## Facts

- Sierra Leone’s 1999 Lomé Peace Agreement between the Government and the RUF included an amnesty granting “absolute and free pardon and reprieve” for conflict-related acts committed from 1991 to the agreement’s signing.
- The Lomé Accord required Sierra Leone to ensure that no official or judicial action would be taken against combatants for covered acts, creating a broad domestic amnesty.
- In 2002, Sierra Leone and the United Nations created the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) by agreement, granting the Court jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other serious violations committed after 30 November 1996.
- Morris Kallon and Brima Bazzy Kamara were indicted before the SCSL for serious crimes within the Court’s statutory jurisdiction.
- Each accused filed a preliminary motion arguing that the Lomé amnesty deprived the SCSL of jurisdiction and that prosecution despite the amnesty was an abuse of process.
- The Trial Chamber referred the jurisdictional questions to the Appeals Chamber under Rule 72(E)–(F); the Appeals Chamber heard argument and received submissions, including from amici.

## Issues

1. Whether the Lomé Accord’s amnesty provision bars the SCSL from exercising jurisdiction over crimes charged against Kallon.
2. Whether, under international law, a state-granted amnesty can extinguish individual criminal responsibility for crimes against humanity and war crimes before an internationalized tribunal.
3. Whether prosecution despite the Lomé amnesty constitutes an abuse of process requiring the SCSL to decline jurisdiction.

## Decision

- The Appeals Chamber dismissed the jurisdictional challenge.
- The Lomé Accord amnesty did not divest the SCSL of jurisdiction and did not bar the prosecution of crimes within the SCSL Statute.
- The amnesty’s legal effect was confined to Sierra Leone’s national legal order and did not bind the SCSL.
- As a matter of international law, a domestic amnesty cannot bar prosecution of serious international crimes before an international criminal tribunal.
- The Appeals Chamber rejected the abuse-of-process argument and held the prosecution could proceed.

## Legal Principles

- An amnesty adopted in a domestic peace agreement may bind national authorities but does not bind an internationalized criminal tribunal established by agreement involving an international organization.
- A state cannot, through a domestic amnesty, remove an international tribunal’s jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, war crimes, and other crimes under international law.
- International law reflects a strong prohibition against impunity for core international crimes; broad amnesties for such crimes lack legal effect against international criminal jurisdiction.
- Abuse-of-process doctrine cannot be used to negate lawfully conferred jurisdiction of an international criminal tribunal to prosecute crimes under international law.

## Conclusion

The Appeals Chamber held that the Lomé Accord’s amnesty could not bar SCSL proceedings for serious international crimes and that continuing the prosecution was not an abuse of process, confirming the Court’s authority to adjudicate alleged wartime atrocities notwithstanding prior domestic clemency commitments.


Prosecutor v. Kallon, Case No. SCSL-2004-15-AR72(E) (SCSL App. Ch. 2004)