Historic trial in Guinea: Reactions from civil society
On 31 July 2024, former Guinean president Moussa Dadis Camara was found guilty by the Criminal Court of the Dixinn Court of First Instance in Conakry, Guinea, together with seven other defendants during the trial of the events of the 28 September 2009, which took place at the National Stadium in Conakry. The trial lasted two years, with 22 months of hearings and the participation of hundreds of victims. The judges reclassified the charges as crimes against humanity, prosecuted for the first time in Guinea. Former Guinean president Moussa Dadis Camara and eight senior officials were sentenced to between 10 years and life imprisonment (20 years). Four other defendants were acquitted. Colonel Claude Pivi was the only defendant absent at the verdict, where he was sentenced in absentia to life imprisonment for his role in the 28 September 2009 massacre. After several months on the run, Claude Pivi was arrested in Liberia on 17 September and transferred to Guinea on 19 September. Between two million and 1.5 billion Guinean francs (around USD 23,000 to USD 172,500) were awarded as reparations for the various groups of victims, particularly those who suffered physical and psychological trauma.
All but one of those convicted appealed against the decision, and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH), the Guinean Organisation for the Defence of Human and Citizens' Rights (OGDH) and their partner, the Association of Victims, Relatives and Friends of the 28 September 2009 (AVIPA), decided to ask the appeal judges to rule on key points concerning the reparations for the victims and the situation of the disappeared. The FIDH, OGDH and AVIPA are specifically calling for the State to be jointly condemned in order to ensure that the victims are effectively compensated.
Civil society has pleaded for many years for the trial to be held and for the victims to obtain justice. We gathered the reactions of civil society in Guinea about the trial, the verdict and their recommendations for the future.
What do you think of the trial and the verdict of the Dixinn Court of First Instance in Conakry on 31st July 2024? What is the impact of this trial in Guinea?
Alseny Sall, GUINEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN AND CITIZEN RIGHTS (OGDH)
For the OGDH, the verdict handed down by the Dixinn criminal court on 31 July 2024 in the case of the massacres of 28 September 2009 in Guinea is a historic decision that will remain in the collective memory of Guinea and Africa, even if we find concerning certain aspects of this decision.
It is a historic decision because it is the first time in a country marked by a culture of impunity for serious and sometimes massive human rights violations since its independence that former senior government officials, including a head of state, are held accountable before the Guinean court and [it is also the first time] that facts are classified as crimes against humanity by a Guinean court. This is a very positive and hopeful precedent for human rights defenders and all the people fighting for justice beyond Guinea. The main challenge we face in Africa concerning the fight against impunity remains the political will of the leaders in power to create favourable conditions so that situations of this kind, which have bereaved families and destroyed lives, are not sacrificed in the name of party politics.
However, certain aspects of this decision are concerning. While we must congratulate the court for reclassifying the charges as crimes against humanity, given the scale of the massacres committed, we still do not understand the logic that guided the court in handing down sentences to the defendants that we find relatively weak compared to the facts alleged against them, even if some will say that the request for a penalty is not the responsibility of the civil parties, but rather that of the public prosecutor. In addition, the court announced large reparation amounts for the victims. However, the fact that the court did not hold the State responsible for guaranteeing these reparation payments to the victims raises real concerns about the effectiveness and implementation of these reparations for the victims. Moreover, one convicted defendant already finished serving his sentence and was released after the trial! This is even more concerning given that these people acted as public officials during the massacres. The question we are asking ourselves today is whether these people should be released when some of the litigants appealed against the Court's decision. For us, the situation remains concerning on these issues.
Hamidou Barry, GUINEAN COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (CGCPI)
The trial concerning the events of 28 September 2009 is a historic and pedagogical trial, simply because it is the first time since 1958 that mass crimes have been tried in the Republic of Guinea. In general, the trial was held under proper conditions. The adversarial principle was respected, so the trial was fair. However, the Guinean government did not take any concrete measures to ensure the safety of the victims and their lawyers, whereas the security of the judges and court clerks was guaranteed, as well as that of the trial venue. The civil party's lawyers did not receive their fees during eleven (11) months, from 1 October 2022 to 21 August 2023. Another weakness of the trial was the failure to review the case of the mass graves.
Regarding the judgement, it is important to emphasise that the sentences imposed on the accused are less than thirty (30) years, as provided for in Article 77 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).
This is the first time in the history of Guinean justice that a former head of state, ministers and senior members of the defence and security forces are taken to court. In principle, this should serve as an example to our current and future leaders.
Regarding the reclassification of the facts as crimes against humanity, we would like to remind that the pool of investigating judges used Article 28 of the Rome Statute to indict Aboubacar Sidiki Diakité and Captain Moussa Dadis Camara. However, in 2017, the referral order considered that the facts constituted ordinary crimes. The same position was adopted by the Court of Appeal in 2018 and the Supreme Court in 2019. Besides, we note that the reclassification decided by the Court on 31 July 2024 is a salutary decision, which will make it possible to prosecute all the perpetrators and/or accomplices involved in the painful events of 28 September 2009.
The failure to guarantee the safety of the victims and all the lawyers remains the shortcoming of the trial.
Regarding the appeal by the accused, this is part of the normal rules for any trial. It is a right recognised to all parties.
Tamara Aburamadan, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW)
On 31 July 2024, a court in Guinea sentenced Guinea's self-proclaimed former president of Guinea, Moussa Dadis Camara, and seven others, in a historic trial for the rape and murder of demonstrators committed in 2009. At the request of the prosecution, the Court also decided to reclassify all the charges from ordinary crimes to crimes against humanity. This is the first time that crimes against humanity are prosecuted in Guinea.
This verdict does justice to the victims and survivors who have been waiting for this moment for so long, almost 15 years after the brutal abuses of the 2009 stadium massacre, and who still suffer from its consequences. This decision sends a strong and clear message to those responsible for serious crimes in Guinea and elsewhere that justice is possible. The trial should also allow to learn lessons to encourage national justice efforts around the world.
The convicted are entitled to appeal against the decision, and some of them, including Moussa Dadis Camara, are in the process of filing an appeal after receiving the verdict.
A Guinean court has convicted the country’s former self-proclaimed president, Moussa Dadis Camara, among others, of crimes against humanity committed during a brutal 2009 massacre at a Conakry stadium.
This verdict offers long-awaited justice for victims and survivors. pic.twitter.com/UVOWJso4kX
— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) July 31, 2024
What were the reactions of the victims, the affected communities and the public?
Alseny Sall, GUINEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN AND CITIZEN RIGHTS (OGDH)
Many of the victims who were present appreciated the verdict. Some of them even shed tears as they thanked us. However, some of them deplored the lightness of the sentences handed down to the defendants. In their view, the defendants deserved heavier sentences.
In general, the trial was received in different ways in the country. While some believe that the trial is a good lesson for Guinean society and our leaders, others think that it is a political trial used by the transitional authorities to score points with their partners. For the latter group, the persons convicted will quickly benefit from dispensations from the transitional authorities in the name of reconciliation.
However, a paradox should be noted: while the transitional authorities have shown the political will to organise this long-awaited trial 13 years after the events in record time, at the same time we notice concerning threats on the protection of citizens' rights and freedoms in the country, reflected in the restriction of civic and political space, arbitrary and/or extra-judicial arrests and detentions, and serious attacks on press freedom in Guinea.
Hamidou Barry, GUINEAN COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (CGCPI)
Victims generally expressed their satisfaction, especially with the reclassification of ordinary crimes as crimes against humanity. The public also expressed satisfaction with the decision of the Court. However, many people think that the sentences handed down to the defendants were light. Only the defendant Claude Pivi1, who is on the run, was sentenced to life imprisonment. The other defendants received a sentence from ten (10) years to twenty (20) years.
What were the main obstacles to holding this trial and obtaining the verdict?
Alseny Sall, GUINEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN AND CITIZEN RIGHTS (OGDH)
The main obstacle to holding this trial for many years was the lack of will from the authorities, because the case is eminently political and involves former senior military dignitaries, including a former head of state. As a result, considerations of popularity and influence of those involved in the political sphere contributed to slowing down the willingness of the leaders to provide all the necessary technical support to the pool of judges who worked during the preliminary investigations. Unfortunately, this had a negative impact on the preparatory investigation of the case. For us, this explains the insufficient number of people that were charged and taken to the court to be judged in this case.
Hamidou Barry, GUINEAN COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (CGCPI)
There were many obstacles to holding this trial. The first obstacle is that there was no real political will from the former President of the Republic, Professor Alpha Condé. The second obstacle was that there were political (electoral) and community bottlenecks.
Tamara Aburamadan, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW)
This trial took one step after another over the last eighteen months, making significant progress despite considerable challenges. This significant progress was reflected in the proceedings of the trial, especially when the judges heard from 11 defendants, more than 100 victims and more than a dozen witnesses, including senior government officials. On the other hand, the considerable challenges included concerns about the safety of victims and witnesses following an escape incident from prison, and the lack of financial support from international partners.
Hearings generally take place three days a week, except in case of public holidays, judicial holidays, a six-week recess and several other shorter postponements, notably due to Dadis Camara's state of health. Following the prosecution's request to reclassify the charges from ordinary crimes to crimes against humanity, the trial hearings were also suspended for a few weeks and then extended while all the parties to the trial presented their arguments about the prosecution's request for reclassification.
Security is a key issue, given the sensitive nature of the charges and the notoriety of the defendants. The Guinean government deployed hundreds of security agents around the trial venue to ensure security throughout the trial. In December 2022, a man was convicted for making online threats against one of the prosecutors.
Although the government provided victims with transportation to go to the trial, according to a civil society representative who spoke with Human Rights Watch, some victims expressed concerns for their safety in using it, as it was tagged as transportation for the trial.
On 4 November 2023, after four high-ranking defendants, including former President Dadis Camara, left the detention centre with the armed forces, victims and survivors who had testified during the trial publicly expressed concerns for their safety while the defendants were on the run. The lawyers involved in the proceedings also reported threats to their safety.
Although three of the defendants went back to detention the same day, Claude Pivi was still free at that time, which led the media to report that several witnesses had declined to testify because of fears for their safety. Human Rights Watch was unable to verify this information.
Despite concerns about available resources expressed by Guinean civil society organisations participating as civil parties in the trial, the Guinean government financed the trial. The EU and the US committed to offering financial support for the trial but the financial support provided appears to come from the EU and the UK only to support civil society organisations which participate as civil parties, as well as a contribution from the Austrian government, according to media reports.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the #ICC welcomes the judgement of 31st July 2024 by the Dixinn Court in Conakry, #Guinea, convicting perpetrators of the 28 September 2009 events at the national stadium in Conakry.https://t.co/VjzCElfL60
— Int'l Criminal Court (@IntlCrimCourt) August 1, 2024
What role did civil society organisations, human rights defenders and victims' groups play in ensuring that this trial took place?
Alseny Sall, GUINEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN AND CITIZEN RIGHTS (OGDH)
National and international civil society organisations, in particular human rights NGOs, played a key role in the completion of this action, in particular my organisation, the Guinean Organisation for the Defence of Human and Citizens' Rights (OGDH), the Association of Victims, Relatives and Friends of the 28 September 2009 (AVIPA) and the International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH).
With the European Union support, these organisations played an important role in identifying, mobilising and providing judicial support for victims throughout the process. Indeed, the fact that these NGOs joined as civil parties alongside the victims in a difficult security context helped to encourage the victims to testify before the pool of judges to support their work in the search for the truth in this case. Most of the alleged perpetrators who were judged in this trial held senior positions within the state apparatus and were greatly feared by the victims when the investigations opened in 2010. Thus, the work of our organisations alongside the victims, with the European Union support, consisted of setting up a pool of national and foreign expert lawyers to facilitate judicial support, as well as the implementation of medical and psychological support programmes. These actions in support of victims helped victims to participate in the judicial process throughout the proceedings. In addition to supporting the work of the pool of judges by mobilising victims and providing them with legal support, our organisations regularly organised advocacy missions at national and international level to meet with the political authorities, diplomatic missions and international institutions involved in the case, in order to convey the victims' messages and concerns about the trial. This also helped to mobilise national authorities and partners about the case throughout the process.
The role played by the United Nations system in following the case shouldn’t be overlooked, notably the role of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights in Guinea, which was opened at the request of civil society after the stadium massacres.
Hamidou Barry, GUINEAN COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (CGCPI)
Civil society organisations, human rights defenders and victims' associations, as well as the media, played a major role in the holding of the trial of the 28 September 2009 massacre and the days that followed. Civil society, human rights organisations and lawyers believed in it and held on to it. Financial support from the European Union and the Open Society Initiative for West Africa (OSIWA) was also crucial. The following organisations supported and accompanied the victims: OGDH, the Association of Victims, Parents and Friends of the 28 September 2009 (AVIPA), the Association of Families of the Disappeared (AFADIS), and since 2017, the Guinean Coalition for the International Criminal Court (CGCPI), the International Federation of Human Rights Leagues (FIDH), Human Right Watch and Amnesty International. Similarly, it is important to recognise two great personalities who were leaders in the holding of the trial: the late Thierno Maadjou Sow, the first President of the OGDH, and the late Maitre Bassirou Barry, lawyer at the Court, former Minister of Justice and founding father of the lawyer profession in the Republic of Guinea in 1986.
Human rights organizations succeeded in mobilizing victims and supporting victims' associations by raising their awareness and by supporting them in the legal and psychological aspects.
Tamara Aburamadan, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW)
Guinean and international non-governmental organisations, in particular victims' associations, played a central role in the progress of the investigation into the 28 September massacre, rapes and other abuses by joining as civil parties. National and international groups, including Human Rights Watch, also called for greater government support into the national investigation.
On 23 September 2022, a few days before the start of the trial, Guinea adopted a law on the protection of victims, witnesses and persons at risk. The law has not yet been implemented, but Guinean human rights organisations, including AVIPA and OGDH, called for the adoption of a decree that enforces the law. The decree has not been adopted yet and the law has to be effectively implemented.
The Guinean authorities should increase the security measures following the verdict in order to guarantee the safety of victims and witnesses, in particular those who testified during the trial and who fear possible reprisals.
How does this trial and this decision contribute to the reparation and demands of the victims? What are the next steps and what stakeholders will be in charge of implementing reparations and assistance to victims?
Alseny Sall, GUINEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN AND CITIZEN RIGHTS (OGDH)
The fact that the Court already reclassified the charges as crimes against humanity is already a first form of reparation for the dignity of the victims who were besmirched by these horrific and painful events. We also welcomed that the Court awarded substantial reparation amounts for the victims but the problem with this part of the Court's decision is that it places the burden of paying these substantial reparations on the convicted defendants. However, the Court itself knows that the trial was sometimes interrupted because some of the defendants did not have sufficient funds to pay their lawyers' fees. The State had to go to the Court's rescue by providing additional means to these lawyers so that they could agree to continue the trial.
Moreover, the defendants committed these abuses under the authority of public officials. It is difficult to understand how the Court could ignore such a fact in its decision.
This poses a real problem for the effectiveness of the reparation measures for victims announced by the Court.
Regarding next steps, some trial parties already appealed to the Court's decision before the Court of Appeal. We wonder whether we will have to wait for the Court of Appeal's decision so that the victims can obtain these reparations. We believe that this issue should already be raised with the parties involved in this case.
Hamidou Barry, GUINEAN COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (CGCPI)
For the time being, even if the Court ordered provisional enforcement for the victims' civil interests, the assets of the convicted defendants have not been identified, let alone seized. We believe that the solution would be for the Guinean State to proceed with the allocation that the victims are waiting for, especially because the amounts awarded are substantial, if not astronomical.
Regarding the next steps, first, the appeal proceedings will resume before the Conakry Court of Appeal. Secondly, we need to advocate to make the Guinean government pay the reparation to which the victims are absolutely entitled.
Tamara Aburamadan, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW)
The judges also ruled on the reparations claims and awarded between two million and 1.5 billion Guinean francs (around USD 23,000 to USD 172,500) for the different groups of victims, particularly those who suffered physical and psychological trauma.
The court ordered reparations against the defendants, but after confirmation of the reparations awarded at the appeal stage, if they do not have the necessary funds, a compensation fund may be set up. A steering committee set up by the Guinean authorities to help organise the trial has been used to set up a victims' compensation fund and seek funding.
The Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) of the International Criminal Court (ICC) could provide technical support —among other things —in the form of training for the judges who would be in charge of ruling on compensation claims in the stadium massacre trial.
Beyond the reparations that could be ordered as part of the trial, the Guinean Ministry of Justice is working on the development and implementation of a larger reparations programme for all the victims of serious human rights violations in Guinea since 1958, especially sexual violence. This type of reparations, known as administrative reparations, complements the reparations ordered as part of the judicial process. TFV's technical support would aim to ensure that any reparations ordered in the stadium massacre trial are properly integrated with potential administrative reparations. The Global Survivors Fund (GSF) is supporting the Guinean Ministry of Justice, in particular by creating an appropriate legislative framework.
The Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) welcomed the verdict handed down on 31 July 2024 and stated that ‘[i]n meeting its obligation under the Rome Statute, Guinea has provided a strong example of how effective complementarity and efficient cooperation can close impunity gaps and reduce the need for the Office of the Prosecutor to step in.’ What do you think of the ICC's role in Guinea in recent years and its impact?
Alseny Sall, GUINEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN AND CITIZEN RIGHTS (OGDH)
As a court that complements national justices, we believe that the ICC has played an important role in the administration of justice in this case since the start of these events. Indeed, it is important to know that the United Nations Fact-Finding Commission on the Conakry Stadium events found that the crimes committed at Conakry Stadium on 28 September 2009 and in the following days could be classified as crimes against humanity. This led the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court to announce in October 2009 the opening of a preliminary examination on Guinea and then in December 2011 to announce that there were reasonable grounds to believe that crimes against humanity had been committed in Guinea. Since then, the Office of the Prosecutor regularly monitored the judicial process at national level that the Republic of Guinea committed to conducting in accordance with its international obligations.
Throughout the judicial process at national level, the Office of the Prosecutor monitored the status of the case, in particular through regular meetings with the national authorities and the victims' associations to be informed of the status of the case and its difficulties and challenges in order to be able to provide its expertise to support the national proceedings. These efforts by the Office of the Public Prosecutor contributed to the progress of the proceedings at national level. The meetings with the Office of the Prosecutor in Guinea or in The Hague were also important opportunities for our organisations to convey the victims' messages and concerns about the holding of this trial.
Hamidou Barry, GUINEAN COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (CGCPI)
First of all, the Office of the Prosecutor of the ICC carried out more than twenty (20) missions in Guinea. Thanks to these missions, and therefore to the vigilance of the Office of the Prosecutor, people who were untouchable were indicted.
Cooperation between the Office of the Prosecutor and the Guinean authorities enabled the Guinean justice to apply the principle of complementarity in the 28 September 2009 case.
Tamara Aburamadan, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW)
The ICC carried out a robust programme of activities to help ensure justice for the crimes of September 2009 and appeared to be a major factor in encouraging progress over time. The OTP's approach was characterised by close monitoring of progress and active and concrete engagement with the Guinean authorities, reinforced by specific and public reminders that an ICC investigation would continue in the absence of local justice. Regular visits to the country—focused on assessing the progress of the investigation and encouraging further advances—were the main, but not the only, means of implementing the strategy.
The International Criminal Court (ICC) began a preliminary examination of the situation in Guinea in October 2009. The ICC Prosecutor attended the opening of the trial, after which the ICC Office of the Prosecutor closed its preliminary examination. At the same time, the Office of the Prosecutor signed a memorandum of understanding with Guinea, in which it stated its readiness to ‘work actively and collaboratively’ with the Guinean authorities to ensure that those responsible for the crimes of 28 September are held accountable.
The memorandum also stipulates that the Office of the Prosecutor may reconsider its decision not to open an investigation ‘in light of any significant change in circumstances, including the imposition of any measure likely to significantly hinder the conduct or authenticity of judicial proceedings related to the events of 28 September 2009’. The ICC continued to monitor the progress of the trial, in particular through two visits to Guinea in 2023 and 2024, in order to assess the progress made and to contribute decisively to the proper holding and conclusion of the trial.
The ICC should continue to work closely to implement its Memorandum of Understanding with Guinea even after the verdict. The ICC will continue to review the situation after the verdict, in particular with regard to a possible appeal and the reparations process, if any, as well as safety and security issues, including the protection of victims and witnesses, in particular by continuing to carry out regular visits to ensure that Guinea complies with its commitments under the Memorandum of Understanding.
What impact will this trial have on other national efforts in the region and on the implementation of the principle of complementarity in the Rome Statute system?
Alseny Sall, GUINEAN ORGANISATION FOR THE DEFENCE OF HUMAN AND CITIZEN RIGHTS (OGDH)
The decision of the Dixinn Criminal Court is a historic one on the African scale, as it is the first time on the continent that a national court composed solely of national judges tries and convicts dignitaries of such a high rank for crimes against humanity, in accordance with the principle of complementarity in the ICC Statute. Contrary to what some defence lawyers stated during this trial, the primary responsibility to judge lies with the States which have signed or ratified the Rome Statute. In accordance with the principle of complementarity, the International Criminal Court only intervenes in the event of a lack of political will or inability to judge from the State party. By organising this trial, the Republic of Guinea simply assumed its responsibilities arising from its status as a State Party to the Rome Statute. In addition, by organising this trial, Guinea shown a positive example of the complementarity between national and international justice in the fight against impunity for international crimes. The organisation of such trials by the national justice system is also very useful in the fight against impunity, as it can have a positive impact not only on the operation of the criminal justice system but also on the country's collective memory, particularly at a time when the International Criminal Court is increasingly being contested in Africa. Despite these limitations, we believe that the ICC remains an essential tool in the fight against impunity worldwide, if only for the dissuasive role it can play against those who violate human rights with impunity in their countries.
This trial may have a positive impact on other national efforts in the region and on the implementation of the principle of complementarity, as the verdict constitutes a positive precedent that may set a precedent in other similar ongoing cases.
Hamidou Barry, GUINEAN COALITION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT (CGCPI)
Other countries on the continent and around the world can be inspired by the Guinean experience of complementarity in judging crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC, namely crimes against humanity, the crime of genocide, war crimes and the crime of aggression.
The Guinean Coalition for the International Criminal Court and its lawyers' collective in the 28 September 2009 trial are willing to share their experience and best practices with any State that intends to implement the principle of complementarity. The main objective remains that national jurisdictions should take responsibility for crimes that fall within the jurisdiction of the ICC.
Tamara Aburamadan, HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH (HRW)
This historic national trial of the 2009 massacre holds important lessons, not only for Guinea but also for other governments seeking justice for serious crimes under international law. The duty to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute serious crimes lies first and foremost with national authorities. It is essential that national authorities and their international partners intensify their efforts in the pursuit of justice.
As a court of last resort, the ICC only intervenes when national courts are unable or unwilling to investigate on serious crimes and prosecute the perpetrators. Over the years, the ICC Office of the Prosecutor aimed at maintaining constructive dialogue with the Guinean authorities, in order to encourage them to honour their promise to do justice in this case, efforts now known as the 'positive complementarity'.
This positive complementarity contributed to the significant progress of the trial procedures in Guinea, leading to the conclusion of the trial and a historic verdict on 31 July 2024. Lessons can be learned from the ICC's support to the Guinean authorities for guaranteeing justice and accountability for serious crimes committed in Guinea and elsewhere.
