Since the conflict in Sudan has erupted in 1983, it is estimated that a campaign of ethnic cleansing has killed nearly 2 million people and 4.5 million persons have been forcibly displaced from their homes. The United Nations Commission of Inquiry, which was primarily assigned with the task of investigating the crisis in Darfur with the support of the Security Council, concluded in its January report that the Sudanese Government and the Janjaweed militias were largely responsible for the violence. However, the Sudanese government continues to deny its role in the abuses and has made little effort to minimize the scale of the crisis.
Background on the Sudan Crisis
1. Civil War in Sudan
The Sudan Crisis originates from a twenty one year civil war between the Muslim North and the non-Muslim South. The Muslim North is mainly composed of government supporters, whereas the non-Muslim South is comprised of rebel soldiers from the Sudan People's Liberation Army and National Islamic Front members. As an initial step to officially end the civil war, a cease-fire agreement was agreed on May 26, 2004 in Naivasha, Kenya. The three protocols of the ceasefire agreement outlines the status of the three disputed states in central Sudan, the percentages of power that each party could exercise in the future, as well as the religious status of the capital Khartoum.
It was not until January 9, 2005 that a comprehensive peace agreement was signed. The Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) not only agreed on ending the conflict itself, but also on a power-sharing government between the national government and the southern provinces. They are to equally share much of the oil revenue and southerners are granted with some autonomy for an initial six-year transition period until they hold a referendum for independence.
2. The War in the Darfur Region
As the North and South conflict was coming to an end, the war in Darfur began in February 2003 as the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and then Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) forces attacked government military facilities in response to political marginalization and economic neglect during the North-South conflict. They called for a share in Sudan's natural resources and to have a voice in political decisions that concerned them. The Government forces and local militias responded by attacking villages throughout the Darfur region. Ever since the conflict began, according to the World Health Organization, the Government of Sudan has mounted a campaign of ethnic cleansing that has killed more than 70,000 civilians, caused millions to flee their homes, and wrought untold devastation. The Government is also alleged to be responsible for significantly arming and supporting the janjaweed militias who have engaged in killings, abductions, forced expulsions, systematic sexual violence, and deliberation destruction of crops, livestock and important cultural and religious sites.
TEXT 6
Systems of law
Each country in the world has its own system of law. However, it is generally true to say that there are two main traditions of the law in the world. One is based on English Common law, and has been adopted by many Commonwealth countries and most of the United States. The other tradition, sometimes known as Continental, or Roman law, has developed in most of continental Europe, Latin America and many countries in Asia and Africa which have been strongly influenced by Europe.
Common law, or case law systems, particularly that of England, differ from Continental law in having developed regularly throughout history, not as the result of government attempts to define or codify every legal relation. Customs and court rulings have been as important as statutes (government legislation). Judges do not merely apply the law, in some cases they make law, since their interpretations may become precedents for other courts to follow.
Common law is based on the doctrine of precedent. If the essential elements of a case are the same as those of the previous recorded cases, then the judge is bound to reach the same decision regarding guilt or innocence. If no precedent can be found, then the judge makes a decision based upon the existing legal principles, and his decision becomes a precedent for other courts to follow when a similar case arises. Sometimes governments make new laws-statutes- to modify or clarify the common law, or to make rules where none existed before. But even statutes often need to be interpreted by the courts in order to fit particular cases, and these interpretations become new precedents. In common law systems the law is, thus, found not only in government statutes, but also in the historical records of cases.
Another important feature of the common law tradition is equity. It recognizes rights that are not enforced by common law but are considered "equitable", or just. If an equitable principle brings a different result from a common law ruling on that case, then the general rule is that equity should prevail.
Continental systems are sometimes known as codified legal systems. They have resulted from attempts by governments to produce a set of codes to govern every legal aspect of a citizen's life. The lawmakers sometimes want to show that the legal rights of their citizens originated in the state, not in local customs, and thus it is the state that is to make law, not the courts. In order to separate the roles of the legislature and judiciary, it was necessary to make laws that were clear and comprehensive.
TEXT 7
Selection of a jury
The first step in the selection of the trial jury is the selection of a “jury panel”. When you are selected for a jury panel you will take an oath, by which you promise to answer all questions truthfully. After that the judge and the lawyers will question you and the other members of the panel to find out if you have any personal interest in the case, or any feelings that might make it hard for you to be impartial. This process of questioning is called Voir Dire, a phrase meaning “to speak the truth”.
During Voir Dire the lawyers may ask the judge to excuse you or another member of the panel from sitting on the jury for this particular case. This is called challenging a juror. There are two types of challenges. The first is called a challenge for cause, which means that the lawyer has a specific reason for thinking that the juror would not be able to be impartial. The second type of challenge is called a peremptory challenge, which means that the lawyer does not have to state a reason for asking that the juror be excused.
Those jurors who have not been challenged become the jury for the case. There may be six or twelve of them. The judge may also allow selection of one or more alternate jurors, who will serve if one of the jurors is unable to do so because of illness or some other reason.
Then the lawyers for each side will discuss their view of the case in their opening statements. After that the parties present evidence, which include the testimony of witnesses, physical exhibits, etc. Sometimes the judge orders testimony to be stricken off the record and it is not considered evidence.
Many times during the trial the lawyers may make objections to evidence presented by the other side or to questions asked by the other lawyer. If the objection was valid, the judge will sustain the objection. If the objection was not valid, the judge will overrule the objection.
In the closing arguments the lawyers summarize the case from their point of view. They may discuss the evidence or comment on the credibility of witnesses.
Then the jury retires to the jury room to conduct the deliberations on the verdict in the case they have just heard. The jury first elects a foreman. When a verdict has been reached, the foreman signs it and informs the bailiff. The jury returns to the courtroom, where the foreman presents the verdict.
TEXT 8
The Crown Court
The system of sending royal judges out into the country on “general gaol delivery” and the holding of assizes (sittings of the court) lasted many hundred of years. Until recently there were two different courts where defendants in criminal charges could be tried: the more serious charges were heard at the Assizes while the less grave were tried at Quarter Sessions (so called because the court sat at least once every quarter).
After very many years it became clear that the system had become outdated, for example, shifting populations had distorted the patterns of work and poor use was made of judges’ time and court buildings. The report of the Beeching Commission led to the Courts Act 1971, which came into force on 1 January 1972. This Act created a new criminal court of first-instance jurisdiction, the Crown Court, which is part of the Supreme Court and sits with a judge and jury. The composition of the Crown Court is also governed by the Supreme Court Act 1981 and by the Crown Court Rules made under the statute.
This court tries all serious criminal charges and sits throughout England and Wales. For administrative conveniences, the country is divided into six circuits: Northern, North Eastern, Midland and Oxford, South Eastern, Western, and Wales and Chester. Each circuit is under the supervision of a presiding judge who is responsible for the smooth working of all courts in that circuit. The Crown Court sits at various towns and cities throughout each circuit, for example, on the Western Circuit from Bristol and Exeter to Bournemouth and Winchester, and these are ranked in three tiers. The fist-tier courts, for example, those in Bristol and Winchester, hear the most serious charges, while a third-tier court, such as Bournemouth, hears minor charges. This distinction is further reflected in the judges who sit in those courts.
TEXT 9
