Guinea’s 2009 Stadium Massacre Trial

Questions and Answers

On September 28, 2022, Guinean judicial authorities opened a long-delayed trial of 11 men—among them former government ministers and a former president—accused of responsibility for the Guinean security forces’ 2009 massacre of more than 150 peaceful demonstrators and the rapes of scores of women in a stadium in Conakry, the capital. The trial is the first of its kind involving human rights violations on this scale before domestic courts in Guinea.

Human Rights Watch has tracked developments in this landmark trial with the assistance of lawyers as well as local and international civil society organizations, including the Association of Victims, Parents and Friends of September 28, 2009 (Association des Victimes, Parents et Amis du 28 Septembre 2009, AVIPA), Guinean Organization for the Defense of Human Rights (Organisation Guinéenne de Défense des Droits de l’Homme, OGDH), and International Federation for Human Rights (Fédération Internationale pour les Droits Humains, FIDH). A Guinean lawyer observed trial sessions in person from February 2023, and the law firm Borden Ladner Gervais LLP reviewed trial sessions by video prior to that date for Human Rights Watch. The trial concluded on June 26, 2024, and a verdict is pending.

1. What happened on September 28, 2009, and the following days in Conakry, Guinea?

On the morning of September 28, 2009, several hundred members of Guinea’s security forces burst into a stadium in the country’s capital, Conakry, and opened fire on tens of thousands of opposition supporters peacefully gathered there. By late afternoon, at least 150 Guineans lay dead or dying in and around the stadium complex.

Bodies were strewn across the field, crushed against half-opened gates, draped over walls, and piled outside locker rooms where doors had been pulled shut by the terrified few who had gotten there first. Dozens of women at the rally suffered brutal sexual violence at the hands of security forces, including individual and gang rape and sexual assault with objects such as sticks, batons, rifle butts, and bayonets.

Following the violence, security forces organized a cover-up, sealing off the stadium and morgues, removing scores of bodies, and burying them in mass graves. Security forces deployed throughout neighborhoods where the majority of opposition supporters lived carried out additional abuses including murder, rape, and pillage. Security forces arbitrarily detained scores of other opposition supporters, subjecting many to serious abuses, including torture.

A Human Rights Watch investigation indicated that the killings, rapes, and other abuses on and after September 28 rise to the level of crimes against humanity. The abuses were not the actions of a group of rogue, undisciplined soldiers. The absence of any apparent provocation by the demonstrators, in combination with the organized manner in which the security forces carried out the attack, failure to use non-lethal means of crowd dispersal, and the presence of officials, including a minister tasked with security responsibilities, suggests that the crimes were premeditated and organized. An international commission of inquiry reached similar conclusions.

2. When did the landmark trial for the crimes start and why is the trial so significant?

The trial began on September 28, 2022, 13 years after the massacre, in the country’s capital, Conakry.

The opening of the trial, while long overdue, was a major step in the search for justice for the victims and their families who have waited more than a decade for accountability. The trial is the first of its kind involving human rights violations on this scale in Guinea. Although the people of Guinea have been repeatedly subjected to violations by successive authoritarian and repressive governments, the September 28 massacre, rapes, and other abuses were among the country’s worst episodes of abuse.

Guinean victims have repeatedly called for holding the attackers to account and revealing the truth about the events. One lawyer told Human Rights Watch: “Unfortunately we have been a society that accepted crimes. We are beginning to value the voices of victims, with a new type of citizen who refuses these types of crimes and impunity.”

The trial can offer important lessons to other countries where justice for serious crimes is needed. International law mandates prosecution of suspects against whom there is evidence suggesting responsibility for serious crimes, including crimes against humanity. The duty to prosecute lies first and foremost with domestic authorities. At the same time, domestic prosecutions of atrocity crimes face many challenges, particularly around securing adequate political support and the capacity to try such crimes.

3. How many accused were on trial, who are they, and what are they charged with?

Eleven men were accused and were present at the start of the trial on September 28, 2022, including a former president and government ministers. They were charged with a range of ordinary crimes under Guinean domestic law, and have all pleaded not guilty to all charges, according to court documents and information on the proceedings shared with Human Rights Watch as well as a report by the FIDH.

The 11 defendants and the crimes they are accused of are as follows:

Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, former self-declared president of Guinea, who held the positions of commander-in-chief of the Guinean Armed Forces and leader of the National Counsel for Democracy and Development (Le Conseil National pour la Démocratie et le Développement, CNDD) in September 2009. He was the president of the transition and has represented a group of military officers who had carried out a bloodless coup in Guinea after President Lansana Conté died. Camara took power in December 2008.

He is charged with complicity in and command responsibility for murder, assassination, rape, sexual assault, indecent assault, intentional assault and battery, kidnapping, torture, failure to assist victims in the massacre and the events that followed, theft, looting, arson, armed robbery, and the illegal possession of firearms.

Military and civilian officials can bear criminal command responsibility for violations committed by their subordinates to the extent that they knew or should have known of the abuses but failed to take action to stop or punish them. This was incorporated into Guinea’s Criminal Code in 2016.

Lieutenant Aboubacar Diakité, popularly known as Toumba, was Dadis Camara’s personal aide de camp and the head of his personal security detail. Diakité also commanded the Presidential Guard, an elite military unit implicated in extensive abuses on September 28, 2009, and in the days that followed. Toumba is charged with directly committing voluntary assault and battery, rape, collective or armed gang looting, arson, murder, assassination, torture, and failure to assist persons in danger. He is also charged with complicity in and command responsibility for murder, assassination, rape, looting, arson, armed robbery, intentional assault and battery, contempt of law enforcement officials, torture, kidnapping and unlawful detention, failure to assist people in danger, sexual violence, indecent assault, and illegal possession of firearms.

Cece Rafael Haba, former bodyguard for Toumba; Marcel Guilavogui, former bodyguard of Dadis Camara; and Moussa Tiégboro Camara, former secretary of state in charge of the fight against drugs and organized crime, are accused of complicity in murder; assassination; rape; sexual, indecent, and intentional assaults; kidnapping; torture; and failure to assist the September 28 victims, as well as complicity in theft, looting, arson, armed robbery, and the illegal possession of firearms.

Colonel Claude Pivi, minister for presidential security in 2009 under Dadis Camara, is charged with complicity in murder, rape, torture, intentional assault, and failure to assist victims, as well as looting and arson. Pivi remains a fugitive after leaving the detention facility in November 2023.

Colonel Abdoulaye Chérif Diaby, health minister in 2009, is accused of failure to assist victims.

Gendarme Mamadou Aliou Keïta is accused of rape.

Gendarme Ibrahima Camara, popularly known as Kalonzo, and Blaise Gomou, a colonel who served as part of the special services headed by Tiégboro, are accused of complicity in murder and intentional assault and battery and directly committing rape, sexual assault, indecent assault, torture, kidnapping, looting, arson, theft, armed robbery, contempt of law enforcement officials, failure to assist victims, and illegal possession of firearms.

Paul Mansa Guilavogui, a military staff sergeant at the time of the events, is charged with intentional assault, torture, kidnapping and unlawful detention, failure to assist victims, defamation, and insult.

Alpha Amadou Baldé, Toumba’s then-private secretary, was also charged and referred to trial as the 12th accused by judges who conducted the pretrial investigation in 2017. However, Baldé was not present at the trial. On May 22, 2024, during closing arguments, the prosecution requested Baldé’s conviction in absentia, that is without the presence of the accused.

If Baldé is convicted, he would have the right to contest this decision under Guinean law because he was not present during the trial proceedings.

4. What is the current political situation in Guinea, and does it pose any risks for pursuing further justice efforts?

The September 2021 coup that ousted former President Alpha Condé was led by Colonel Mamady Doumbouya and organized by army officers of the National Committee for Reconciliation and Development (Comité National du Rassemblement et du Développement, CNRD). Since coming to power in 2021, the junta has undermined respect for rights. In May 2022, the CNRD banned demonstrations indefinitely and dissolved the country’s opposition coalition. According to international media sources, the CNRD has lagged in transitioning to civilian rule but in October 2022, Doumbouya officially agreed to do so by January 1, 2025. Doumbouya dissolved the transition government in February 2024 and appointed a number of new ministers, including former Guinean opposition leader Mamadou Oury Bah, who was appointed as prime minister.

In 2023, according to international media sources, protests opposing the junta in Conakry and smaller-scale demonstrations around the country resulted in civilian deaths and arrests at the hands of state security forces. Many of the protests have been led by the Living Forces of Guinea (Forces Vives de Guinée, FVG), a coalition of civil society actors and political parties calling primarily for the release of political prisoners, lifting of the ban on demonstrations, and political dialogue.

In July 2024, security forces arbitrarily detained three members of the opposition coalition, National Front for the Defense of the Constitution (Front National pour la Défense de la Constitution, FNDC) and transferred them to an undisclosed location. The authorities have yet to acknowledge their detention or disclose their whereabouts. This amounts to enforced disappearance under international law.

Amnesty International documented a sustained crackdown on protests from 2019 to 2024 that has left more than a hundred dead and hundreds more—including children—seriously injured with insufficient access to adequate health care, justice, and reparations.

The Guinean authorities’ support for accountability for the September 28 massacre, rapes, and other abuses should inspire further justice efforts for other serious crimes in the country. That support should be part of broader measures to ensure respect for human rights, including removing the ban on public protests and dissolution of the opposition. A return to democratic rule and trials for other serious crimes, such as killings and other abuses committed in response to nationwide protests in 2007, is needed.

5. Why are the accused not charged with international crimes, particularly crimes against humanity?

Though crimes against humanity were incorporated in Guinea’s Criminal Code in 2016, the accused do not presently face charges of crimes against humanity or other international crimes. The judges who conducted the pretrial investigation did not classify the crimes as crimes against humanity when making the determination to send the case to trial.

However, on March 4, 2024, the prosecution’s representative, El Hadj Sadiki Camara, asked the judges to reclassify the charges arguing that reclassification is permitted under Guinean criminal procedure law.

The—civil parties victims with a standing in the case—supported the prosecution’s request. Defense counsel disputed reclassification, arguing that it would lead to a retroactive application of law, since crimes against humanity were incorporated into Guinean law after the acts in question were allegedly committed. However, the prosecution and civil parties pointed to Guinea’s ratification of the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute in 2003, arguing that because of this ratification, crimes against humanity were part of Guinea’s domestic legal obligations at the time the alleged crimes were committed.

During the closing arguments, both the civil parties and the prosecution requested convictions for crimes against humanity.

Defense counsel argued that issuing a reclassification decision at the time of the verdict would violate fair trial rights of the accused, leaving them without the opportunity to defend against the new charges.

The judges decided on March 20 that they will rule on the reclassification of charges request when delivering the verdict.

6. What rights do the accused have at trial?

Guinean law on criminal procedure provides for internationally accepted rights of the accused, including the presumption of innocence, the right to remain silent, to have an interpreter without cost, and the right to counsel.

The trial was conducted in French, and the court provided interpreters.

A law to facilitate access to counsel when defendants cannot afford it was adopted in September 2022. All defendants in the trial are represented by counsel. Two defendants, Paul Mansa Guilavogui and Mamadou Aliou Keita, are represented by a court-appointed defender and all other accused secured their own lawyers.

On May 29, 2023, the trial was suspended due to a boycott by defense counsel. The boycott began after the lawyers requested financial assistance for their work given their clients’ limited resources (though they are not indigent) and the “scope of the tasks, complexity of the trial, and the amount of time the trial is taking.” After multiple weeks and negotiations between the Guinean Justice Ministry and the lawyers, the boycott ended.

The trial’s resumption appears to have been possible because the Justice Ministry agreed to try to make some financial assistance available to the lawyers. The Guinean Bar Association helped facilitate negotiations and may be able to assist in ensuring that the lawyers involved can obtain any assistance the government makes available.

Guinean law on criminal procedure also provides for the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense, the right to a fair hearing, the right not to be arbitrarily detained, to be heard by an independent and impartial court in a public hearing, to question witnesses and experts, and to appeal judgments.

Five of the accused were detained for extended periods, including beyond legal limits prescribed by Guinean law on criminal procedure: Cece Raphael Haba and Marcel Guilavogui have been held since 2010, Mamadou Aliou Keïta since 2013, Paul Mansa Guilavogui since 2015, and Aboubacar “Toumba” Diakité, who was arrested in Senegal in December 2016 and then extradited to Guinea, since 2017.

On the eve of the trial, September 27, 2022, the remaining six accused were detained: Moussa Dadis Camara, who had been living in exile in Burkina Faso and had returned a few days earlier, Moussa “Tiégboro” Camara, Claude Pivi, Abdoulaye Chérif Diaby, Ibrahima “Kalonzo” Camara, and Blaise Gomou.

7. What is the role of victims as civil parties in the trial?

Hundreds of victims have joined the case in Guinea as civil parties (parties civiles), a feature of civil law systems that allows victims to be formal parties to the proceedings, alongside the prosecutor and the defendant, as distinct from being a witness. Civil parties may, through their lawyers, examine and make submissions to the case file, question witnesses and the accused, make arguments to the judges, and claim reparations.

FIDH, OGDH, and AVIPA constituted themselves as civil parties to the case jointly with several hundred victims of the crimes starting in 2010, and additional victims have continued to join them over time. Other victims have joined as civil parties with representation by at least a dozen other lawyers including in connection with other survivors’ associations and organizations, according to two lawyers involved with the trial. They include the Association of Family and Friends of Disappeared on September 28, 2009 (Association des Familles et Amis de Disparus du 28 septembre 2009), and the Association of Women and Girls Victims of Violence (Association des femmes et filles violées au stade).

8. What have been the key challenges faced during the trial?

The trial moved from one phase to the next over eighteen months, despite facing significant challenges. This included security concerns for victims and witnesses following an incident at the prison, and a lack of financial support from international partners.

Security and Victim and Witness Protection

On September 23, 2022, a few days before the trial started, a Guinean law on the protection of victims, witnesses, and persons at risk, was adopted. The law has yet to be implemented, however, Guinean human rights organizations, including AVIPA and OGDH, have called for a decree to implement the law.

Security is a key issue, given the sensitive nature of the charges and the high profile of the accused. The Guinean government deployed hundreds of security guards around the trial premises to ensure security throughout the trial. In December 2022, one man was convicted for making online threats to a prosecutor.

Although the government has made transport to the trial available to victims, according to one civil society representative, victims expressed security concerns about using it, because it was labeled as trial transport.

On November 4, 2023, following the departure of four of the high-level accused, including former President Dadis Camara, from the detention facility with armed forces, victims and survivors who had publicly taken the stand in the trial raised concerns for their safety while the accused were at liberty. Lawyers involved in the proceedings have also described facing security threats.

Although three of the accused returned to custody on the same day, with Pivi still at large, media reports have circulated that safety concerns led witnesses to withdraw from testifying. Human Rights Watch has not verified these reports.

Guinean authorities should step up security measures around the pronouncement of the verdict to ensure the safety of victims and witnesses, in particular those who testified in the trial.

Lack of financial support from international partners

Despite concerns about available resources expressed by Guinean civil society organizations participating as civil parties in the trial, the Guinean government funded the trial. The EU and the US had pledged to offer financial support to the trial, but the financial support provided appears to have been from the European Union and the United Kingdom only to support civil society organizations participating as civil parties. The Austrian government made a financial contribution to Guinea to support the trial, according to one media report.

9. What are the potential penalties in the event of convictions?

The potential penalties for ordinary crimes charges faced by the 11 accused range from 16 days to a life sentence, and a fine from 500,000 to 5,000,000 Guinean Francs (approximately US$57 to $575). In 2016, Guinea removed the death penalty.

Under the Guinean Criminal Code, those who are complicit in crimes face the same penalty as the person who commits it. Dadis Camara and his personal aide de camp, Aboubacar “Toumba” Diakité, are charged with direct responsibility, complicity, and also command responsibility.

In the event of the reclassification of charges from ordinary crimes to crimes against humanity, the maximum penalty potentially faced by the accused—life sentence—would remain the same, based on the Guinean Criminal Code.

In its closing arguments, the prosecution team asked the judges to charge nine of the accused with the crimes against humanity of murder, assassination, torture, as well as under the principle of command responsibility, among others. The prosecution also called for charging the three other accused with the crimes against humanity of rape and torture.

The call for convictions was followed by requests for life sentences against seven of the accused: Moussa Dadis Camara, Moussa Tiégboro Camara, Blaise Gomou, Abdoulaye Chérif Diaby, Marcel Guilavogui, Alpha Amadou Balde, and Claud Pivi. The prosecution also requested 14-year sentences for Mamadou Aliou Keïta and Cece Raphael Haba, and 15 years for Ibrahima Camara (Kalonzo), Aboubacar Diakité (Toumba), and Paul Mansa Guilavogui.

10. Will victims receive reparations?

Victims have a right to reparation under international law.

As the judges may rule on reparations claims put forward by the civil parties, the type of judicial reparations the court could award has been a major question.

Under the Guinean Criminal Code, the reparation measures envisaged are for individuals as opposed to communities and could take the form of compensation and restitution. That is, the convicted may be directed to compensate their victims for damage resulting from harm suffered (compensation). The convicted may also be directed to restore the victim to their original situation before the harm was suffered (restitution).

Considering the magnitude and unprecedented nature of the trial as well as budgetary challenges, it is uncertain whether other forms of remedy could also be granted—including the possibility of collective and symbolic reparations, such as commemorations and tributes to the victims—or if the prescribed reparation measures under Guinean law will even be ordered.

In closing arguments, four civil parties’ lawyers asked the court to hold the defendants collectively liable for two billion Guinean francs (about US$230,000) for the deaths of four victims, one and a half billion Guinean francs (about $172,500) for rape, torture, kidnapping, and unlawful detention, and one billion Guinean francs (about $115,000) for the wounded.

A fifth lawyer for the civil parties asked to award three billion Guinean francs (about $345,000) to 87 people affected by the killing or disappearance of a family member. Furthermore, the lawyers requested the award of two billion Guinean francs for each of the 137 identified rape and sexual violence victims, one billion francs for each of the 500 victims of intentional assault and battery, two billion for each of the five victims of torture, and one billion for each of the 13 victims of looting.

The court could, in principle, order reparations against the defendants but if they do not have the funds, a compensation fund can be created. A steering committee (Comité de pilotage) established by the Guinean authorities to help organize the trial has been involved in creating a compensation fund for victims and in searching for funding.

The ICC’s Trust Fund for Victims (TFV) may be able to provide technical support—among other things—in the form of training for the judges who would be responsible for adjudicating the reparations claims in connection with the stadium massacre trial.

The Guinean Justice Ministry is working on developing and implementing a broader reparations program in Guinea for all victims of serious human rights abuses since 1958, including sexual violence. This is known as administrative reparations, complementary to any reparations ordered through the judicial process. The TFV’s technical support would aim at ensuring that any reparations ordered in connection with the stadium massacre trial are appropriately integrated with potential administrative reparations. The Global Survivors Fund (GSF) is supporting the Guinean Justice Ministry, including by drafting the relevant legislative framework.

11. Can the trial judgment be appealed?

The accused and civil parties have the right to appeal within 15 days. The prosecutor has two months to appeal. According to Guinea’s law on criminal procedure, an appeal by the prosecutor could lead to the judgment being confirmed or overturned in whole or in part. Appeal by civil parties could also result in the confirmation of the judgment or result in it being set aside in whole.

12. Are people in Guinea following the trial and how do they get information about developments?

Victims, the media, and members of the public are allowed to attend the trial, lawyers said; although at some points they needed to first obtain a pass from the Justice Ministry.

The trial was broadcast live on Guinean television daily and is available on YouTube. The proceedings are widely watched and discussed, and one diplomat has described the trial as “riveting the nation.” The state broadcaster RTG has set up its TV and radio stations in the court building, and broadcast each hearing. The trial is not broadcast in full on the radio, but summaries of proceedings are broadcast in French and local languages, according to a journalist who is covering the trial. Print media reports on the highlights of the hearings in short articles and on social media. Some journalists have received training from the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to assist in their coverage of the trial.

Some lawyers have described the trial as “hypermediatized.” Justice advocates, journalists, and trial observers have noted that the broadcasts could allow Guinea to learn lessons from its past, raise awareness on the country’s justice needs, and increase public confidence in the national judicial process.

One lawyer told Human Rights Watch that the extent of the coverage offers advantages, but also presents security risks given that the names and images of those who take the stand publicly as victims and witnesses are so widely disseminated, risking creating pressure on the judges presiding over the case, another lawyer said.

Despite the extensive media coverage there has been no outreach conducted on the trial. Outreach programming includes discussions and other exchanges with the communities most affected by the crimes on key issues, and players in the trial to increase understanding and awareness. This is a missed opportunity to ensure Guineans’ maximum understanding of the trial and its impact on them.

The trial concluded on June 26, 2024, with over 100 recordings of the hearing being circulated on the internet. The progress of proceedings in this trial was significant and recordings should be safely archived and translated into English and other languages as appropriate. This may present an opportunity to ensure broader access for the public to study the trial and inspire best practices in other trials for serious crimes worldwide.

13. What happened during the pretrial investigation phase of the case and why did it last seven years?

During the pretrial investigation phase, which opened on February 8, 2010, and lasted until 2017, a panel of 3 investigative judges heard the testimony of more than 450 victims and their family members, indicted suspects, and also questioned suspects and witnesses, including officials and members of the security services. The civil party action (partie civile) facilitated the inclusion of extensive information from victims and their families in the investigation.

The investigation’s progress was very slow and uneven. This was, in part, due to resource constraints, which were most likely connected to an uneven commitment by the Guinean government led by then-President Alpha Condé, who was the country’s first democratically elected president, to holding those responsible to account, and a seeming hesitancy of the judges to take concrete steps forward in the absence of unequivocal expressions of support from the executive branch.

It took more than a year at one point for the judicial panel to get basic supplies, equipment, and transportation for the judges to do their work. Key officials who were potentially implicated in the crimes and indicted suspects, namely Moussa Tiégboro Camara and Claude Pivi, also remained in government posts in which they could have potentially influenced the investigation, instead of being placed on leave.

On November 9, 2017, the panel of Guinean judges concluded the investigation phase and referred the case for trial in Conakry, with more than 14 suspects charged, including current and former high-level officials. The referral was upheld on appeal.

Two of the people indicted are believed to have died before the trial started. One is General Mamadouba Toto Camara, then-second in charge of the CNDD, and the other is Col. Sambarou Diamakan, then-commander of Alpha Yaya Diallo military camp.

14. Why did the trial take another five years to open after the investigation concluded?

Once the investigation was completed, the Guinean judiciary failed to move to trial for five years.

In April 2018, the Justice Ministry, under the leadership of Cheick Sako, issued a decree setting up a steering committee (Comité de pilotage) tasked with the practical organization of the trial, including securing and financing it. The committee is composed of domestic and international actors, including representatives of the Justice Ministry, police, and the general prosecutor, as well as the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the European Union, the United States, and civil society.

From its first meeting, the committee focused on identifying a location to hold the trial, the security of the judiciary and the parties, and the trial budget. Nonetheless, the committee struggled to set a location and a date for the start of the trial. This committee was supposed to meet once a week, but only met intermittently.

As the months and years wore on, victims’ associations criticized the lack of political will of then- President Alpha Condé’s government to see the trial through, and rights organizations raised concerns that questions over the setup of the trial had become a pretext to avoid starting it. Meanwhile, Condé’s government’s increasing involvement in numerous human rights violations raised larger questions about prospects of the respect for rights and advancing justice in the country.

On September 5, 2021, Guinean army officers overthrew Condé’s government. They were led by Col. Mamady Doumbouya, who remains in power. Doumbouya signaled support for justice for the September 28, 2009, crimes and attended the 2021 commemoration of the massacre. At the same time, Doumbouya indicated that it was still necessary to finish constructing a new court building to begin the trial.

In July 2022, Doumbouya indicated that the trial should open before the thirteenth anniversary of the crimes. This appeared to have motivated extensive last-minute preparations to meet the deadline.

15. What role did the International Criminal Court play in advancing a trial for the crimes?

On October 14, 2009, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court announced that the situation in Guinea was under preliminary examination, during which the court assesses whether it should open an investigation. The Guinean foreign minister indicated to the ICC that Guinea was “able and willing” to ensure justice for the September 2009 crimes through its national courts and that an ICC investigation was thus, unnecessary.

The ICC has pursued a robust program of activity to help ensure justice for the September 2009 crimes, and appears to have been a major factor in galvanizing progress over time. Guinean government officials, civil society activists, and international observers all pointed to the ICC as pivotal to domestic progress in this case.

The ICC prosecutor attended the start of the trial, after which the prosecutor’s office closed its preliminary examination. At the same time, the prosecutor’s office signed a memorandum of understanding with Guinea, saying that it would “work actively and collaboratively” with Guinean authorities to ensure accountability for the September 28 crimes.

The memorandum also states 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 measures that might significantly hamper the progress or genuineness of the judicial proceedings related to the 28 September 2009 events.” The ICC continues to track developments in the trial, including through visits to Guinea in 2023 and 2024, to assess progress and to be a vital source of encouragement for the trial’s effective progress and conclusion.

The ICC should continue its close engagement with Guinea to implement its memorandum of understanding, even after the verdict is pronounced (see question 18 below).

16. What efforts have other entities undertaken to foster justice for the crimes in Guinea?

A range of international and domestic actors beyond the ICC contributed to the ultimate opening of the trial. They tracked both progress and challenges to progress of the case over a period of years and insisted on justice for the September 28, 2009, crimes through encouragement, pressure, and financial support.

In the months after the crimes were committed, the International Commission of Inquiry on Guinea provided documentation of the abuses, identified people to be investigated, and recommended that the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights should establish a presence in Guinea. The UN Human Rights Council stressed the need for accountability for the September 28 crimes, and provided for the opening of an office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Guinea, which helped facilitate assistance to the judges conducting the investigation.

The Office of the Special Representative on Sexual Violence in Conflict and its Team of Experts for Rule of Law/Sexual Violence in Conflict played a particularly important role, repeatedly stressing the importance of accountability for the September 28 crimes, providing technical advice to the judicial actors involved in the accountability process since 2012, conducting multiple visits to the country, and making an international expert available to continuously support justice efforts.

Guinean and international nongovernmental organizations, including victims’ associations, were central to progressing the investigation of the September 28 massacre, rapes, and other abuses by acting as civil parties. Domestic and international groups, including Human Rights Watch, consistently advocated for greater government support for the domestic investigation as well.

17. Are there other ongoing investigations or trials for the same crimes in Guinea?

In November 2023, five additional suspects, who were accused of involvement in the crimes on trial by Toumba Diakité, were arrested.

The prosecution indicted Col. Bienvenue Lamah, former regional director of the Conakry Gendarmerie, for complicity in assassination, kidnapping, murder, rape, and intentional assault and battery related to the 2009 stadium massacre trial. His indictment was dismissed before the investigation chamber of the Court of Appeal in January 2023. The prosecution then challenged the dismissal before the Supreme Court, which in turn, referred the case to its joint chambers in February 2024. On February 16, 2024, the joint chambers ruled against Lamah and returned his case before the investigation chamber. The investigative judges will decide whether to dismiss the case or refer Lamah to trial, allowing him to join the 11 accused in the 2009 stadium massacre trial.

The remaining four accused are Col. Jean Louis Kpogomou, former prefect of Koubia and Acting Director of the National School of the Gendarmerie, Lt. Col. Georges Olemou, member of the Regional Brigade of the Gendarmerie of N’zérékoré, Lt. Col. Jacques Sagno, and Warrant Officer Thomas Touaro. Sagno and Touaro are both members of the Autonomous Battalion of Airborne Troops (Bataillon Autonome des Troupes Aéroportées, BATA). Whether cases against these four suspects will move ahead remains unclear.

18. How can Guinea and international entities support Guinea in its pursuit of further justice efforts?

Guinea, as well as international and regional entities that have encouraged advances in the pursuit of justice in Guinea, have an important role to play in continuing to maximize the prospects of fair, credible justice for the September 28 crimes.

Continued encouragement, assistance, and scrutiny: The ICC should continue scrutiny following the verdict, including any appeals, the reparations process, if any, and ongoing safety and security issues including the protection of victims and witnesses; particularly with continued regular visits to ensure that Guinea is upholding its commitments under the memorandum of understanding.

Other international entities, including the UN, the African Union (AU), the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the EU, and the US, should encourage further justice efforts for serious crimes in Guinea. Diplomats have sometimes viewed pressing for accountability as sensitive or too difficult. However, experience has shown that the risks of not prioritizing justice for serious crimes are too high to ignore. Persistent impunity for human rights violations in Guinea has fueled abuses and undermined the country’s positive development.

Guinean authorities should develop and implement a reparations program for all victims of serious human rights violations committed in the country, including sexual violence. The trial’s conclusion and delivery of a verdict does not mean that efforts for pursuing full, credible, and fair justice for the victims of September 28 crimes should come to an end. Reparations should be pursued even following a verdict. The ICC and Guinea’s international partners should continue encouraging the advancement of such efforts and closely track progress to develop and implement a reparations program.

Ensuring adequate resources for reparations claims: The steering committee of the stadium massacre trial steering committee of the stadium massacre trial (Comité de pilotage) offers an important vehicle to work through and resolve potential funding shortages that may threaten the delivery of reparations.

Technical assistance: Trials of grave crimes are complex and benefit from specialized expertise. This can include training on specialized areas of law and practice related to cases involving serious crimes, including sexual and gender-based crimes, technical assistance for implementing legislative frameworks for victim and witness protection, reparations programs, and potentially even forensic exhumations of mass graves. The AU, ECOWAS, the US government, the EU, the ICC, and the UN should raise with Guinean officials the question of assistance that could be made available and invite requests for technical assistance and support when appropriate.

Source:hrw.org