# Verification workflow — SCSL/RSCSL ## The principle No case-specific citation appears in an output until verified against an authoritative source in the current conversation. Foundational instruments (Resolution 1315, UN-Sierra Leone Agreement, SCSL Statute, RPE, RSCSL Statute) may be cited from project knowledge when present. ## The fallback ladder 1. **rscsl.org** — the official Residual Special Court website. Hosts the entire SCSL legacy and all four principal case files. First point of entry. 2. **legal-tools.org** — ICC Legal Tools Database. Mirrors SCSL principal decisions. 3. **worldcourts.com/scsl** — secondary archive of older filings. Tier 1 only when rscsl.org / legal-tools.org versions cannot be located. 4. **un.org** — for Resolutions 1315 (2000), 1688 (2006), and Secretary-General reports. 5. **Tier 2 scholarship** (Jalloh, Cassese, Schabas) — for context and commentary; never for the Court's own findings. 6. **Ask the user** if nothing verifies. ## Capture these fields - **Case number** — SCSL-03-01 (Taylor), SCSL-04-14 (CDF), SCSL-04-15 (RUF), SCSL-04-16 (AFRC) - **Phase suffix** — -I, -PT, -T, -A - **Filing number** — when present (e.g. SCSL-03-01-T-1281) - **Document type** — Indictment, Decision, Trial Judgement, Sentencing Judgement, Appeal Judgement, Corrigendum - **Chamber** — Trial Chamber I, Trial Chamber II, Appeals Chamber, or Residual Court - **Date** — exact date of issuance - **Paragraph number(s)** — for pinpoint citations ## Match verification level to claim - "Taylor was convicted on all 11 counts in May 2012" → existence verified - "The Trial Chamber found that Taylor planned and aided and abetted crimes by the RUF" → content verified - A direct quotation from the Trial Judgement → paragraph verified ## SCSL-specific traps ### Trap 1 — Confusing AFRC, CDF, and RUF The **three joint trials** ran in parallel and are often confused: - **AFRC** (SCSL-04-16) — Brima, Kamara, Kanu — the Armed Forces Revolutionary Council (a coup faction, anti-government) - **CDF** (SCSL-04-14) — Norman, Fofana, Kondewa — the Civil Defence Forces (pro-government militia) - **RUF** (SCSL-04-15) — Sesay, Kallon, Gbao — the Revolutionary United Front (the principal armed insurgency) The **political affiliations** of each group differ — citing the wrong case for a finding misrepresents the underlying conflict. The CDF case in particular requires care: the defendants were pro-government militia and their political characterisation is sensitive. ### Trap 2 — Taylor case venue (Freetown vs The Hague) The SCSL had its seat in **Freetown**. The **Taylor trial was relocated to The Hague** by UN Security Council Resolution 1688 (16 June 2006) for security reasons. Trial Chamber II sat at the ICC premises in The Hague. Conviction and sentencing took place there. Other SCSL cases (AFRC, CDF, RUF) were tried in Freetown. ### Trap 3 — Head-of-State immunity The **31 May 2004 Appeals Chamber Decision on Immunity from Jurisdiction** in *Taylor* (Case No. SCSL-03-01-I) rejected Taylor's argument that he enjoyed immunity as a head of State (the status he held at the indictment of 7 March 2003; by this 31 May 2004 decision he had already left office, in exile since August 2003). The decision relies on: - SCSL Statute Art. 6(2) (no immunity for heads of State) - The character of the SCSL as an international tribunal acting on behalf of the international community - The customary international law position on individual criminal responsibility This decision is **frequently miscited**. Common errors: - Attributing the immunity holding to the Trial Judgement of 2012 (it is from 2004) - Misstating the Court's reasoning as based purely on Statute Art. 6(2) (the Court engaged with customary international law) ### Trap 4 — Aiding and abetting and the *Perišić* tension The **Taylor Appeal Judgement of 26 September 2013** articulated the "substantial effect" standard for aiding and abetting at the SCSL — Taylor was convicted as an aider and abettor (and as a planner). The standard differs from the ICTY Appeals Chamber's earlier *Perišić* (28 February 2013) "specific direction" requirement (subsequently overruled at the ICTY in *Šainović* on 23 January 2014). This **doctrinal tension** between SCSL and ICTY aiding-and-abetting standards is a known issue. When citing the Taylor standard, note (where relevant) the parallel ICTY jurisprudence. ### Trap 5 — "Forced marriage" jurisprudence belongs to the AFRC Appeal The **AFRC Appeal Judgement of 22 February 2008** (Case No. SCSL-04-16-A) is the **first international tribunal decision to recognise forced marriage as an "other inhumane act"** crime against humanity. Often miscited to the AFRC Trial Judgement (the Trial Chamber declined to recognise forced marriage; the Appeals Chamber reversed). The holding was subsequently followed in the RUF Trial Judgement (2 March 2009) and the Taylor Trial Judgement (18 May 2012). ### Trap 6 — "Greatest responsibility" formula SCSL Statute Art. 1 limits jurisdiction to persons "who bear the greatest responsibility". This phrase has been litigated as both a jurisdictional and a prosecutorial-discretion question. The Appeals Chamber held in *Fofana and Kondewa* that "greatest responsibility" is a prosecutorial discretion guide rather than a jurisdictional bar. Misstating its operation is common. ## Public vs confidential Use public versions of documents. Where a confidential or redacted version exists, identify which version you are citing. ## Partial verification is acceptable if disclosed If existence is verified but the paragraph or specific wording is not, the honest output says so. --- ## Reading the source document directly (the top of the ladder) The most reliable verification is reading the **actual document**, not a website's search snippet. Put this above everything else: **Rung 0 — work from the document itself when it is available.** Official tribunal sites frequently block automated fetching (HTTP 403), so a judgment can be public yet still unreachable by a direct fetch. Two ways to reach the text anyway: - **The user supplies it** — an uploaded PDF or pasted pages can be read directly, reaching paragraph-level verification. A practitioner working on a matter usually already holds the document; ask for it. - **A retrieval tool reads it** — where a document-retrieval tool or MCP server is available (one that fetches and extracts PDF text, with a fallback ladder), prefer it over a raw fetch. Only when the document cannot be obtained do you fall back to the search ladder above — and then you state the ceiling honestly. ## Site-search results are leads, not content A result from a site-search index — or a "synthesis" of search snippets — establishes at most that something **exists**. It is **never** content- or paragraph-level verification. Treat it as a lead to confirm against the document, and label it as such. Two recurring traps: - **Transliteration / OCR garbling.** Names and acronyms get corrupted (for example, an Arabic acronym surfacing as "KARA" where the source has "RADA/RADAA"). A name or acronym that appears only once in a snippet is a red flag — do not assert it. - **Relational claims.** Who is whose subordinate, associate, superior, or co-perpetrator is the detail a synthesis most often gets inverted. Never assert a relationship from a snippet; it requires the document.