Following the decision made public by the criminal court of Dixinn in the case regarding the events of September 28, 2009, sentencing Captain Moussa Dadis Camara to 20 years in prison, while first reclassifying the facts as a crime against humanity, reactions have frozen from all sides. Magistrates, as well as legal experts and citizens, are expressing their thoughts on the verdict in N’Zérékoré.
Interviewed by our editorial team, Me Théodore Michel Loua, a lawyer at the Guinean Bar, believes that the court has made a decision that he considers to be in accordance with the law.
“As a lawyer, I told myself that the court made the decision it considers to be in accordance with the law. But that doesn’t mean that what was said is what should be followed in principle by the law, because the parties also have avenues for appeal that the law recognizes, which can be exercised, allowing these parties to modify the same decision before the appeals chamber or the Court of Appeal which can reformulate the same judgment just as it can confirm the same judgment. Thus, there remains an open source or a resource available to the parties, both the condemned and the civil parties. They all have the right to an appeal to the Court of Appeal which can reformulate or even review the decision that was made and the same court can confirm the decision that was made”, he stated.
Speaking about the walkout by the defense attorneys during the sentencing following the strike initiated by the Guinean Bar, the magistrate provided clarifications:
“The presence or absence of a lawyer before the court cannot have any impact on the quality or nature of the decision. The only recourse that a lawyer has is to become aware of the court’s decision at the registry and file an appeal. As the president reminded, each party has 15 days to file an appeal if they are not satisfied,” he indicates.
Regarding the reclassification of the facts as a crime against humanity, our interlocutor also provided some clarifications.
“A qualification can be given by an investigating judge or by a police officer. This same qualification can be modified by an investigating judge and the judge on the bench can provide another qualification. The qualification that was given by the investigating judge was modified by the judge on the bench. Since the judge on the bench often has the final word regarding sanctions, this also leaves a door open for the parties who can exercise avenues for appeal against the qualification that was given. It is true that in law there is a principle that states one cannot judge the same matter twice; it is the principle of double jeopardy. Thus, one cannot give a first qualification and then revert to the same qualification and address the same matter again. We qualify or judge in principle only once. However, the trial judges or judges on the bench also have their freedom. But this freedom is relative and it allows all parties to exercise their right to appeal,” emphasizes our interlocutor before making a heartfelt plea to the transitional authorities:
“We cannot, for acts committed by state agents, only initially address the events that occurred on September 28, 2009, which is normal. And then, in a second instance, for the events that occurred in Zokota, people refuse to hold accountable the presumed authors of these events who are moreover being promoted. This is how we will notice the justice of two weights and two measures. Just as the events of September 28, 2009, those of Zokota must be tackled head-on by the competent transitional authorities, so that this other case is judged by calling to account the presumed authors,” urges the legal expert.
Furthermore, he calls on his colleagues to respect the legal texts and the transitional authorities to continue to consider justice as the compass, because, he believes, “justice is the backbone, and if it is upright and functions normally, all other sectors of society will follow suit to function correctly.”
From N’Zérékoré, Gilbert Yoma Neyo Tinguiano, Kalenews.org
