10:00am: Court resumed in open session and defence counsel Mr. Terry Munyard continued the cross-examination of Witness TF1-358. During the said cross-examination, defence counsel Mr. Munyard asked a few questions about medical treatment that the witness offered to Kamajors, based on a request from the Late Chief Sam Hinga Norman, and spent the remainding time of the morning session questioning the witness about his qualifications as a psychiatrist.

Medical Treatment for Kamajors

Mr. Munyard asked the witnsss about his testimony that Hinga Norman brought 13 Kamajors for medical treatment on January 8, 1999.  The witness agreed with counsel on the medical treatment for the Kamajors but stated that he wanted to clarify the statement. He said that Hinga Norman did not come with the kamajors himself but sent them with a note to him, asking that they be treated for badly burnt injuries. He said that the statement that Hinga Norman came with the Kamajors himself was an error. Asked as to the reason for the error, the witness said that this is his first time testifying in court and so he became a little overwhelmed by the courtroom set-up.  He said that the right thing to say is that Hinga Norman first sent a note that the Kamajors be treated and then he later went to the institution himself. Counsel asked the witness to tell the court what he meant by the the word that Norman asked him to “kindly” provide medical treatment for the Kamajors. The witness responded that he used the word because that was what Hunga Norman wrote in his note to him.

Qualifications as a Psychiatrist

Counsel sought to establish the witness’s qualifications as a psychiatrist as stated in his biography and resume submitted to the court. The witness had said in his statement and testimony that before having a real psychiatrist, he was the one providing counselling to victims that went to his institution.  The witness said that a psychiatrist later came in as a consultant to the institution. When asked about his qualification as a psychiatrist, the witness said that he had some experience during his medical training and an internship he did after medical school. Defence counsel suggested that the assessment of psychiatric conditions of victims was based on the witness’s non-expert assessment. The witness disagreed with counsel. Counsel asked the witness about the meaning of GP in the Britsih Medical Practice. The witness explained the difference between a GP and a Family Physician in the UK and Sierra Leone. He said that the scope of practice between the two is different in both countries.

Counsel referenced the documents filed about the witness’s qualifications that his expertise included handling cases of emotional impact of injury or sexual violence. Defence counsel suggested that the witness does have some experience, not an expertese in handling these cases. The witness responded that the experience depends on the amount of patients you handle and how their cases are managed.  He said that a GP does psychiatric work and has experience treating such patients.  He said that it is not physically possible for the only psychiatrist in Sierra Leone to treat all the patients in the country. Defence counsel quoted the witness’s statement during examination-in-chief-that he spent two years in Lodnon doing effective study in cardiology. The witnes responded that the statement was made in error. Defence counsel asked about a Reverend friend that the witness brought to the institution to work as counsellor to victims who suffered emotional injuries. The witness said that this was done because there were many acute patients and he needed more help. When asked about the Reverend’s qualifications for such a job, the witness said he cant say what the qualifications were but he knew that the Reverend had experience in the field.

Counsel asked the witness how he was able to diagnos Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The witness responded that you make an assessment of what the patient has gone through and then come up with signs and symptoms.  He said that PTSD is not specific but you can look at a broad range of conditions and the situation that the patient has undergone.  Counsel asked the whether he is aware of any international standards that determine psychiatric conditions. The witness responded that he is aware of a group of symptoms used to assess psychiatric conditions. He said that he found these in text books. Counsel asked him whether he was aware of any Standard International Manual but the witness said no.

Use of Drugs

Counsel referenced the witness’s evidence that some patients had plaster wounds on their foreheads with brown powder, commonly known as brown-brown underneath the plasters. Counsel asked the witness to state the poppy clan group of drugs and the witness mentioned morphin and cocaine among others.  He said that some of them have medicinal value. He said they are hallucinogenic. Counsel asked the witness to state how much training he has in pharmacology and the witness said that he has 3 years experience in a blend of pharacology and therapeutics. Counsel asked the witness to state where he thinks concaine comes from and he said it is from a group similar to those of poppy clans. Counsel also asked the witness whether he knew the definition of hallocinogenic drugs and if yes, to give examples.  The witness said that they include synthetics like cocaine, heroine, etc.  He said that the effects of cocaines and heroine are very similar. When asked about what cocaine does to the body, the witness said that it causes a false sense of wellbeing, fantacising, seeing things, smelling things and hallucination. When asked about the effects of heroine, he said that they are similar to those of cocaine and they cause addiction after prolonged use.  Counsel asked the witness to state whether either of cocaine or heroine was a sedative or stumulant drug. The witness said that they both stimulate or sedate depending on the dose taken.  Counsel asked the witness whether he was seriously telling the court that cocaine sedates. Counsel asked the witness whether he would agree that cocaine is a stimulant while heroine is a sedative. The witness said that he would not agree completely because at lower levels, both drugs sedate a patient while at higher levels, they sedate, making patients unconscious or even resulting in death.  Defence counsel insisted that they are different while witness held his ground that they both sedate and stimulate. He said that the withdrawal symptoms are the same in the two drugs. Defence counsel put it to the witness that he is totally wrong.  Counsel presented to the witness a copy of the Drug Abuse Research by the National Institute of Health in the USA, which does not state cocaine and heroine as hallocinogenic drugs. The witness responded that since the institute is an authority in the filed, the report might be right but as far as he knows, both drigs are referred to as hallucinogenic. He, however, argued that the report just defines what hallucinogens are and states a few examples. He said that there are a host of other hallucinogens. Defence put it to the witness that the withdrawal effects are different in both drugs and that one is a stimulant while the other is a sedative.

Court adjourned for mid-morning break.

12:00pm: Court resumed in open session and defence counsel Terry Munyard continued the cross-examination of Expert Witness TF1-358. Counsel asked some questions relating to the witness’s description of the rebels, the chances of patients being injured by other fighting forces and the January 1999 invasion of Freetown.

Description of Rebels and Gun Shots

Defence counsel referenced the witness’s statement made in May 2007 that some of the attackers could have been soldiers who were dressed in civilian clothes. He asked the witness whether his patients could have told him the same thing. The witness responded that his patients’ descriptions of rebels were not limited to the kinds of attires they wore but also based on the way they behaved and what they said. He agreed with counsel that he also said victims referred to their attackers as soldiers during the junta period in 1997. He, however, said that only minority of patients could have said some attackers were soldiers.  In his earlier statements, the witness referred to rebels as insurgents and members of the RUF. Defence counsel put it to witness that only recently, he said rebels were members of RUF and NPFL. Counsel asked the witness whether he thought the NPFL was still in existence in 1997. The witness said that to the best of his knowlege, that was the case. Counsel asked the witness to describe the situation in Liberia in 1997. The witness said that there was a civil war there but cant say when the war came to an end.

Counsel also referenced the witness’s statement that patients who came from the Aberdeen and Murray Town areas told him that they were injured by ECOMOG shells. Counsel asked the witnsss how many patients approximately could have told him so. The witness responded that he cannot say the exact amount of patients. He said that he had his doubts as to whether it was true that patients were victims of ECOMOG shells. He said that is why he used the phrase that “patients claimed.” Counsel disagreed with the witness. He said that he does not think that the patients were hit by ECOMOG shells.

Counsel referenced the witness’s statement when he said that after treating the patients, he would know the history of their cases and that while some were hit by strong bullets, some were victims of ECOMOG shells. The witness responded that he wanted to make a distinction between high and low velocity weapons. He said that for some of the patients, based on the kinds of injuries that they had, he could tell they were victims of low velocity bullets and that their wounds could not have been as a result of ECOMOG shellings from a long distance.

January 1999 Attacks on Freetown

The witness said that sometime in late 1998, the international medical NGO he worked with stopped bringing patients from up country and told him to stop piling stocks as rebels were planning to enter Freetown. He said that when rebels eventually entered the capital on January 6, 1999, he received a phone call and after about 2 to 3 hours, he heard shellings and saw smoke in the air. Counsel asked him what he was doing during the intervening 2 to 3 hours when he received the phone call and heard shellings and saw smoke in the air. He said he was busy making phone calls to various people.  He said that he later started seeing rebels in black attires advancing on the capital. Counsel asked him whether he saw any rebels in military fatigue but the witness said no.  Counsel asked him whether he heard of SAJ Musa and in what capacity. The witness said he heard of him and that he was part of the NPRC which took over power in 1992. Counsel asked him whether he had heard of the STF but he said no.

Counsel referenced the witness statement made in May 2007 that after the military coup in 1992, things improved for soldiers in the country. The witness agreed with counsel saying that since he was working with an institution providing medical care for wounded soldiers, he saw less of them being brought for medical attention after the the coup in 1992. Counsel asked the witness whether he had said that from 1991 to 1996, he had only provided medical care for soldiers and not civilians. The witness said that he was misquoted because he also catered for civilians but not for war related injuries. Counsel asked the witness why he did not correct that portion of the statement as well when he made his clarifications. The witness said that it was also an oversight.

Recent Meeting with Special Court Staff

Counsel asked the witness where he was about two weeks ago and the witness said that he was in Sierra Leone. He said that he was seen by SCSL staff and had a clarification session with them. Counsel put it to the witness that he also did not use that session to correct portions of his statement where he was misquoted. Counsel put it to the witness that all the oversights he claims were in his statement when he made clarifications were things that he had said and knew of them when he made his clarifications.

Court adjourned 30 minutes ahead of normal time as the judges had administrative matters to attend to.

Court adjourned for the day.

Friday November 21, 2008.

10:00am: Court resumed in open session and defence counsel Mr. Terry Munyard continued the cross-examination of Expert Witness TF1-358. During the said cross-examination, defence counsel sought to establish several inconsistencies in the witness’s prior statements as well as establishing that the witness only mentioned the presence of Liberian fighters among the rebel forces when it became apparent that he was going to testify against Charles Taylor.

Presence of Liberians Among Rebel Forces

Defencd counsel sought to know whether the witness had said in his earlier statements in 2004 and 2007 that his patients told him many of their assailants were people with Liberian speaking accents.  Counsel told the witness that he made corrections to his 2004 statements in 2007 and still did not mention the issue of Liberian speaking people being part of the rebel forces. The witness responded that during those interviews, no questions were asked related to that issue. Counsel pointed out to the witness that at a latter stage, which was very recent to him testifying before the court, he volunteered the information without being asked about it. The witness said that he did not consider it necessary when he was not asked about it but later volunteered the information when it came to his mind.  Defence counsel put it to the witness that he only said so when he was put up to it recentely and that if his patients indeed told him so, he would have said it a long time ago. The witness disagreed with counsel.

2007 Interview Notes

The witness’s interview notes of 2007 stated that he used to go to Cannaught Hospital on a daily basis. Counsel asked the witness whether that was an accurate record. The witness responded that he was misquoted. Counsel also told the witness that in his statement about seeing rebel forces at Cannaught Hospital, he said he saw a guard at the gate who happened to be somebody that he taught at an institution in Liberia. Counsel further said that he did not mention in the statement that he saw groups of rebels with Liberian speaking accents. The witness responded that he told the investigators so but that it was not recorded. The witness further said that it might be the case that he omitted certain minor details since he could not remember everything at the time he was interviewed.

Counsel asked the witness whether he knew the reason for which he was interviewed in 2007. The witness said that he was told he would be an expert witness at the trials before the Special Court but was not told the person against whom he would testify. He said that he was only told sometime last year that he would be testifying against Mr. Taylor.  Defence counsel put it to the witness that when he was interviewed in 2007, he knew he would be testifying against Mr. Taylor. The witness disagreed with counsel. Counsel submitted the witness’s signed declaration that all he had said in his statements were correct to the best of his knowlege and belief. Counsel asked the witness to tell the court why he didnt make ammendments to the statements before signing the declaration. The witness said he probably oversighted certain things when he went through his statement. The witness said that when investigators obtained statements from him, they would make a recap of the statement on a daily basis before moving forward. When asked whether he had a recollecetion of the interview notes read to him before he signed his declaration, he said that the statements were not read to him but handed over to him so he could read them on his own. Defence counsel went through several portions of the witness’s statement and indexes under the photograpsh that were identified. In one of the photos, the records indicate that an amputated adult male was the witness’s patient instead of the amputated toddler as stated by the witness during examination. The witness responded that those records were wrongly put and that it was an oversight on his part not to have corrected them. He further said that the indexes on photographs 45, 46, 47 and 48 that they were taken in 1999 were wrongly recorded. When asked whether he read through any of the statements before he signed the declaration, the witness responded that he just scanned through them very quickly. Counsel also referenced portions of the statement in distinguishing among photographs where he said that those handed over to him were taken by the minister of information himself. The witness again said that the records were wrongly put and that the investigators probably put it that way to refer to the minister’s organization.

Clarification Interviews of August 18 and 19, 2008.

Counsel pointed out that the witness had clarification interviews on the dates specified above and asked the witness whether he read through those clarification statements. The witness responded that the statements were handed over to him on August 28, 2008 but he only scanned through them very quickly. Defence asked the witness whether he took the declaration seriously by just reading through the statements quickly. The witness said that he did take the declaration seriously.

Mention of Liberian Involvement in Witness’s Statements

Defence counsel asked the witness whether he knew at the time of his last interview that he was going to testify against Mr. Taylor when he mentioned the involvement of Liberian forces among the rebels. The witness said he just amplified things that he had said earlier.

Counsel asked the witness whether he has been following the Taylor trial in the news. The witness said he has seen shots of it on TV on a few occassions but has not been paying keen attention to it. He said he has been very busy to even listen to BBC’s Focus on Africa.  Defence counsel put it to the witness that like many other witnesses, he only spoke of Liberian involvement when he was coming to testify against Mr. Taylor.  The witness responded that he probably did not mention the Liberian involvement in his previous interviews because the focus of those interviews were on the patients he treated and not Liberian involvement. Counsel asked the witness whether it is a case that he cannot recall the things he said in his statements but the witness disagreed with counsel. Counsel questioned the witness about his definition of rebels as ragtag boys. He asked the witness whether kamajors were also in the same category but the witness said that kamajors were different from rebels.

Court adjourned for mid-morning break.

3:00pm: Court resumed in open session and defence counsel for Charles Taylor Mr. Terry Munyard continued his cross-examination of Expert Witness TF1-358. Mr. Munyard focussed his cross-examination of the witness on issues relating to his previous statements to the prosecution and the photographs he identified in court. Counsel sought to determine those statements made by the witness to the prosecution and medical records of patients for whom he provided medical care, which were not disclosed.

Counsel first determined that the witness did not have a copy of his statement made to the prosecution and he offered to provide copies for reference by the witness.  Counsel refered to the statement made by the witness to prosecution investigators on April 22 2004. The witness could not remember the names of the individuals who obtained the statement from him. Counsel asked the witness whether he made any statements prior to the April 22 2004 statements but the witness said that he could not recall. Counsel referenced certain portions of the statement in which questions were asked suggesting that the witness had made a prior statement to the April 22 2004 statement. The witness agreed with counsel that certain questions asked in that statement suggesteed that he had made a prior statement but he could not tell the date that the first statement was obtained.

When asked about how he was approached by the prosecution, the witness explained that sometime in 2004, on a date that he cannot remember, Special Court officials approached him at his hospital and asked for medical records of patients he had treated during the conflict from 1997 onwards.The witness said that he gave them the records that were in his possession, mainly photographs that he has already identified in court. He said that he did not give them any medical records. He said that the written medical records had disappeared, probably some were given to an International Medical NGO that he worked with during the conflict. On the remaining written records, the witness said that he could not find them. He said that they probably disappeared when he was transferring from his Institution No. 2 to Institution No. 3. The witness became a little confused at some point as to whether he gave the medical reports to the medical NGO or whether he gave them to Special Court personel. The witness agreed with counsel that a written record could have been the best form of record keeping on patients whom he treated within this period.

Counsel referenced part of the witness’s April 22, 2004 statement in which he was asked by prosecution investigators about the medical records and he said that he had given them to the Special Court before. He further said in the statement that the court officials should have photocopies of the said records. When asked whether they returned the copies to him,  he said possibly so. He said that he misplaced the records when moving from Institution 2 to Institution 3.  He then said that he had forgotten that he gave the records to the OTP. He again said that he did not give the records to the OTP but to a lady from the Special Court, without determining whether she was from prosecution. He said that a lady from the Special Court came to her at different times and asked for individual records of the patients. Counsel asked the witness to tell the court who the lady was and the grounds on which he could have given her medical records of patients. The witness responded that the lady identified herself as an official of the Special Court. He said that she had enough documentation on behalf of the Special Court investigative branch. He said that he might guess that she was from the prosecutor’s office.

Counsel referenced witness’s statement that his patients told him some of the rebels who attacked them had Liberian accents. Counsel sought to establish that the witness did not say so in his statement made in 2004.  He asked the witness to tell the court why he only said so in later statements and not in his 2004 statement. The witness responded that in 2004, they did not ask him about that. Counsel further stated that in his later statement, he was also not asked about that but he volunteered the information. Counsel asked the witness to tell the court when he knew he would testify against Mr. Taylor. The witness said that he cannot recall when exactly he was told. He, however, confirmed that trials were already taking place at the Special Court when he was interviewed but they did not tell him against whom he will testify. Counsel asked the witness whether he liked the Late Hinga Norman, former Coordinator of the CDF and whether he supported Mr. Norman’s positions on the war. The witness said that while he met Mr. Norman once, he had no special relationship with him but agreed with some of his positions on the war.  The witness said that while obtaining statements from him, at some point, they told him he would be an expert witness and it was later confirmed to him that it will be in the Taylor trial. Counsel asked that the witness be showen his statements made on the 17, 18 and 19 May 2007 but it was already time for the court to adjourn for the day.

Court adjourned.

12:00pm: Prosecution counsel Mohamed Bangura completed the examination of Expert Witness TF1-358 and defence counsel Terry Munyard commenced cross-examination of the witness.

Examination Continues

Witness TF1-358 continued the identification of various photographs and prosecution counsel Mohamed Bangura asked that said photographs be admitted into evidence.

Counsel first asked that the witness be shown photograph No. 54. The witness said that the photograph was given to him by the former minister of information and it showed injured people being carried manually and some in push carts. The witness said that some of the injured people brought to his institution were carried in like manner.

The next photograph that was shown was taken by the witness himself in January 1999. The photo showed the interior of a burnt building which the witness said was institution No. 1. He said that the building was destroyed when an announcement was made that all injured persons should go to institution No. 2 for medical treatment.

The witness identified photograph No. 68. He said the photograph was taken by himself showing the exterior of burnt institution No. 1.

Prosecution counsel stated that those were all the photographs he had for identification. Cousel then drew the witness’s attention to a previous photograph which he said was an 8 months old baby whose hand was amputated and was treated by the witness. The witness said that he treated other babies of the same age as the one in the photo. He recalled the story of a baby that was brought to him in 1998 whose right eye was permanently opened due to injuries sustained.  He said that according to what he was told, the baby was the only survivor of a massacre in a house. He said the baby was rescued by two gentlement who said they discovered the baby sucking the breast of a dead young woman. The baby, they said was lying in dried blood.

The witness said that in his entire career as a medical practitioner, he never saw or envisaged seeing such influx of patients with such gruesome medical conditions. He said that since he treated those patients, he has never been confronted with same circumstance.

Prosecution counsel informed the court that that was the conclusion of his examination of the witness.

Cross Examination by Mr. Terry Munyard

At the commencement of the cross-examination, defence counsel for Charles Taylor Mr. Terry Munyard informed the witness that he had several questions and he did not want the witness to misconstrue them as being a disregard for his career and experience or for the humanitarian work he did during the conflict in Sierra Leone.

Counsel said that he had several questions about the photographs that had been identified by the witness.  Counsel referenced the photographs that were given to the witness by the former minister of information to be used on his trip to the USA in 1999. He asked the witness whether he returned them to the minister when he went back to Sierra Leone. The witness said that he did not give them back to the minister but kept them for himself.  He said that he kept the photographs in his office and that they are still in his possession in Sierra Leone.  He said that the photographs had writings at the back.

The witness said that he first made a statement to the Office of the Prosecution (OTP) in 2004. The witness said that he cannot say whether the prosecution investigators made an index of the photos but he said that they noted what he told them about the photographs.  He said that the investigators were Sierra Leoneans and they could identify certain areas in the photographs. Counsel called the names of two persons from the OTP who the witness agreed were not Sierra Leoneans. Counsel asked the witness whether he told the prosecution investigators that the photographs given to him by the minister were taken by the minister himself. The witness responded that they might have misquoted him but that he did not tell them that the photographs were taken by the minister himself.

Counsel referenced a lady from Germany who appears in two of the photographs identified by the witness. Counsel asked whether the lady worked with the witness. The witness responded that she was an auxialliary dentist who was in Sierra Leone on a humanitarian mission. He said that the lady did not render any medical assistance to victims.

Counsel referenced Photograph No. 27 which the witness said was a photograph of victims from the northern part of Sierra Leone and who the witness said he was told were amputated in early 1998. Counsel asked the witness whether it is possible that those injuries took place in late 1997. The witness responded that based on his assessment of the injuries, it was possible for those injuries to have taken place in late 1997. On the issue of writings on the back of photographs given to him by the minister, counsel asked the witness whether the writings were “rebels burnt by civilians.” The witness responded that he cannot remember. He said that during the first three weeks of the January invasion of Freetown, there were large chunks of cases to be treated but they reduced as time went on.  He said that when the case loads reduced, he had time to take photographs of patients and buildings in order to keep records. Counsel presented two photographs to the witness which seemed to be the same but taken from different angles. The witness responded that the photographs were different from each other. Counsel asked the witness whether because of mind tricks, it is possible that he now sees more dead bodies in his mind than he saw ten years ago. The witness said that no mind tricks have affected him over these years. He said that he visited the mortuary site on different days and as those days went by, people took away the dead bodies and so they kept reducing.

Christmas Visit to the Amputee Camp

The witness earlier said that he visited the amputee camp with gifts for his patients in 1998. Counsel asked the witness whether it is possible the visit was made in 1999. The witness disagreed with counsel. He said that there were different situations in 1998 and 1999 because those patients from the provinces were treated in 1998 and that in 1999, there were completely different circumstances.  The witness said he has doubts whether the same children he visited in 1998 were still at the amputee camp in late 1999. He said that the amputee camp was closed down three years ago. Counsel also referenced notes that photographs 44, 45 and 46 were taken in 1999. The witness responded that it could have been an error.

Reference photograph 44, which showed an 8 months old toddler, counsel asked the witness whether he had said the unidentified man in the same photo was his patient instead of the todller. The witness said he had not said so. Counsel asked whether if it is true that the lady whose eyes were plucked out was treated and handed back to her relatives. The witness agreed with counsel. On the baby who was discovered sucking the breast of a dead woman, counsel asked whether the witness had said that the baby was accompanied by her father or that some people came and said they were related to the child’s parents. The witness responded that the relatives were all killed when the father was away and that he was later discovered. He said he did not say that the baby was accompanied by his father.

Meetings with the Prosecution

Counsel asked the witness abour various meetings that he has had with the OTP. The witness said that he has had several meetings with them but cant say the sequence in which the meetings took place.  Counsel asked the witness about his last meeting with OTP on Tuesday of this week. The witness said that he did meet with OTP and that he made some clarifications and amplifications to his statements. The witness said that he cant recall if any notes were taken on Tuesday because he was so tired after the long flight to The Hague.  He said that in the Tuesday meeting, he made clarificatiosn to dates and some other issues in the statements.  Counsel asked the witness whether he told prosecutors anything that was not disclosed in previous statements. The witness said no. Counsel asked him to tell the court the things that he said he had clarified or amplified.  The witness responded that he cannot remember but that any clarifications made were very minor.  When asked whether he was given a copy of his statement, the witness said yes he did. Counsel asked about the originals of photographs and the witness said that no one told him to bring the originals to The Hague. He said that he, however, thought of bringing them but that he forgot.

Court adjourned for lunch break.

10:00am: Court resumed in open session and prosecution counsel Mr. Mohamed Bangura continued the examination of Expert Witness TF1-358.

Mr. Bangura spent the whole of the morning session showing photographs to the witness for identification and admission into evidence by the court.

Counsel first asked that the witness be shown Photograph No. 8. The photograph, which the witness said was taken by himself showed a makeshift shed with dying patients. He then identified Photograph No. 9, which he said was taken by himself showing a burnt out building of Institution No. 1.

The witness identified Photographa No. 11 with two photographs which showed one taken by the witness of a bilaterally amputated patient and the second one taken by the witness’s assistant on his instruction.

Photographa No. 11 was taken by the witness in 1998 at Institution No. 2 showing young female and male children who were both fire-burn victims of rebel attrocities.

The next photograph was taken by the witness in January 1999 at Institution No. 2. It showed victims of the January 1999 invasion of Freetown upon whom the witness had done surgeries.

Photograph No. 20 was taken by the witness in mid-1998 at Institution No. 2 and it showed a 12 year old boy who was thrown into a fire by rebel forces. He said that boy had 2 to 3 degree burns and was badly malnourished.

Next photograph was taken by the witness at Institution No. 2 in mid-1998 and it showed a young boy who was amputated by rebels in the north of Sierra Leone.

Photograph No. 21 was taken by the witness and it showed a young farmer who was amputated by rebel forces in the north of Sierra Leone.

Photograph No. 26 was taken by the witness in mid-1998 at Institution No. 2 and it showed four persons–a male adult, a young man and two females amputated by rebel forces. The two women were from the east of the country while the elderly man was from the north.

Photograph No. 27 was taken by the witness in mid-1998 at Institution No. 2 and it showed three child victims standing with a lady who had been depicted in previous photographs.

Photograph No. 31 was given to the witness by the former Minister of Information and it showed rebels who were caught and were dealt with by civilians. It was taken in january 1999.

The next photgraph showed a set of photos on one page. The witness took two of the photos while the other two were given to him by the former minister of information.

The witness identified several other photographs, some of which were taken by himself and some taken by the former minister of information. Some of the photographs showed buildings such as police stations, banks, etc which were destroyed during the January 1999 invasion of Freetown and some showed dead bodies of civilians in front of the Cannaught Hospital in Freetown. He further identified several other photographs taken by himself when he took Christmas gifts to amputees at the amputee camp in Freetown. He said that some of the amputees were his previous patients when they were wounded by rebel forces.

In Photograph No. 51, the witness identified a lady at Institution No. 2. He said that the lady had been gang raped by seven rebels in the central part of Freetown during the January 1999 invasion of Freetown and her eyes were plucked out so that she could not identify her victims. He said that the lady was a suckling mother who had gone out to find food to eat. He said he provided medical attention for the witness but since she was also mentally unstable, he had to provide counselling services for her.

Court adjounred for mid-morning break.

Wednesday November 19, 2008.

3:00PM: Court resumed in open session and prosecution counsel Mohamed Bangura continued the examination of Expert Witness TF1-358 who testified with voice and facial distortion.

The witness continued his testimony about wounded victims that he offered medical help to during the rebel attacks on Freetown. The witness spoke about civilians who suffered from burns as a result of being in houses which were set on fire by rebel forces. When asked about that nature of burns in adults and children, the witness said that the burns suffered by adults were distinct from those suffered by children. He said that when compared to children, the severity in adults was less because of the proportion of body involved.  He also spoke of people who had wounds caused by blunt instruments. He said that the blunt instruments used on victims caused the tissues to go into spasms. The witness said that wounded people were also brought from the provinces for treatment at his institutions. When asked whether the victims told him about the mood of the perpetrators, the witness said they told him that the perpetrators behaved abnormally. He also spoke about a witness that he treated for whom he had earlier been a primary physician.

Prosecution counse Mr. Bangura asked the witness about the activities of combatants that he witnessed in 1999. The witness said that he witnessed rebel activities that targeted specific groups in the capital. When asked to specify such groups that were targeted, he mentioned members of the judiciary or court system and Nigerian nationals living in Sierra Leone. When asked how he knew that Nigerians were targeted, the witness responded that a close friend of his was killed in the east end of Freetown because he had a tribal marks that made him look like a Nigerian. He said the friend was mistaken for a Nigerian and he was executed. He said Nigerians were targeted because a huge component of the ECOMOG forces was made up of Nigerians.

Prosecution counsel asked that the witness be made to identify photographs and distingusih between those that he personally took of the victims who were treated in his institution and those photos taken by another individual but handed over to the witness. Defence counsel for Mr. Taylor, Mr. Terry Munyard objected on the basis that the originals of the photos be shown in court. Prosecution counsel Mr. Bangura responded that the photographs were digitally taken and that there were no originals in court. The witness explained to the court that when prosecution investigators took the photos from him, they copied them and handed the originals back to him. He said that he did not have them with him in court. After a few legal exchanges in that regard, the judges allowed the witness to identify the photos available in court. The witness made the identifications and prosecution counsel asked that the photos be marked for identification.

Court adjourned 30 minutes ahead of normal time because the judges had other matters to attend to.

12:00pm: Court resumed and prosecution counsel Mohamed Bangura continued the examination of Expert Witness TF1-358. The witness testified in open session with voice and facial distortion.

In his testimony, the witness said that he received several patients from the the north, south and east of Sierra Leone. Asked about specific ares in these regions, the witness said that those from the north where mainly from Makeni in Bombali District while those from the east where mainly from Koidu, Kenema and Daru. Describing some of the wounds of victims, the witness said that there were many cases of chronic amputations and badly infected wounds. He described cases of chronic ostromilisis and retraction, in which case the sub tissue around the bone contracts, exposes the bone and the bone becomes badly infected. The witness also described a situation where his colleague, another medical practitioner came to him with an attempted amputation of his arm. The witness said that many of the patients who went to his institution told him that their perpetrators were rebels. He testified of the genorousity of ordinary Sierra Leoneans who carried injured victims in trolleys and provided camp beds and matresses for his institution to provide treatment for these victims. The witness also explained that several of his workers in his medical institutions were caught behind rebel lines but were able to escape and go join him to treat the wounded victims. The witness explained that he treated a woman who was gang raped and her eyes plucked out by her attackers. He said that the rebels told the woman that she would not recognize them if her eyes were plucked out. He said that he also treated children who suffered amputations of various kinds.

Court adjourned for lunch break.

10:00am; Court resumed and prosecution counsel Mr. Mohamed Bangura led the 83rd prosecution witness in evidence. The witness, a medical practitioner testified as an expert in human anatomy, injuries suffered from the application of force to human body, medical intervention for injuries to human body, long term impact of injuries and emotional consequences of significant injury.

In his evidence, the witness testified about the nature of injuries suffered during the conflict in Sierra Leone and more particularly rebel attacks on Freetown. He spoke extensively about injuries caused by fireamrs, the application of force by objects, and sexual violence, including the emotional and long term effects on the patients.

A hige part of the witness’s testimony during the morning session was heard in private/closed session as questions asked could have disclosed the witness’s identity if heard in public. When court resumed in open session, the witness testified about the various institutions he ran during the rebel attacks in Freetown, which provided medical attention for persons injured by fighting forces.  The witness gave a description of the chaotic medical situation that existed in Freetown after the overthrow of President Ahmed Tejan Kabbah in May 1997. He said that the major medical institutions were overcrowded and overwhelmed with patients suffering from various wounds. He said that the patients were divided into categories of those dying upon arrival, those with acute emergency situations, and those with light wounds. He described to the court the various wounds sustained by patients he treated in 1997. According to the witness, in addition to treating patients for various injuries that were sustained, the institutions he ran also provided counselling services to victimes especially those who suffered from sexual violence.

Court adjourned for mid-morning break.

3:00pm: Court resumed after lunch break and witness TF1-045 Augustine Sama Mallah was re-examined by prosecution counsel Brenda Hollis and he concluded his evidence against Charles Taylor. During re-examination, prosecution counsel Ms, Hollis sought to clarify certain issues that arose during cross-examination of the witness and these issues included the disagreement between the witness and Issa Sesay about shooting at Guinean soldiers, Bockarie’s resignation from the RUF, the witness’s trip from Monrovia to Sierra Leone, issues relating to Jungle, Senegalese, the Black Gadafa group, inconsistencies in the witness’s prior statements and the ULIMO cut off of the Liberia/Sierra Leone border.

Witness’s Disagreement with Issa Sesay

Prosecution counsel Ms. Hollis asked the witness about defence counsel’s questions regarding his disagreement with Issa Sesay. The witness explained that this had to do with his refusal to open fire at Guinean soldiers while they were in kailahun. When asked the explain the circumstances, he said that there were reports that the Guinean soldiers were firing gun shots towards Kailahun. He said that together with some colleagues, they went to the Sierra Leonean/Guinean border in Kailahun and they found out that the Guineans were on the Guinea side of the border trying to build a hut and that they were firing gun shots in the process. He said that they returned to Kailahun and sent the message to Bockarie and Issa who were based in  Buedu. He said that Issa moved and met them in Kailahun. He said that one of Issa’s bodyguards, Ishiaka, misinformed him and said that the Guineans were trying to attack RUF positions in Kailahun. Issa instructed them to go and stop the Guineans. He said that when they went to the border, they saw the Guinean soldiers on the Guinean side of the border, with no intention to attack the RUF. He said Ishiaka told them that based on Issa’s orders, they should open fire on the Guinean soldiers. The witness said he refused to do that. He said that he maintained position that he will only shoot at the Guenians if they crossed into the Sierra Leone side of the border. He said that he told his fellow soldiers to follow him to a village called Baidu and they did. He said Ishiaka convinced a few soldiers and they opened fire at the rebels. He said three rebels died in the cross-fire and several others were wounded. Ishiaka went and met him at Baidu and asked him to provide reinforcements. The witness said when he refused, Ishiaka accused of betraying his fellow fighters. The witness responded by saying that it was Issa who had betrayed the RUF because when he was given diamonds to purchase arms and ammunition, he came back and said the diamonds were missing. He said that Ishiaka then opened fire and killed an SLA soldier who was now with the RUF. The witness became mad and also wanted to kill Ishiaka but that his fellow fighters restrained him. Ishiaka went back and told Issa that the witness had convened a meeting and was inciting other fighters that Issa had betrayed the RUF by not accounting for the diamonds. He said that Issa sent for him to report to Buedu. The witness went there and Issa took his pistol to shoot at him but that he escaped. The witness was eventually sent to the frontline at Gbaima.

Counsel also asked the witness about the Guinea Operation in 2000. The witness explained that Issa asked him to go and join NPFL fighters planning to attack Guinea from Liberia. The witness said he refused to do so and this brought another disagreement with Issa.

Bockarie’s Resignation from The RUF

Counsel asked the witness where he was when Bockarie left Buedu for Liberia. The witness said that he was with Issa’s group of RUF and SLA fighters that moved from Segbwema to go and attack Bockarie in Buedu but by the time they got there, Bockarie had already left for Liberia.

Witness’s Trip from Monrovia to Sierra Leone

Counsel asked the witness about RUF fighters that had been in Liberia for some long time. The witness explained that those were part of the group that went to Liberia in 1991 but some of them refused to return to Sierra Leone. He said they stayed in Liberia and became part of the NPFL until they were disarmaed in 1997. Counsel asked the witness about the intentions of the RUF fighters that left Liberia in 1997 after the AFRC coup. The witness explained that they left together with some Sierra Leonean refugees in Liberia but that the RUF fighters intended to go back to their fellow RUF fighters in Sierra Leone. When asked about the issue of Refugee ID Cards, the witness explained that many civilians took the ID Cards but that they the RUF rebels did not have ID Cards.

Jungle and Senagalese

Counsel asked the witness about when he first saw Jungle in Sierra Leone. The witness said he saw Jungle in Kenema when he went to visit Bockarie. When asked about Senegalese, the witness said that he knew him and they referred to him that way because he was very tall, a prominent feature of people from Senegal.

Witness’s Prior Inconsistent Statement

Counsel asked the witness about inconsistent statements that he made when he first had contact with prosecution investigators. The witness told the said investigators that he joined the RUF in 1994. When asked why he said so, the witness explained that when the Special Court was first established, there were rumours that those people who joined the RUF in 1991 and who rose to the position of colonel will be indicted. The witness said that to save himself from this, he refused to tell the investigators that he joined the RUF in 1991 and that he rose to the position of Lt. Colonel. He said that even when the investigators tried to convince him otherwise, he believed that they just wanted to cajole him and will arrest him once they knew the truth.

ULIMO Closure of Sierra Leone/Liberian Border

Counsel asked that the map of Liberia, which was earlier on displayed by defence counsel be shown to the witness. The witness agreed with counsel that the Grand Cape Mount Region in Liberia borders with Pujehun in Sierra leone while the Lofa County region borders with Kailahun. Counsel referenced the testimony of prosecution witness Vamunya Sheriff when he testified that ULIMO gained control of the Grand Cape Mount from the end of 1992 to 1993 and that for Lofa County, they fought there at the end of 1992 to early 1993 and  took control of the region in 1993-94. The witness said that this was consistent with his recollection of events.

Counsel then asked the witness to confirm whether Action Man used to give letters to Sankoh that Taylor wanted to talk to him. He said he saw Action Man in Danani in 1996.

This brought re-examination to an end.

Judges’ Questions

Presiding Judge Doherty asked the witness whether he was present in Kenema in 1996 to implement Sankoh’s orders to kill and amputate civilians so as to prevent them from voting. The witness said he was present and took part in the operation.

That brought the witness’s evidence to conclusion.

Prosecution counsel indicated that the next witness is supposed to be TF1-358. She said that the witness arrived in The Hague late last night. She said that five pages of investigative notes pertaining to the witness’s testimony were only disclosed to the defence today and that defence counsel will need time to review the said notes in order to prepare for cross-examination of the witness. She said that if defence counsel are not prepared for the witness, the prosecution will not proceed with him.

Defence counsel Terry Munyard respomded that indeed disclosures were only made today and that defence will need time to prepare for the witness.

Prosecution counsel Ms. Hollis said that if defence counsel is not ready to proceed with that witness by tomorrow, then TF1-274 will be ready to testify.

Court adjourned for the day.