## Facts

- Three former Sierra Leone Army noncommissioned officers—Alex Tamba Brima, Brima “Bazzy” Kamara, and Santigie Borbor Kanu—were senior members of the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (AFRC) leadership during the Sierra Leone civil war and operated in alliance with the Revolutionary United Front (RUF).
- The accused were charged under the tribunal’s statute with crimes against humanity and war crimes arising from attacks on civilians, including terrorism, collective punishments, killings, rape and other sexual violence, enslavement, conscription/enlistment and use of children under 15 in hostilities, and pillage.
- The Trial Chamber convicted each accused on many counts, imposed lengthy prison terms (Brima: 50 years; Kamara: 45 years; Kanu: 50 years), and acquitted on certain allegations, including rejecting “forced marriage” as charged as an “other inhumane act.”
- The Prosecution appealed the refusal to treat forced marriage (“bush marriage”) as a distinct crime against humanity.
- The accused appealed on multiple grounds, including alleged defects in notice, evidentiary and procedural rulings, modes of liability, legality of certain offences (including child-soldier crimes), and sentencing.

## Issues

1. Whether forced marriage during the conflict could be charged and convicted as a distinct crime against humanity under “other inhumane acts,” rather than being fully captured by rape or sexual slavery.
2. Whether recognizing forced marriage as an “other inhumane act” violated the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) and foreseeability.
3. Whether the indictment and proceedings provided adequate notice to the accused of the material facts and legal character of the forced-marriage allegation.
4. Whether convictions for conscripting/enlisting children under 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities were legally valid.
5. Whether the convictions and sentences should be altered based on asserted legal and factual errors and sentencing principles.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber largely affirmed the core convictions for serious crimes, including terrorism, collective punishments, murder, rape, enslavement, outrages upon personal dignity, physical violence, and pillage.
- The Appeals Chamber reversed the Trial Chamber’s approach to forced marriage and entered new convictions for forced marriage as a crime against humanity under “other inhumane acts.”
- The Appeals Chamber held that treating forced marriage as an “other inhumane act” did not breach legality because “other inhumane acts” is a residual category covering conduct of comparable gravity that causes great suffering or serious injury.
- The Appeals Chamber upheld the legality of the child-soldier offences (conscripting/enlisting children under 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities).
- The Appeals Chamber maintained lengthy prison terms while adjusting the conviction structure to reflect its rulings, including the added forced-marriage convictions.

## Legal Principles

- “Other inhumane acts” functions as a residual crimes-against-humanity category covering serious abuses comparable in gravity to enumerated acts and causing serious physical or mental harm.
- Forced marriage may constitute a distinct “other inhumane act” when perpetrators impose, by force or coercion, a conjugal association/status on victims, with attendant obligations and harms beyond sexual violence alone.
- Forced marriage is legally distinguishable from rape and sexual slavery because its central wrong is the compelled conjugal status and social role, not only sexual exploitation or forced labor.
- Legality is satisfied where, at the time of conduct, it was foreseeable that severe, non-enumerated inhumane acts of comparable gravity could incur individual criminal responsibility as crimes against humanity.
- Indictment sufficiency focuses on notice of material facts; legal characterization may be refined on appeal or by the chamber if the accused had adequate notice and suffered no prejudice in preparing a defense.
- Conscripting/enlisting children under 15 and using them to participate actively in hostilities was criminally prohibited at the time relevant to the conflict and is a valid basis for war-crimes liability.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Chamber affirmed most AFRC convictions and sustained lengthy sentences, while reversing the trial-level rejection of forced marriage and recognizing it as a distinct crime against humanity under “other inhumane acts,” consistent with legality and fair-notice requirements.


Prosecutor v. Brima, Case No. SCSL-2004-16-A (SCSL App. Ch. 2008)