September 8, 2023 [Finland] Day 60: The defense’s closing arguments
Defense final pleadings
The defense began their final pleadings by giving an overview of how the trial had progressed. Civitas Maxima had done its own investigation in 2018 and shared its results with the Finnish authorities. The Finnish police had interviewed everyone that had been interviewed by Civitas Maxima, but none of the witnesses were used during the present trial. The Finnish police decided to get their own witnesses and travelled to Liberia in early 2019. Employee 1 and another GJRP employee were contracted out from the Global Justice and Research Project (GJRP) to help the police during the their second trip. They helped the police with finding witnesses throughout the process. According to the defense, all the witnesses found by Employee 1 and the other employee could name Massaquoi or Angel Gabriel. The defense also gave an overview of each trip the Finnish police had taken during the pre-trial investigation, as well as each of the 11 additional investigation reports drafted after the initial pre-trial investigation report had been completed.
The defense discussed the evaluation of the evidence, of how the prosecution had presented a hypothesis that Gibril Massaquoi led troops in Lofa and left the safe house to travel to Monrovia. A new addition to the prosecution’s hypothesis was that in various events in Lofa, Zigzag Marzah also participated. The defense had previously presented its own argument that Zigzag was responsible for these atrocities and that Gibril Massaquoi could not leave the safe house.
The Finnish Supreme Court case KKO 2013:96 had set the applicable standard to be followed when evaluating evidence in a criminal case. It is up to the prosecutor to demonstrate that the case and evidence supporting culpability is sufficiently clear to reach a guilty verdict. According to the defense, a central question in the present trial is whether the contradictions and changes in the witness testimonies are a result of trauma. The District Court had discussed this issue extensively in its judgment. Dr. Häkkänen had presented some counterarguments. The defense stated that trauma itself does not make a testimony credible; it is one explanation among others as to why there may be changes and contradictions between the testimonies of the same person. The experts stated that trauma affects memories in a highly individual manner and traumatic memories may not be any more fragmented than regular memories. The sole fact that a witness’ testimony has changed does not indicate that the witness has been traumatized.
The defense highlighted Dr. Korkman’s statement that people are susceptible to talking about their experiences with others all the time. She had also stated that people are capable of changing their perceptions and memories based on information received from others; it is even possible that completely new memories are created. The defense argued that the mere possibility of trauma should not be allowed to prejudice the legal protection of the defendant. It must also be possible to take the changing nature of the testimony as a factor undermining its probative value.
The defense raised that the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court mentioned by Dr. Häkkänen cannot be applied to the present case, as the case does not contain any evidence other than witness testimonies. Any uncertainty as to the historical facts must not be of detriment to the defendant.
The defense focused on the identification done by the witnesses. According to the defense, the first credible identification took place in December 2019, long after the beginning of the police interviews. After Gibril Massaquoi’s arrest in Finland, the number of correct identifications greatly increased. Numerous witnesses mentioned, during the appeal proceedings, that they had seen news about Gibril Massaquoi’s arrest. The defense pointed out some additional points decreasing the credibility of the identification carried out by the police and criticized the fact that Zigzag Marzah was not included in the photographs, despite the prosecution admitting that Marzah had committed similar acts in Lofa.
According to the defense, the Finnish police had deemed Background 1 to have a conflict of interest in the case. The pre-trial investigation is to be conducted by a police officer duly employed in a public office. This could not be applied to Employee 1, who has not received a training akin to a Finnish police officer. Nothing would have prevented including a Finnish police officer in Liberia when searching for witnesses. In the defense’s view, Employee 1 had done things reserved for police officer under Finnish law. Given that Background 1, Employee 1’s superior, is a plaintiff in this case and has been separately deemed to have a conflict of interest in the matter, Employee 1’s status is also highly questionable. Employee 1 cannot be considered to have been truly removed from GJRP. Employee 1 had also changed his testimony as to how he had found and met witnesses, and whether he had participated in the investigation conducted by Civitas Maxima, as well as in many other details. Some things differed depending on whether it was asked from Employee 1 or from the Finnish police involved in the investigation. All the witnesses found by Employee 1 mentioned the name Angel, Angel Gabriel or Massaquoi.
As for evidence presented, the defense pointed out that a considerable possibility exists that the alleged acts have taken place on the days when Gibril Massaquoi was credibly outside Liberia. When the possible time of commission is multiple months, the prosecution should have been able to time the acts with more precision. According to the defense, the prosecution has not been able to demonstrate that the alleged acts were committed during the time that Gibril Massaquoi was in Liberia. The defense stated that they do not deny that the alleged acts may have taken place, but the details of the alleged acts in the indictment should be demonstrated with sufficient precision. They maintained that any alternative hypothesis should be excluded before there could be sufficient certainty as to Gibril Massaquoi’s guilt.
The defense presented a table highlighting the contradictions in the witness testimonies. According to the defense, it can be seen that the information about the perpetrator gets stronger the further the trial progresses. Various witnesses spoke of mixed names, such as Angel Michael or Zigzag Massaquoi. Many witnesses also mentioned that they had spoken about the events with others, while others first denied but then admitted to it once their pre-trial interview or recording was reviewed. As the witnesses had initially denied having spoken with someone else about the events, nobody tried to investigate whether they did so or with whom. According to the defense, it is impossible to evaluate the role these external discussions may have played on their testimonies, as the witnesses denied having such discussions in the first place. The defense also referred to the many additions in the testimonies.
The defense then began discussing the details in the indictment. As for the events in Monrovia, the original time for the commission of the alleged acts ended on 9 March 2003. On 1 July 2021, the prosecution extended this timeframe up to 18 August 2003, without explaining which parts of the indictment were affected by this extension. The evidence for Monrovia is solely based on witness testimonies and the defense has continuously maintained, based on both witness testimonies and documentary evidence, that Gibril Massaquoi was in a safe house as of 10 March 2003. Gibril Massaquoi had an incentive to not commit acts mentioned in the indictment since signing the witness protection agreement in October 2002.
The defense also presented overviews of the timing of the events, the identification of the perpetrator and how the witnesses had been found. They maintained that some sort of change had happened after defense witnesses were heard for the first time, as there was a sudden change in testimonies about the timing of the Monrovia events and the identification of the perpetrator.
The defense then moved to discuss the counts relating to the events in Kamatahun Hassala. They argued that the timing of the events differs from the timing advanced by the prosecution and that Gibril Massaquoi was not present at the time of the alleged acts. Their evidence countering the indictment is based on written evidence and the fact that Gibril Massaquoi had left Liberia in June 2001. The defense discussed the content of the witness testimonies in detail in relation to every count, highlighting the changes between hearings and the lack of credible identifications by the witnesses.
After discussing the witness testimonies in relation to the counts, the defense turned their attention to Employee 1’s conduct and how witnesses were found in Lofa. According to the defense, Employee 1 had travelled between the Finnish police’s second and third trip to Lofa to search for witnesses specifically related to Gibril Massaquoi. The defense pointed out that Employee 1’s testimony about this trip and the related notes in his notebook had changed from the lower court to his hearing in the court of appeal. The defense went over details related to Employee 1’s visit to Kiantahun and concluded that the explanations he gave about the trip could not be truthful. The defense also discussed various sections of Employee 1’s notebook in detail.
The defense also discussed Defense 09’s testimony. According to the defense, Defense 09 was the only person who had testified having been on the frontline with Gibril Massaquoi. He had also testified that Gibril Massaquoi left Liberia in early 2000. After the pre-trial interview, it came to light that Defense 09 has a strong connection to Civitas Maxima, Alain Werner had contacted the head investigator. Employee 1’s notebook contains Defense 09’s name with a date after 2019, which according to the defense leads to the question as to whether Defense 09 had already been heard at that time. The Finnish police was not willing to discuss the connection between Defense 09 and Civitas Maxima. Defense 09’s testimony had also changed, and he had brought one witness to the case, who knew who the suspect in the case was even before his police interview.
L5 had heard many witnesses about the events in Kamatahun Hassala. Many of them named Zigzag Marzah, while none of them named Angel, Angel Gabriel or Gibril Massaquoi. Corinne Dufka’s report contained similar results. The defense had checked the list of victims mentioned in L5’s article and the list of victims the prosecution had referred to, drafted by Civilian 50. There were six names that figured on both lists, meaning that they are referring to the same incident.
The defense also focused on Background 1’s testimony, as it was central for the torture charges. They highlighted various aspects of Background 1’s testimony and the changes in his testimony and in the indictment. In sum, the defense argued that the timing of the events had changed and there was no way to credibly verify the timing of the alleged torture in Klay. The defense also saw it as unlikely that Gibril Massaquoi would have introduced himself, knowing what he was doing elsewhere at the time, it seemed unbelievable that he would have done so. There was also evidence of Gibril Massaquoi being in Sierra Leone in July 2002 around the probable timing of Background 1’s torture. Many defense witnesses had testified that Gibril Masaquoi did not leave Sierra Leone in June-July 2002.
As for the mention of the name Angel Gabriel or Angel, the defense referred to the report of the Liberian Truth and Reconciliation Commission in 2009. There was no mention of Gibril Massaquoi, Angel or Angel Gabriel. The Finnish police had conducted a large summary of all the interviews undertaken by the TRC, which included only one mention of a Massaquoi, who, according to the interview, could not speak English well. The defense also presented an overview of witnesses who had not mentioned the name Angel Gabriel or Gibril Massaquoi.
The defense criticized the fact that H5 had expressed his doubt as to the case’s timeline to both Alain Werner and Background 1. According to the defense, Werner knew H5’s importance in the case and told him to stay off it and promised to write him a recommendation letter for France. The defense pointed out that Civitas Maxima and the GJRP have maintained throughout the case that they do not pay witnesses or affect them in any way, yet Werner had written a recommendation letter for H5. The defense then asked whether there had been any additional witnesses who had been prevented from being brought to the case by Civitas Maxima or GJRP.
The defense focused separately on the issue of the safe house. Gibril Massaquoi had entered the safe house on 10 March 2003. The house had constant surveillance and one could not leave it unnoticed. The premises were checked with every shift change. None of the witness testimonies mentioned a situation where Gibril Massaquoi would have been absent or where someone did not know where he was. The defense rejected the arguments advanced by the prosecution, namely that the guards were so bad that Gibril Massaquoi could have gone to Liberia, by stating that, for example H4 had no personal duty to keep Gibril Massaquoi at the safe house. The other argument was that the Special Court would have sent Gibril Massaquoi to Liberia. The defense pointed out that it was deemed ‘suicide’ by Corinne Dufka for Gibril Massaquoi to go to Liberia in summer 2003. Z3 became part of the investigation through Werner and his testimony had changed drastically from the lower court. According to the defense, Z3’s testimony in the court of appeal was good for ‘what was needed, not for any actual information.’
The defense highlighted the fact that, in the prosecution’s timelines, they had not taken all the time needed for travel into account. The defense went over their own timelines, presenting written evidence as to Gibril Massaquoi’s whereabouts. Finally, the defense argued that Gibril Massaquoi had presented a vast amount of evidence countering the charges. Many aspects of the case were brought about by accident. Gibril Massaquoi had been in the public eye for a long time, yet there are not many traces of him in relation to the alleged acts to be found.
The defense argued that they have managed to diminish the credibility of the prosecution’s witness testimonies with their countering evidence and have demonstrated that Gibril Massaquoi could not have left the safe house in 2003 under any circumstances.
The defense concluded that there is a reasonable doubt as to Gibril Massaquoi’s guilt and that all the charges should be dismissed by the court.
