could not be confirmed. The prosecution argued that the evidence presented could not be used to determine that Gibril Massaquoi could not have been in Liberia during the campaign period. Gibril Massaquoi could have been in Liberia on 26 July 2002, the date Background 1 had testified as the date he had tortured him in Klay.
Finally, the prosecution discussed the evidence on Gibril Massaquoi’s whereabouts in 2003. No written evidence was submitted in relation to dates past March 2003, as Gibril Massaquoi had moved to the safe house. The prosecution stated that they do not contest that Gibril Massaquoi was in the safe house for most of 2003. However, various witnesses had placed Gibril Massaquoi in Monrovia during the World Wars, not just prosecution witnesses, but also one defense witness Soldier 15, who had testified that he fought with Gibril Massaquoi in Waterside. All of the defense witnesses who had testified that Gibril Massaquoi could not have left the safe house were former employees of the Special Court, who had a duty to make sure Gibril Massaquoi and his family stayed in the safe house. The prosecution argued that these individuals had been so bad at their job that they had allowed Gibril Massaquoi to travel to Liberia. The evidence relating to the safe house, especially regarding the guards and their shifts, had been extremely contradictory. Various defense witnesses had testified that they had met Gibril Massaquoi outside the safe house or that they had visited the safe house. This demonstrates that the house was not a prison, but a safe house used to protect Gibril Massaquoi and his family. The prosecution questioned whether Gibril Massaquoi truly had no possibility to leave the safe house.
The prosecution then turned towards certain pieces of evidence that the defense had used to argue that prosecution witnesses had confused Gibril Massaquoi with someone else. The prosecution discussed the report drafted by L5 as well as its methodology. The prosecution did not contest that Zigzag Marzah had participated in the atrocities committed in Kamatahun Hassala, but L5’s report did not exhaustively demonstrate that Gibril Massaquoi could not have been present as well. There had been multiple violent incidents in the area and it was possible that the report had not reached those who had witnessed the atrocities committed by Gibril Massaquoi. Similar points were made about the report prepared by Corinne Dufka for Human Rights Watch. The two reports by the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission had also mentioned that the documents were by no means exhaustive. This meant that the fact that they did not mention Gibril Massaquoi, Angel Gabriel or Angel could not be taken to mean that a person with these names could not have been present in relation to the alleged acts in Liberia. The statements gathered by the Special Court contained the interviews of about 50 to 55 witnesses. They had been archived in a manner that prevented anyone from knowing where the witnesses had been interviewed or what kind of questions they had been asked. As H5 had testified that the investigators in Liberia had not asked specifically about Kamatahun Hassala or the events during the World Wars, these statements could not be taken to indicate that Gibril Massaquoi was the wrong person to be prosecuted for these acts.
As for the charge of torture, the prosecution presented the fact that Background 1 had first mentioned the torture he had endured in 2008, his testimony was presented as documentary evidence by the defense. Contrary to the defense’s claim, the prosecution argued that Background 1 had not mentioned ‘SSS’ men, which would only include Liberians, but ‘SS’ men, which could mean anything else. The prosecution also pointed out that Background 1 had mentioned the names Gibril Massaquoi and Angel Gabriel during the Charles Taylor trial, three years before he had founded his organization in 2012, which refuted the theory of a conspiracy. Background 1 was also interrupted during his testimony in the Charles Taylor trial and he was not at all asked about Gibril Massaquoi as his torturer.
The prosecution further examined the different testimonies that Background 1 had provided during this trial. While H1 testified that Background 1 did not mention Gibril Massaquoi as his torturer and had in fact mentioned other names, the prosecution argued that Background 1 had himself testified that he only mentioned Gibril Massaquoi’s name to a few cellmates that he trusted. The fact that H1 had not heard this name could not be used to exclude the possibility of Gibril Massaquoi’s responsibility for the act. Background 1 had also mentioned various instances of torture in his own testimony, but the charges are only related to the one committed by Gibril Massaquoi. The contradictions in Background 1’s testimonies had been explained by Background 1 during his latest testimony.
The prosecution also presented their findings on the identification of the perpetrator by the witnesses. Various witnesses had identified Gibril Massaquoi from the photographs presented as the perpetrator. Various witnesses had also mentioned a commander called Angel Gabriel as the one responsible for the alleged acts, and many had directly connected Angel Gabriel to Gibril Massaquoi. Various witnesses had testified that the RUF commander spoke Krio and Mende or that he spoke like a Sierra Leonean. Most of the witnesses mentioned that the commander had introduced himself, and a large majority of the witnesses who had mentioned the name Angel Gabriel had also connected this name to Gibril Massaquoi. A significantly smaller portion of witnesses had mentioned Angel Gabriel, but not Gibril Massaquoi, while a small portion mentioned that Gibril Massaquoi had not used such a name.
According to the prosecution, just over a half of the witnesses in relation to the events of Kamatahun Hassala and Waterside had mentioned that the perpetrator used a slogan of some sort. Many of them connected the slogan to the name Gibril Massaquoi, while others testified that the slogan included the name Gibril or Massaquoi. A large portion of witnesses also testified that the slogan included the name Angel Gabriel. Additionally, 28 witnesses had correctly identified Gibril Massaquoi from a photograph. While some risk was related to this method of identification, the lower court had not correctly assessed the risk. The witnesses had provided more information in the court of appeal as to whether they had been aware of Gibril Massaquoi’s arrest or if they had seen his photograph in the media. Only two witnesses out of these 28 had mentioned that they had seen Gibril Massaquoi’s picture beforehand, meaning that the lower court had erred in its risk assessment. Considering the numbers and facts related to the witnesses identifying the perpetrator and connecting the various names to Gibril Massaquoi, the prosecution asked who else could have been the Sierra Leonean leading the aqbah in Monrovia, if not Gibril Massaquoi. According to the prosecution, no reasonable doubt remains as to the identity of the perpetrator mentioned by the witnesses.
The prosecution also addressed some claims made about Civitas Maxima and the Global Justice and Research Project. Witness L1 had claimed that Background 1 had attempted to recruit him to lie about Jungle Jabbah, Kunti Kamara, Alieu Kosiah, Gibril Massaquoi and Agnes Reeves Taylor. The prosecution examined each of these trials to demonstrate that Background 1 or L1 had no real connection to the respondent or the events or that the timing of the events as relayed by L1 was off. The court in Switzerland had also discussed this same issue in relation to Kosiah’s proceedings and had, in both instances, rejected any claims of a conspiracy to recruit false witnesses.
Claims had also been made against Employee 1, who had assisted the Finnish police on the ground in Liberia. The prosecution argued that Employee 1 could have never understood what kind of witnesses he was supposed to recruit, as he had no idea about the content of these proceedings which were held in Finnish. Employee 1 had explained in a logical and patient manner all the possibly confusing details found in his notebook or in his testimonies and had maintained that he had conducted himself with a great level of integrity when assisting the Finnish police. The prosecution concluded that given the explanations received from Employee 1, none of these claims could support any possible effect Employee 1 would have had on the witness testimonies and in any event, it was not practically possible for him to do so. The present case included over one hundred testimonies in total, Employee 1 could never have been able to make sure all of them would have been uniform and according to his own made-up story.
Finally, the prosecution focused on how the extensive evidence presented in the present case should be evaluated by the court. They referred to Dr. Korkman’s expert statement, which mentioned that contradictions are a sign a lack of credibility. Dr. Häkkänen had highlighted the existing bias in legal thinking about the added credibility of a first testimony. The prosecution argued that the present case and its factual circumstances could challenge this bias in the Finnish legal system. As there are not many cases with evidence relating to events over 20 years ago, the court should adopt a more lenient approach in relation to the witness testimonies. It is impossible to remember all the details from 20 years ago. According to the prosecution, small contradictions and changes should not be taken to indicate a complete lack of credibility. The present case is the first time a Finnish court has to evaluate such testimonies and evidence on such a large scale. The passage of time and the evident trauma of the witnesses should be taken into account when the court evaluates the evidence. The prosecution ended their pleadings with a number of direct quotes from the testimonies, where witnesses explained the states of trauma the events left them in.