The first universal jurisdiction trial to address crimes from Yahya Jammeh’s dictatorship in The Gambia

Four years ago this week, the first universal jurisdiction trial to address crimes from Yahya Jammeh’s dictatorship in The Gambia was opening in Germany. TRIAL International now publishes the story of this trial against former Jungler Bai Lowe.

Context of the case

As part of the regime’s institutionalised violence, Jammeh set up a clandestine hit squad, known as the “Junglers”. This unit was tasked with intimidating and eliminating any potential or actual threat to his power. Its members allegedly committed numerous acts of extrajudicial killings, torture and other serious human rights violations.

After fleeing The Gambia for Germany in 2012, former Jungler Bai Lowe gave two interviews to Gambian journalists in 2013 and 2014, in which he described in great detail the killings and shootings he participated in while he was driving other members of the Junglers.

Overview of the case

TRIAL International and the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) informed the German prosecuting authorities in 2019 of the suspect’s presence on German territory. The legal principle of universal jurisdiction made the investigation by the German Federal Police and the arrest of Bai Lowe in March 2021 possible. He was indicted for the murders of Gambian journalist Deyda Hydara in 2004 and of former soldier Dawda Nyassi in 2006, as well as for the attempted murder of lawyer Ousman Sillah in 2003, as crimes against humanity in March 2022.

Bai Lowe’s trial opened on 25 April 2022 before the Higher Regional Court of Celle. On 30 November 2023, Bai Lowe was sentenced to life imprisonment for the two above-mentioned murders and the attempted murders of Sillah and two of Hydara’s colleagues during his shooting in 2004, all as crimes against humanity.

The verdict was historic, as it was the first legal recognition of the commission of crimes against humanity during Jammeh’s rule. Bai Lowe’s conviction became final when it was confirmed by the German Federal Court of Justice on 12 November 2024.

Monitoring a trial held in Germany on Gambian crimes

Taking place over 4 000 kilometres away from The Gambia, Bai Lowe’s trial in Celle was entirely held in German. To ensure the trial monitoring, TRIAL International, Human Rights Watch and the International Commission of Jurists put in place a project with a group of law students of the Georg-August-University of Göttingen, in coordination with the Göttingen chapter of the European Law Students’ Association.

Telling the story of Bai Lowe’s trial

This publication was drafted and reviewed by international and Gambian NGOs who worked on the criminal procedure and have thorough knowledge of the past and current historical and political Gambian context. It is intended to tell the story of Bai Lowe’s trial on the basis of the notes taken by the students, through a thematic description of the trial hearings in view of highlighting the main stages and stakes of the procedure. It is neither a legal analysis of the procedure, nor a transcript or a chronological account of the trial hearings. It is meant to be a resource that Gambian communities and interested law practitioners can consult to understand what happened for a year and a half in the courtroom of the Higher Regional Court of Celle

It is crucial that foreign procedures be made accessible to Gambian communities, so they can understand how justice for the crimes they suffered can be made abroad. This publication is part of this dynamic.

“If this trial is to have an impact beyond its immediate legal outcome, it will depend not only on the authority of the judgment, but also on the ways in which it is documented, interpreted, and communicated.”

Susann Aboueldahab, Inês Freixo & Rodolfo González Espinosa

A part of the justice and accountability process

This criminal procedure has been crucial as part of accountability efforts of the Gambian State, pushed by the strong mobilisation of Gambian civil society through the activism of victims and survivors. It has also illustrated the power of extra-territorial and universal jurisdiction in fighting the impunity of international crimes.

Indeed, Ousman Sonko, Jammeh’s former Minister of Interior, was subsequently tried for crimes against humanity in Switzerland in 2024, as well as Michael Sang Correa, another Jungler, tried for torture and conspiracy to commit torture, in the United States in 2025. In the meantime, in furtherance of the work of the Gambian Truth Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) created in 2018, the national Assembly passed the Special Accountability Mechanism (SAM) bill in April 2024, thereby committing to prosecute serious human rights violations committed during Jammeh’s rule.

TRIAL International thanks the African Network against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances (ANEKED) for their collaboration in discussing the outreach issues and challenges surrounding this trial, as well as for their precious review of this publication.

Read and download the Publication here:

For more information on the Ousman Sonko case and the appeal proceedings, see our press release and Q&A (available in English, French and German).

Week 3: (14 to 16 April 2026) The Appeal Concludes

>Day 8 and 9 (14 and 15 April): The Parties Plea<

On crimes against humanity

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the first-instance court only looked at whether the crimes were systematic, and did not examine whether they were also widespread: it based its conviction for crimes against humanity on this single criterion.

They submitted that, under international case law, a widespread attack can be established by looking at the cumulative effect of many individual acts over time. In this case, serious crimes such as torture, enforced disappearances, sexual violence, unlawful detention and killings were committed repeatedly over a period of 22 years against a large part of the population. The German court in the Bai Lowe case also found that the attack was widespread, and similar findings were made by the TRRC, which also noted that it had not been able to identify all victims. The Court should therefore take these elements into account – in addition to the high number of victims and to the geographical scale of the attack, that actually went beyond the Gambian borders – and find that the attack against the population was also widespread.

Regarding systematicity in relation to acts of sexual violence (which was not recognised in first instance), noted such violence was in fact used as a tool of repression under Yahya Jammeh’s regime, against both women and men, but that the first-instance court did not fully assess the available evidence on this point.

For these reasons, the Court should find that the attack against the civilian population was both systematic and widespread.

The defence pleaded that the Swiss administrative authorities, when examining asylum applications from Gambian nationals during the relevant period, had consistently found no evidence of widespread violence against the population in The Gambia. It also pointed to the regular and cooperative relationship between Switzerland and The Gambia in organising the return of rejected asylum seekers, in which Sonko had been involved as Minister of the Interior for ten years. In the defence view, this reflected political stability and security in the country and excluded the existence of crimes against humanity. Such argument was strongly rejected by the lawyers to the plaintiffs and by the OAG.

The defence further argued that the Court’s decision on Switzerland’s jurisdiction over acts committed before 2011 showed a misunderstanding of the concept of crimes against humanity. In particular, the Junglers were not an official unit and had no formal existence, acting independently and outside the control of the head of State. As a result, there could be no State policy of attack. And the NIA was, by law, prohibited from carrying out acts of torture, meaning that no State policy to commit such crimes could be inferred.

The defence reiterated that no attack directed against the civilian population existed. Security forces had responded to criminal activities, including coup attempts in 2000 and 2006 and unlawful demonstrations in 2016, and that those targeted did not fall within the notion of a civilian population by law. They further maintained that the acts were neither systematic nor widespread.

The defence also submitted that Sonko could not be considered a superior in relation to the alleged crimes during his time as Minister of the Interior, nor a co-perpetrator, as he had no influence over the actual perpetrators such as the NIA or the Junglers.

On the acts from 2000 to 2002 and in 2005 (sexual violence)

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the repeated rapes suffered by one of the plaintiffs should be treated as a single course of conduct in legal terms, meaning that even the oldest acts, which the first-instance court had considered time-barred, should still be taken into account.

They argued that sexual violence was not only widespread during the regime but also organised at the highest level of the State, with practices such as the “protocol girls” illustrating this pattern.

The plaintiff is the widow of a person targeted by the regime as an enemy of the State. The accused acted in his official capacity and used State resources – and that the acts were clearly connected to the wider and systematic attack against the civilian population.

In its plea, the defence did not challenge the first-instance court’s discontinuation of the rape allegations from 2000 to 2002 and in 2005. It argued that the accusations were unfounded, as Sonko was not in The Gambia for most of that period and therefore had an alibi. It also submitted that the complainant was not credible due to inconsistencies in her statements.

On the January 2000 murder

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the accused intended to murder AM, and not to arrest him. The witness heard on the matter (on day 4) did not provide any new elements and his credibility was contested. They argued that the crime had already been established and clearly linked to the broader attack against civilians, and was an example of the regime’s violence and should be qualified as aggravated considering the circumstances in which it occurred.

The defence pleaded that AM was the instigator of a violent coup attempt. Ousman Sonko’s intention was to arrest him, not to kill him. The arrest was planned on Bond Road to avoid harm to the population, given the victim’s violent character. The defence stated that the use of force was proportionate and justified, as the victim opened fire first, and therefore the facts could not be qualified as murder.

On the March 2006 acts of torture, unlawful detention, sexual violence

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the crimes were proven and not disputed. The accused denied responsibility, but they argued that his statements were inconsistent and not credible, while the victims’ accounts were detailed, consistent and supported by other evidence.

They stated that Sonko was involved and played an active role in the investigative panel, was present during torture sessions, and bore responsibility for the detention of people at Mile 2 prison. The arrests of journalists were part of the regime’s repression.

Additionally, when it comes to the acts of sexual violence, they followed similar patterns than torture – both used to break the will of a person to stand against the regime. These acts should therefore be qualified both as rape as a crime against humanity and as torture.

They also argued that sexualised violence inflicted on a male victim, should be recognised not only as torture (as it had been by the lower court) but also as violation of sexual autonomy as crimes against humanity, regardless of whether the perpetrators had a sexual motive.

These acts, they submitted, constituted aggravated crimes against humanity, as they endangered the victims’ lives and were particularly cruel, especially where victims were forced to witness the torture of others.

The defence contested Switzerland’s jurisdiction over the March 2006 events due to the prohibition of retroactive application of the law. It argued that these events did not form part of an attack against the population, but rather were a response to alleged coup plotters and journalists accused of spreading false information.

The defence further argued that the evidence showed that Sonko was not a member of the investigative panel, and at most acting as an observer on some occasions. The acts of torture were committed after the interrogations by the Junglers within the intelligence services, who operated under the direct authority of the president. Sonko bore no responsibility for these acts and had no influence over the detention of the plaintiffs, which was decided by the NIA. As Inspector General of Police, he also had no control over Mile 2 prison.

On the 2011 murder

The OAG argued that both the killing and Sonko’s responsibility over Baba Jobe’s murder were clear, as he played a key role in facilitating the act carried out by the Junglers. It took place in a particularly cruel set up which would fall under the aggravated provision of the law.

The defence pleaded that the Baba Jobe could not be considered a political opponent, but rather a war criminal under international sanctions. While this did not justify the killing, the defence maintained that Sonko played no role in it. It also reiterated that the death was not linked to any attack against the civilian population and that Sonko should therefore be acquitted of these charges.

On the April 2016 acts of torture, unlawful detention, homicide

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that there were demonstrated routine practices within the police and a well-established collaboration with security forces to repress opponents of the regime.

Whilst Sonko denied any responsibility as Minister of the Interior, the case file showed the opposite: he had played a key role in the actions of the police and in the control of prisons, and should therefore be considered a central figure in the collaboration of the security forces for the purpose of repression.

Sonko refused to explain his exact role on 14 April 2016, or gave misleading accounts. Evidence in the case file, including personal notes seized in Switzerland, indicated that he had ordered arrests and received instructions to “shoot and kill”. Several witnesses also placed him at police headquarters on the day of the events.

The parties argued that the police, the NIA and the prison authorities acted together in the arrest, torture and prolonged detention of the plaintiffs, which lasted much longer than Sonko claimed in an apparent attempt to evade responsibility.

Sonko never attempted to present a credible account of his conduct and role in April 2016, but his position as Minister of the Interior at the time of the events already entailed responsibility: he had given instructions to transfer the arrested persons to the NIA or, at the minimum, had approved or failed to oppose them. These elements alone established his responsibility for the crimes committed as a co-perpetrator, given his senior position, his full knowledge of how the Gambian system operated and of its long-standing repression of the population.

The parties argued that the Court should take into account aggravating factors that the lower court did not consider, noting that the victims were held in conditions amounting to torture, that the acts were particularly cruel with severe consequences, and that the high-ranking position of the accused as a minister should be reflected in the assessment.

The defence pleaded that Sonko’s responsibility in the 14 April acts had to be assessed in light of the evidence. The report of Juan Méndez, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, did not mention any acts of torture committed by the police, and therefore Sonko could not legally be considered a co-perpetrator of offences that his subordinates had not committed. The case file also showed that, as Minister of the Interior, Sonko had no operational control over the police or the prisons. As a political authority, he had set up a prison visiting committee and, according to several witnesses, he had improved detention conditions.

Additionally, the police had not been informed of the planned demonstration on 14 April, while the NIA had been aware of it through infiltration. The defence argued that the police used proportionate force to carry out arrests, after which the NIA took control of detainees without police involvement, excluding any collaboration. The defence stated that the detainees were brought before a judge in due time and that the conditions of detention could not be attributed to Sonko, as Mile 2’s high-security wing was under military control.

The defence referred to the “NIA-9” trial, which clarified responsibilities for the events of 14 April 2016 and confirmed that there had been no collaboration between the police and the NIA, the latter having conducted the operations alone. Therefore, Sonko could not be held responsible.

On the plaintiffs’ claims for reparations

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs pleaded that the trial was not only about examining the criminal responsibility of one individual, but also about recognising the impact on survivors, who continue to suffer physically and psychologically, and that reparations aim to alleviate this harm. They further submitted that Switzerland has jurisdiction over these claims and that Swiss law applies.

The defence requested the acquittal of Sonko on all charges and the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims for reparations, and that the aggravating factor of crimes against humanity could not be applied to any of the alleged offences. It also sought financial compensation for the detention Sonko has undergone to date.

On the sentence and measures to be imposed

The OAG, which is the only party allowed to plea on the sentencing, argued that, for all the acts described in the indictment, Sonko should be sentenced to life imprisonment for aggravated crimes against humanity. It also requested his expulsion from Switzerland for 15 years, as well as payment of the reparations awarded to the plaintiffs and the procedural costs.

***

>Day 10 (16 April): Sonko Addresses the Court<

Sonko reiterated that he had carried out his duties to the best of his ability, in accordance with Gambian law and with respect for human rights, and had sought support from European and Swiss authorities to promote such policies.

He emphasised that torture is never acceptable and that he had never believed otherwise.

He also questioned why the benefit of the doubt had not been applied to him, arguing that evidence in favour of his innocence had been dismissed while evidence against him had been given greater weight.

He regretted the lack of interpretation at first instance and wondered whether, because he is African, the judges had considered that he did not need to understand what he was accused of. He thanked the appeal court for providing interpretation services on this occasion.

Sonko expressed his deepest condolences to the plaintiffs for what they had endured and said he hoped that this trial would contribute to the process of truth and justice in The Gambia.

He did not remember whether the President had been abroad at the time of the protests and had had no contact with him.

***

The appeal trial concluded. The oral judgement will be read out at a later date.

This summary is provided for information purposes only. It is based on notes taken during the hearings and does not constitute an official court record.

For more information on the Ousman Sonko case and the appeal proceedings, see our press release and Q&A (available in English, French and German).

Week 1: (30 March – 2 April) The Appeal Trial Begins

> Days 1 and 2 (30 and 31 March): Preliminary questions <

At the opening of the trial on 30 March 2026, the presiding judge confirmed who was present:

the Office of the Attorney General (OAG);
Ousman Sonko and his lawyers, and;
5 plaintiffs who had travelled to Bellinzona, along with their lawyers.

The floor was then given to the parties to present their preliminary questions.

Admissibility of the appeals and validity of the amended indictment

The defence argued that the appeals filed by the OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs were inadmissible, on the basis that the indictment did not describe the relevant facts with sufficient detail (particularly regarding sexual violence) and could therefore not be examined.

It also challenged the validity of the amended indictment (July 2023), arguing that the original version did not include charges of sexual violence or the factual elements supporting the aggravated charge of crimes against humanity, which, in its view, was a decision not to charge Mr Sonko with these crimes. The defence further claimed that the amendment was improper, as the OAG was ordered to modify the indictment.

The OAG and the lawyers for the plaintiffs rejected these arguments. The OAG maintained that the amended indictment was valid, complied with legal requirements, and contained sufficient factual detail to allow the Court to examine all issues.

Sexual violence as crimes against humanity

The lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that Switzerland should be able to prosecute acts of sexual violence as part of crimes against humanity, which had been discontinued in first instance.

They also argued that these acts could be prosecuted as torture, giving Switzerland ratified the Convention against Torture which imposes an obligation to prosecute, and that the requirement of double criminality (requiring that torture be punishable both in Switzerland and in The Gambia at the time of the facts) was met.

Challenging the first-instance judgment, they argued that there was evidence showing that sexual violence formed part of a broader pattern of repression, rather than isolated acts. They further stressed that even a single act of sexual violence can qualify as a crime against humanity if it is linked to a wider or systematic attack against civilians, and maintained that this was the case, as Mr Sonko acted in that context, taking advantage of his position and the vulnerability of the survivors.

On Switzerland’s jurisdiction

The defence challenged it, arguing that crimes against humanity were not codified in Swiss domestic law prior to 2011, and that, for the facts alleged in the indictment between 2000 and 2006, no consensus existed among States as to their definition or any obligation to prosecute these crimes.

The OAG responded that Switzerland could prosecute crimes against humanity committed before 1 January 2011 based on customary international law, and that none of the charges were time-barred.

On reparations

The defence contested that, because Mr Sonko does not have an established domicile or habitual residence in Switzerland, the first instance and the present Court could not rule on the reparations awarded to the plaintiffs in the first instance.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs argued that jurisdiction was established through Mr Sonko’s link to Switzerland via his asylum application.

On accessibility

The defence argued that Mr Sonko had not been able to understand the first-instance proceedings, and that the judgment (both oral and written) had not been translated into a language he understands. This violated his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, and therefore it asked for the appeal trial to be suspended until this was rectified through the full translation of the first instance judgment.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs acknowledged the lack of translation at first instance (which prevented Gambian media to properly follow the proceedings), but argued that the current interpretation on appeal exceeded usual practice and that the defence’s request to suspend the proceedings was unfounded.

***

> Day 3 (1 April): Ongoing procedural matters and motions <

The Court rules on preliminary questions

The Court ruled that the law does not require a full translation of the judgment. It also noted that the defence had already translated many documents into English during the proceedings, meaning that Mr Sonko had been able to understand the charges against him and the judgment.

The Court also rejected the defence’s objections to the admissibility of the other parties’ appeals. It also confirmed that the amended indictment was valid and that it would examine the case on that basis.

On jurisdiction, the Court found that Switzerland could, in principle, prosecute acts committed before 1 January 2011, but noted that this would be confirmed when it examined the case in full.

On the matter of reparations, and Mr Sonko’s residency status, the Court found no reason at this stage to conclude it lacked jurisdiction.

Finally, the Court stated that it would assess, when examining the case as a whole, whether the acts qualify as aggravated crimes against humanity, including sexual violence and the detention of certain victims in 2016. It also stated that certain acts would be assessed as acts of torture of a sexual nature and as violations of sexual integrity.

Two motions from the defence

Inconsistencies in translations

The defence pointed out that the translation of the indictment was inconsistent, as Mr Sonko’s alleged acts were described both in terms of complicity and co-perpetration. It asked for the indictment to be read out in full, or for the OAG to clarify Mr Sonko’s alleged role in the crimes.

The Court rejected the request, noting that the indictment had already been provided in German and English and that the charges had been explained during the first instance trial. It clarified that the charges concern co-perpetration, and not complicity.

On the hearing of a witness

The defence argued that the planned witness hearing involved disputed evidence. It asked the Court to decide on the admissibility of that evidence before the witness hearing, or not refer to it during questioning.

The Court decided that it would be examined after the witness hearing, and if any of the evidence were found inadmissible, the related questions would be removed from the record.

Further preliminary questions on evidence

The defence requested that certain evidence be removed on the following basis:

Lack of transparency in the investigation

The defence argued that some investigative steps had been carried out in secret or outside the legal framework. It discussed particular missions by the OAG and police to The Gambia that were, according to defence, not properly documented, as well as concerns that some witnesses had been informally questioned before their official interviews. It also suggested that evidence from The Gambia may have been selectively included, and that local authorities may have influenced what was shared with Switzerland. It exhorted the Court to investigate this, as the judges in the first instance had not.

Evidence from asylum procedures

The defence argued that Swiss asylum authorities had continued to return Gambian nationals during the time period covered by the indictment, suggesting that the situation in the country did not amount to a widespread attack against civilians, contrary to the OAG’s account of the context. It therefore requested that a representative of the asylum authorities be heard, and that relevant reports, and communications be added to the case. It also maintained that NGO reports alone, on the violations of human rights in The Gambia, were not sufficient for the Court to form its assessment.

Witness hearings and right to be heard

The defence argued that during the investigation, certain witness hearings had not allowed Mr Sonko to ask all relevant questions, in violation of his right to be heard. It requested that the related records be removed from the case file, or at least not relied upon.

The defence then requested that several individuals be heard, including former members of the Jammeh government and judiciary, who could provide insight into how power functioned under Yahya Jammeh. It also requested that internal state documents from The Gambia be provided.

Position of the OAG

The OAG recalled that the lower court had excluded evidence from the accused’s asylum procedure because administrative proceedings follow different rules than criminal cases (whereas the latter provides for the right not to self-incriminate, the former imposes a duty to cooperate).

However, the OAG disagreed with this approach. It argued that such evidence should not be automatically excluded, but assessed on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, it said the documents were useful to help establish crimes under international law and should therefore be taken into account by the Court, unlike what had been previously decided in the first instance.

Position of the lawyers for the plaintiffs

The lawyers requested that some plaintiffs be heard again. They also asked for expert witnesses on the Gambian context and on gender-based violence, which would help the Court understand the stigma surrounding sexual violence in The Gambia: how it was used as a tool of repression under Jammeh, and how it was closely linked to the broader attack against the population.

They further requested that relevant reports be admitted into the case file so that the Court could make a fully informed assessment.

***

> Day 4 (2 April): Witness Hearing via Video Link from The Gambia <

The day was dedicated to the hearing of a witness via video link from The Gambia. The witness, a former soldier of the Gambian army, had previously testified before The Gambia’s Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) in August 2019. During that testimony, he stated that he had taken part in the operation that led to the death of AM, an individual mentioned in the indictment, in January 2000. He has also been described as having participated in acts of torture against individuals accused of involvement in a coup attempt in March 2006.

The witness said he knew Mr Sonko well and that he was a very good commander. He last had contact with him in 2008.

He explained that he had heard allegations that Mr Sonko had raped AM’s wife repeatedly, but he found it implausible.

The witness described how he was informed of a planned coup in January 2000, and he was given the order to arrest AM, who was killed after resisting arrest. He recounted that both Mr Sonko and Landing Sanneh (former commander of The Gambia’s presidential guard) were present, and that AM had started shooting first.

When confronted with the fact that, in proceedings against Landing Sanneh in 2001 in The Gambia, Mr Sonko had testified that the guards had fired first, the witness said he had not been aware of that testimony until now and maintained that AM had fired first. After reviewing the relevant court document, he stated that Sonko’s testimony was accurate.

The witness concluded by stating that Yahya Jammeh respected and cared for his people, in contrast to the current government.

Debates on evidentiary requests

The defence argued that some documents that had been seized from the asylum centre where Mr Sonko was staying did not belong to him, and that it had not been informed of the search that led to the discovery of such documents: therefore, they should be excluded from the case file.

On the matter of sexual violence, the defence argued that the evidentiary requests raised by the lawyers for the plaintiffs should be rejected, on the basis that the issue was not relevant in assessing if there were widespread or systematic attacks against the civilian population.

The lawyers for the plaintiffs responded that the defence could not rely on Swiss asylum return decisions to assess whether a widespread or systematic attack had taken place in The Gambia, describing such reasoning as unfounded. They also stated that they did not oppose the hearing of additional witnesses requested by the defence.

***

The appeal trial will resume on 7 April, 2026.

This summary is provided for information purposes only. It is based on notes taken during the hearings and does not constitute an official court record.

(Geneva, 30 March 2026) – Nearly a decade after his arrest, and almost two years after a landmark conviction, appeal proceedings open today in Bellinzona, offering a renewed opportunity for victims of Jammeh-era crimes to seek justice.

In May 2024, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court (FCC) found Ousman Sonko guilty of multiple counts of crimes against humanity committed between 2000 and 2016, under the rule of Gambia’s former president Yahya Jammeh. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Arrested in 2017, following the filing of a denunciation by TRIAL International, Ousman Sonko is the highest-ranking official ever convicted in Europe under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

In its 2024 judgment, the FCC found Ousman Sonko guilty of the killing of a perceived political opponent in 2000; of torture and illegal detention in connection with a coup plot in March 2006; of the killing of a politician in 2011 and of deprivations of liberty as well as acts of torture – including one killing – of peaceful demonstrators in 2016. The Court further ordered Mr. Sonko to pay compensation to the plaintiffs.

The FCC discontinued all charges related to sexual violence: it found that some of the alleged acts were time-barred, while others were considered isolated incidents, and as such, could not be qualified as crimes against humanity.

The accused, the Office of the Attorney General, and ten plaintiffs have appealed the decision, each on different grounds. While the accused challenged the judgement in its entirety, the Office of the Attorney General and the plaintiffs are appealing only specific aspects of the ruling.

The appeal proceedings, which should last at least two weeks, will also see five plaintiffs travelling from The Gambia to attend the trial. “I sincerely hope that this process will bring truth, accountability, and justice. My deepest wish is that the voices of victims and survivors are heard and respected, and that this trial contributes to healing and dignity for all those who suffered.” Said Ramzia Diab Ghanim, one of the plaintiffs in the case.

As The Gambia continues efforts to establish a special tribunal to prosecute crimes committed under Yahya Jammeh’s regime, the Sonko trial forms part of a broader wave of prosecutions targeting those responsible for these crimes, including landmark convictions in Germany and the United States against members of the “Junglers” death squad.

TRIAL International will provide weekly reviews of the appeal trial, and will collaborate with the Solo Sandeng Foundation to disseminate information in The Gambia and affected communities in various local languages.

A Q&A on the appeal, and more information about the first instance trial, including daily trial monitoring, can be found here.

Who is Ousman Sonko and what is he accused of?

Ousman Sonko is a former Gambian government official who served under the regime of President Yahya Jammeh. Over the course of his career, Mr. Sonko held several senior positions: commander of the State Guard, Inspector General of Police, and, from 2006 to 2016, Minister of the Interior.

He stands accused, and was convicted at first instance, of participating in crimes against humanity committed in The Gambia between 2000 and 2016.

Ousman Sonko was arrested in Switzerland in January 2017, where he had sought asylum. He was tried in 2024 under the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows national courts to try foreign individuals suspected of international crimes regardless of where they were committed.

What was happening in The Gambia under Yahya Jammeh’s rule?

Yahya Jammeh ruled The Gambia from 1994 to 2017, following a military coup. His regime was marked by widespread and systematic repression of real or perceived political opponents, including journalists, human rights defenders, members of the security forces, and individuals accused of disloyalty.

During this period, state agents, security forces and affiliated groups, most notably the “Junglers,” a paramilitary unit operating under Jammeh’s authority, were implicated in serious human rights violations. These included arbitrary arrests and detentions, torture, enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and acts of sexual violence.

Many of these abuses were later documented by The Gambia’s Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC), which heard from hundreds of victims and witnesses between 2019 and 2021. Its findings highlighted the central role of the regime, including its senior officials and state institutions, in the commission of these violations, and recommended criminal prosecutions for dozens of individuals, including Ousman Sonko.

What happened during the first instance?

In May 2024, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court (FCC) found Ousman Sonko guilty of crimes against humanity and sentenced him to 20 years’ imprisonment. The Court held that he had participated in a systematic attack against the civilian population under Yahya Jammeh’s regime, through acts including torture, unlawful detention and killings. Sonko was found guilty of i) multiple counts of intentional homicide as crimes against humanity; ii) of multiple counts of false imprisonment as crimes against humanity; iii) of multiple counts of torture as crimes against humanity.

All charges of sexual violence were discontinued. The Court did not determine whether the alleged acts took place; instead, it held that some of the facts were time-barred and that others fell outside its jurisdiction, as they lacked a sufficient link to the broader attack against the civilian population. It also found that certain charges of sexual violence did not constitute acts of torture.

The hearings were held in Bellinzona in January and in March 2024, and 9 plaintiffs from The Gambia flew in to attend the trial.

A Q&A on the first instance proceeding can be found here.

What aspects of the judgement are being challenged on appeal?

Following the judgment, all parties, namely the accused, the Office of the Attorney General and the plaintiffs, filed appeals on different grounds. While the accused challenges the judgment in its entirety, the prosecution and the plaintiffs contest only specific aspects of the ruling.

Regarding one of the plaintiffs concerned by the sexual violence allegations, the Court ruled that she was not part of the civilian population targeted by the regime, such as journalists, politicians, activists, and others who expressed real or perceived opposition. By doing so, it concluded that the acts she suffered from were privately motivated, rather than part of the broader context of the systematic attack against civilians.

In one instance, acts involving the infliction of pain to the genitals were recognised as torture as a crime against humanity, but were not characterised as sexual violence. The Prosecution and the plaintiffs concerned are challenging these aspects.

How does the appeal process work in Switzerland?

In Switzerland, criminal appeals trials can involve a full review of a case. In federal proceedings, appeals are heard by the Higher Appeals Chamber of the FCC. At this stage, the judges can reassess both the contested facts and the law, as well as the sentence and other measures decided in the first instance judgment. They may re-examine evidence, hear new witnesses, and either confirm, amend or overturn the original judgment on the issues challenged on appeal.

A further appeal can then be brought before the Swiss Federal Court (the “Swiss Supreme Court”), but with a more limited scope of review. The Swiss Federal Court focuses mainly on legal questions and does not normally reassess the facts. Its role is to ensure that the law was applied correctly and that the proceedings were fair.

Why is this case important?

This case concerns one of the highest-ranking former government officials ever tried in Europe under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

Ousman Sonko is the most senior Gambian official to face prosecution for crimes committed under Yahya Jammeh’s rule. In Switzerland, his trial marks only the second prosecution of its kind, following the conviction of Alieu Kosiah. At the global level, Ousman Sonko is among the highest-ranking political figures ever brought to trial under this principle, alongside cases such as Hissène Habré.

Together with the convictions of Bai Lowe in Germany and Michael Sang Correa in the United States, the Swiss proceedings contribute to a growing body of judicial recognition of the crimes committed under Yahya Jammeh’s regime. This emerging jurisprudence is likely to support future prosecutions in The Gambia, including within the transitional justice process. The Swiss court itself referred to earlier findings by German courts recognising that crimes against humanity were committed in The Gambia.

What is TRIAL’s role in these proceedings?

TRIAL International played a key role in initiating the case, having filed the criminal complaint that led to Ousman Sonko’s arrest in 2017. It continues to support the proceedings by liaising between the victims, their legal representatives and partner organisations in The Gambia, helping to ensure coordination, holistic support, and meaningful participation.

TRIAL International ensured on-the-ground monitoring of the first instance trial and will again report from the courtroom during the appeal.

What is AVLO?

The Association of Victim-Led Organisations (AVLO) is a Gambian non-profit organisation established in January 2024 to champion and represent the interests of victims of human rights violations during the era of former president and dictator Yahya Jammeh in the implementation of the TRRC’s recommendations.

AVLO is an alliance of local victim organisations and associations, including the African Network against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearance (ANEKED), Gambia Centre for Victims of Human Rights Violation, Survivors of the Presidential Alternative Treatment, Fantanka, Solo Sandeng Foundation, Women’s Association for Victim Empowerment (WAVE), Women in Leadership and Liberation (WILL), and Yelef Initiative. The organisation aims to advocate for and support victims and survivors of human rights violations in seeking justice and to receive reparations that are adequate, effective, prompt, and proportional to the gravity of the violations and harm the victims have suffered.

The appeal trial against former interior minister of The Gambia for crimes against humanity will open on 30 March 2026.

What

The appeal trial of Ousman Sonko, former Interior Minister of The Gambia, will open on 30 March 2026 before the Higher Appeals Chamber of the Swiss Federal Criminal Court (FCC).

Why

On 15 May 2024, Ousman Sonko was found guilty of multiple counts of crimes against humanity for atrocities committed between 2000 and 2016, during the rule of former Gambian dictator Yahya Jammeh. He was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. The accused, the Office of the Attorney General, and ten plaintiffs have appealed the decision.

His trial was the second for crimes against humanity in Swiss judicial history. Ousman Sonko was also the highest-ranking state official ever to be tried in Europe for international crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction.

When

The appeal trial will take place on the following dates:

Opening of the proceedings: 30 March 2026 at 9h30
Hearing dates:
- 31.03. – 02.04.2026
- 07 – 10.04.2026
- 14 – 17.04.2026
Reserve dates:
- 20 – 24.04.2026
- 29 – 30.04.2026

Where

Federal Criminal Court, Viale Stefano Franscini 7, 6500 Bellinzona, Ticino, Switzerland.

Accessibility

The proceedings will be in German and will be open to the public and the media, subject to available courtroom space.

Interested journalists may request accreditation with the General Secretariat of the FCC.

Further information provided by the FCC. (case CA.2025.3)

Contact

For more information, visit our case page or contact:

Anja Härtwig (English, French, German)

media@trialinternational.org

+41 22 519 03 96

TRIAL International will be present in Bellinzona throughout the appeal trial.

Denver, Colorado, USA – Today, a federal judge sentenced Michael Sang Correa to 810 months or 67.5 years in prison for torture committed in The Gambia in 2006.

Courtroom sketch showing Michael Correa with his lawyers, during his trial in in Denver on 7 April 2025. Drawing by Robyn Cochran-Ragland / CJA. — This courtroom sketch shows Michael Correa, second from left, with his lawyers, during his trial in Federal Court in Denver on 7 April. Drawing by Robyn Cochran-Ragland / CJA.

During today’s sentencing hearing, Judge Christine M. Arguello, who presided over Mr. Correa’s trial in April, heard from victims about the impact the torture they experienced at the hands of Mr. Correa and other Junglers had on their lives and that of their families.

Yaya Darboe, a commanding officer in the Gambian Armed Forces, who had been tortured by Mr. Correa asked the Court to impose a 40-year sentence because Mr. Correa “must be held fully accountable for his actions. When I saw him in Colorado at the trial, he was smiling, showing no remorse. He tried to escape justice. He should not be allowed to do so.”

“Justice in this case is not only about punishment; it is about restoring faith in the rule of law for victims like me, and for the Gambian people,” said Demba Dem, a former member of The Gambia’s Parliament. “I am glad that Mr. Correa received a fair trial. It is more than I and many others received, but it is important for true justice.”

Mr. Correa was initially arrested in September 2019 by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for overstaying an expired visa. A coalition of Correa’s victims, Gambian civil society organizations, and international human rights organizations, including the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) and TRIAL International called on the U.S. to investigate claims that Correa committed torture. This led to his indictment for torture in 2020. CJA now represents five of Mr. Correa’s victims in the criminal prosecution with co-counsel King and Spalding LLP.

In April, a unanimous jury found Mr. Correa guilty of torture and conspiracy to commit torture. At the trial, evidence established that Mr. Correa was a member of the Junglers, a notorious death squad in The Gambia. Victims and witnesses testified that following an attempted coup against former President Yahya Jammeh’s dictatorship in 2006, Mr. Correa and other Junglers brutally tortured suspected participants in the coup, including by beating them, suffocating them with plastic bags, and subjecting them to electric shocks.

“I pray that this sentence will send a resounding message to all purveyors of human suffering, that their cruelty will be met with severe punishment,” said Ramzia Diab, one of the Junglers’ victims and a survivor of torture. Ms. Diab is a former member of The Gambia’s Parliament and former Gambian Ambassador to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). “It will show that the rule of law can reach even those who once believed they were untouchable.”

The case comes at an important moment for The Gambia’s transitional justice process. In 2021, the Gambian Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) concluded that former president Jammeh and 69 of his associates, including Mr. Correa, committed crimes against humanity in The Gambia. Most perpetrators have yet to be held accountable.

Elizabeth Mendy, widow of former Gambian Armed Forces lieutenant colonel Pierre Mendy said: “The TRRC gave Pierre a chance to speak, but nothing concrete has come from it. Justice sleeps in The Gambia. The Junglers who fled hide abroad. Those who stayed walk freely.” She asked the court to sentence Correa to life imprisonment to send a message to The Gambia to find the courage to move ahead with prosecutions.

Last year The Gambia took significant steps towards justice, including passing legislation aimed at creating a war crimes tribunal in the Gambia and securing ECOWAS’s approval to establish the tribunal. Victims hope that The Gambia will act swiftly to establish its hybrid court to prosecute the remaining perpetrators identified in the TRRC report.

“This decision will resonate far beyond this courtroom,” said Tamsir Jasseh, one of Mr. Correa’s victims. He currently serves as advisor to the Gambian Police and spoke during today’s hearing. “The United States’ involvement in this case has already encouraged Gambian authorities to take accountability seriously. This trial is a catalyst, a jumpstart, for our nation’s journey toward truth, justice, and healing.”

About the Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations (AVLO)

The Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations (AVLO) is a coalition of Gambian civil society organizations that has been championing and representing the interests of victims of human rights violations in The Gambia.

About the Center for Justice & Accountability

The Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) is a United States-based international human rights organization dedicated to working with communities impacted by torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious human rights abuses to seek truth, justice, and redress using innovative litigation and transitional justice strategies.

About TRIAL International

TRIAL International is an international NGO fighting impunity for international crimes such as genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, torture, enforced disappearances and conflict-related sexual violence. Founded in 2002, it has offices in Switzerland, Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).

More Information

Read answers to Frequently Asked Questions here.

Or please contact:

Sirra Ndow, Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations, in Banjul (English): avlogambia@gmail.com, +2203737766
Ela Matthews, The Center for Justice and Accountability, in London (English): ematthews@cja.org, +44 78 627 28 939
Anja Härtwig, TRIAL International, in Geneva (English, French, German): media@trialinternational.org, +41 22 519 03 96

U.S. Federal Court will be conducting sentencing hearing of former Jungler, Michael Sang Correa on 22 August 2025, in Denver, Colorado, USA.

On 15 April 2025, after a five-day trial in U.S. federal court, a Denver jury found Michael Sang Correa guilty of five counts of torture and one count of conspiracy to commit torture. Mr. Correa was a member of the Junglers, a notorious death squad in The Gambia.

Judge Christine M. Arguello, who presided over the trial, scheduled Mr. Correa’s sentencing for 22 August 2025. Mr. Correa faces up to 120 years in prison.

During the trial, victims and witnesses who traveled to Colorado from The Gambia testified that in 2006, Mr. Correa and other Junglers brutally tortured suspected participants in an attempted coup against former President Yahya Jammeh. Fatou Baldeh, Founder & CEO of Women in Liberation and Leadership (WILL), attended the trial. “It was very moving sitting in front of Mr. Correa and seeing the evidence presented by the prosecution,” she said. “The victims were afforded an opportunity to face their perpetrator, and you could see they got their power back.” Zainab Lowe, a prominent victims’ rights advocate in The Gambia, was also present in Denver for the trial. “The jury’s unanimous verdict was felt all the way in The Gambia” she said. “It sent a strong message that The Gambia must continue to work to ensure all Junglers are held to account and that other victims of human rights abuses get justice.”

At the sentencing hearing, both the prosecution and the defense will present arguments in support of the sentences they believe should be imposed. Some of Mr. Correa’s victims will have an opportunity to present statements describing how Correa’s s crimes impacted their lives. The U.S. government is recommending that Judge Arguello impose the maximum sentence of 120 years in prison.

“Correa’s conviction, together with a significant sentence will send a strong message to other Junglers and other human rights abusers, currently living with impunity that they will too face justice,” said Ayeshah Jammeh of the Gambian Center for Victims of Human Rights Violations and the Victim’s Podcast. “Correa’s sentencing also serves as a reminder to The Gambian government that there are still Junglers living freely in Banjul who must be brought to justice” said Muhammed Sandeng of the Solo Sandeng Foundation, “our government must follow through on its promise to establish a hybrid court to prosecute the remaining Jammeh-era perpetrators.”

After sentencing, Mr. Correa can appeal the jury’s verdict on limited grounds. For more information about Mr. Correa’s right to appeal, read our Frequently Asked Questions.

About the Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations (AVLO)

About the Center for Justice & Accountability

About TRIAL International

More Information

Read answers to Frequently Asked Questions here.

Or please contact:

Anja Härtwig, TRIAL International, in Geneva (English, French, German): media@trialinternational.org, +41 22 519 03 96
Sirra Ndow, Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations, in Banjul (English): avlogambia@gmail.com, +2203737766
Ela Matthews, The Center for Justice and Accountability, in London (English): ematthews@cja.org, +44 78 627 28 939

Denver, Colorado, USA 15 April 2025 – Today, a Denver jury found Michael Sang Correa guilty of five counts of torture and one count of conspiracy to commit torture. This verdict marks the first time a U.S. jury has ever held a non-U.S. citizen criminally responsible for torture committed outside of the United States.

Witnesses in front of the courthouse after the Correa trial Denver — Witnesses in the trial of Michael Correa and their legal representatives in front of the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse in Denver, after the announcement of the decision of the jury on 15 April 2025 (photo: TRIAL International)

During the historic five-day trial, the jury heard evidence that Mr. Correa was a member of the Junglers, a notorious death squad in The Gambia. Victims and witnesses testified that following an attempted coup against former President Yahya Jammeh’s dictatorship in 2006, Mr. Correa and other Junglers brutally tortured suspected participants in the coup, including by beating them, suffocating them with plastic bags, and subjecting them to electric shocks. The jury unanimously found Mr. Correa guilty of torture and conspiracy to commit torture. Judge Christine M. Arguello, who presided over the trial, will determine Correa’s sentence at a hearing later this year. Mr. Correa can appeal the verdict.

“Correa’s trial and conviction represent an important milestone towards justice for his direct victims, and it is another step towards justice for all who suffered under Jammeh’s regime,” said Tamsir Jasseh, who currently serves as a senior advisor to the Gambian Police. “This verdict demonstrates that we can end impunity for the widespread abuses that took place during those years, both abroad and in The Gambia,” said Demba Dem, a former member of The Gambia’s Parliament. “This verdict is crucial for the healing of the victims and of Gambian society,” said Yaya Darboe, a commanding officer in the Gambian Armed Forces. All three men testified about the torture they endured at the hands of Mr. Correa.

The case against Mr. Correa was brought under the extraterritorial Torture Act, a federal law which allows the U.S. government to prosecute individuals found within the United States for acts of torture committed abroad. The case has drawn significant attention from human rights advocates and legal experts, as it is the first trial of a non-U.S. citizen under the Act. Mr. Correa is only the third person to be convicted under the Act since its enactment in 1994.

“This is a momentous trial, not only for The Gambia, but also for the United States. Countries have an obligation to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of international crimes who are found within their territory,” said Ela Matthews, Center for Justice and Accountability Senior Staff Attorney. “By prosecuting Correa, the United States has shown its commitment to fulfilling these obligations.”

Victims and Gambian civil society played a crucial role in ensuring that Mr. Correa was brought to justice, and that the trial received coverage in The Gambia. Jammeh regime victims traveled from The Gambia to Denver to observe the proceedings and 11 people testified.

According to Vony Rambolamanana, Senior Legal Advisor at TRIAL International: “Correa’s conviction, together with the recent convictions of former Jungler Bai Lowe in Germany and Gambian former Interior Minister Ousman Sonko in Switzerland, underscores the critical importance of universal and extraterritorial jurisdiction laws in bringing justice to survivors of international crimes committed in countries where impunity is rampant.”

In 2021, the Gambian Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) concluded that former president Jammeh and 69 of his associates, including Mr. Correa, committed crimes against humanity in The Gambia. The vast majority of perpetrators have yet to be held accountable. Last year, The Gambia took significant steps towards justice, including passing legislation aimed at creating a war crimes tribunal in the Gambia and securing ECOWAS’s approval to establish the tribunal.

“Correa’s conviction is very significant in the quest for justice for victims of human rights violations, but many Junglers and other human rights abusers continue living in impunity. Some are even living freely in Banjul,” said Kadijatou Kuyateh, Press Relations Officer at the Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations. “The Gambia must act swiftly to establish its hybrid court to prosecute the remaining perpetrators identified in the TRRC report.”

About the Center for Justice & Accountability

The Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA) is a San Francisco-based international human rights organization dedicated to working with communities impacted by torture, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other serious human rights abuses to seek truth, justice, and redress using innovative litigation and transitional justice strategies.

About the Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations (AVLO)

About TRIAL International

More Information

Read answers to Frequently Asked Questions here.

Or please contact:

Anja Härtwig, TRIAL International, in Geneva (English, French, German): media@trialinternational.org, +41 22 519 03 96
Ela Matthews, The Center for Justice and Accountability, in London (English): ematthews@cja.org, +44 78 627 28 939
Sirra Ndow, Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations, in Banjul (English): avlogambia@gmail.com, +2203737766

Denver, CO (United States) and Banjul (The Gambia), March 26, 2025 – Michael Sang Correa, an alleged member of a Gambian death squad, is scheduled to stand trial for torture starting on April 7, 2025. This marks the first time a non-U.S. citizen will stand trial in a U.S. federal court for torture committed abroad.

Michael Sang Correa is charged with six counts of torture and one count of conspiracy to commit torture. He is allegedly a former member of the Junglers, a notorious death squad in The Gambia operating under former Gambian President Yahya Jammeh. The indictment alleges that following an attempted coup against Jammeh’s regime in 2006, Mr. Correa and other Junglers tortured suspected participants in the coup, including by beating them, suffocating them with plastic bags, and subjecting them to electric shocks.

The U.S. government filed the charges under the extraterritorial Torture Act, a criminal law which allows it to prosecute individuals found within the United States for acts of torture committed abroad. This case has drawn significant attention from human rights advocates and legal experts, as it is the first trial of a non-U.S. citizen since the Torture Act was passed in 1994, and only the third trial under the Act. A coalition of human rights organizations, including the Center for Justice and Accountability (CJA), member groups of the Alliance of Victim-Led Organizations (AVLO) and TRIAL International, played a crucial role in urging the United States to investigate allegations of international crimes attributed to Mr. Correa in The Gambia. CJA represents several of Mr. Correa’s alleged victims with co-counsel King and Spalding LLP.

The trial is a critical step towards securing truth and justice for victims of Jammeh’s dictatorship, which was characterized by widespread human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killings, sexual violence, and arbitrary detention.

The trial, initially scheduled for September 2024, will take place from April 7 to 18, 2025, at the Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse in Denver. Additional information can also be found here.

About the Center for Justice & Accountability

About the Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations (AVLO)

About TRIAL International

More Information

Read answers to Frequently Asked Questions here.

Or please contact:

Ela Matthews, The Center for Justice and Accountability, in London (English): ematthews@cja.org, +44 786 272 89 39
Sirra Ndow, Alliance of Victim-Led Organisations, in Banjul (English): avlogambia@gmail.com, +220 373 77 66
Anja Härtwig, TRIAL International, in Geneva (English, French, German): media@trialinternational.org, +41 22 519 03 96

The German Federal Court of Justice announced on November 29, 2024 that it had rejected the appeal of a former member of a Gambian death squad who was sentenced to life imprisonment a year ago for his participation in two murders and three attempted murders, constituting crimes against humanity. This was the first trial in history to be held under the principle of universal jurisdiction for international crimes committed under former Gambian President Yahya Jammeh.

On November 30, 2023, Bai Lowe was convicted by the Higher Regional Court of Celle, Lower Saxony, of the attempted murder of lawyer Ousman Sillah in 2003, the murder of journalist Deyda Hydara and the attempted murder of two of his colleagues in 2004, and the murder of former soldier Dawda Nyassi in 2006. This was the first time that a court had recognized that crimes against humanity had been committed in The Gambia under the presidency of Yahya Jammeh, all thanks to the exercise of universal jurisdiction.

The defendant appealed to the Federal Court of Justice to examine whether the November 2023 conviction had been handed down in accordance with the law, and the Court found “no error of law prejudicial to the defendant”. In its decision of November 12, 2024, it therefore upheld the conviction, which is now final. “This decision shows that in Germany, even complex crimes committed abroad can be solved and brought to trial. It underlines the importance of the German International Criminal Code for the prosecution of the most serious crimes against human rights“, commented Peer Stolle, lawyer for one of the plaintiffs.

This conviction and its confirmation mark a turning point in the fight against impunity for atrocities committed under the presidency of Yahya Jammeh, who was in power in The Gambia between 1994 and 2016. The German proceedings have confirmed the existence of systematic and widespread attacks against the civilian population, orchestrated by Jammeh to maintain himself in power through violence. These decisions are therefore of major significance, not only for the four plaintiffs in the trial, but also for all the victims and survivors of the crimes committed under this regime. The Bai Lowe trial exposed one of the notorious tools of this repression: the role of the “Junglers”, a paramilitary unit created by the former President to suppress all forms of opposition.

“The confirmation of Bai Lowe’s conviction by the German Supreme Court is an important step in ongoing and future criminal prosecutions against the senior officials and principals of these crimes abroad, particularly in Switzerland and the United States, but especially in The Gambia,” commented Babaka Tracy Mputu, Legal Advisor at TRIAL International. TRIAL International and its partner ECCHR had informed the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office in 2019 of Bai Lowe‘s presence on the territory. Following his arrest in Germany in 2021, TRIAL International passed on additional information to the German prosecuting authorities and provided logistical and psychological support to the plaintiffs during the trial.

In May 2024, the application of universal jurisdiction also enabled Switzerland to bring to trial and sentence in first instance former Gambian Interior Minister Ousman Sonko, Yahya Jammeh’s former right-hand man, also for crimes against humanity committed between 2000 and 2006, to 20 years imprisonment.[1] In April 2025, the trial of Michael Correa, another alleged former member of the Junglers, is due to open in Denver, USA. He was indicted in June 2020 for the torture of individuals suspected of plotting a coup d’état in 2006.

TRIAL International now hopes that, at its next meeting in December, the Conference of Heads of State and Government of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) will give a favorable opinion on the creation of a special international tribunal for The Gambia, so that the crimes of the Jammeh era can be judged as close as possible to where they were committed.

[1] The difference in sentences (life imprisonment for the executor of a principal and 20 years’ imprisonment for a former Minister of the Interior) can be explained by the peculiarities of the legal systems of the various countries implementing universal jurisdiction, in this case Germany and Switzerland. For an in-depth analysis of the laws and practices of several countries regarding the investigation and prosecution of crimes under universal jurisdiction, please consult our series of UJ law and practice briefing papers, published jointly with the Open Society Justice Initiative (OSJI).

(Banjul, Denver, Geneva, 12 September 2024) – The trial against Michael Sang Correa for torture allegedly committed in The Gambia, originally scheduled for 16 September 2024, has been postponed.

Last week, Correa’s defense lawyers filed two motions with the court. The motions explained that the defense wanted to present testimony from two witnesses to support the argument that Correa was under duress when he committed the acts of torture alleged in the indictment. According to the motions, the witnesses refused to travel to the United States unless the United States government provided them with immunity from prosecution. The United States declined to offer that immunity.

The first motion asked the court to dismiss the case against Correa, arguing that the government was not facilitating the attendance of these witnesses. On 10 September, the court denied the motion to dismiss the charges against him. The second motion asked the court to delay the trial to allow Correa’s attorneys to travel to The Gambia to record sworn testimony from the two witnesses.

On 11 September, the judge granted the second motion. She ruled that ensuring Correa the right to present witnesses for his defense was crucial to protecting his due process rights. Due process rights are guaranteed under international law and the United States Constitution: they provide reasonable opportunity for defendants such as Correa to defend themselves against criminal charges, allow for thorough examination of the facts, and contribute to a fair and just legal process.

The trial will be rescheduled to a date in 2025.

For media enquiries:
Rebecca-Paris Senior, The Center for Justice and Accountability, in Geneva (English, French, Italian): rpsenior@cja.org

Frequently asked questions and answers

1. Who is Michael Correa and what are the charges against him?

Michael Correa, a Gambian citizen, will stand trial in September 2024 for allegedly torturing people in The Gambia in 2006. He is accused of being part of the “Junglers”, a death squad that committed human rights abuses at the direction of former President Yahya Jammeh.

In 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice charged Correa with torture and conspiracy to commit the torture of at least six people. The indictment alleges that Correa and other Junglers beat their victims, put plastic bags over their heads, and used electric shocks while they were interrogated, causing victims severe pain and suffering.

2. What is the status of the case against Correa?

Correa was first arrested in September 2019 for staying in the U.S. after his visa expired and was detained in a U.S. prison. In June 2020, he was indicted for torture and conspiracy to commit torture. He remains in prison while awaiting trial.

The next step in Correa’s case is the trial for torture charges. During the trial, the jury will listen to the evidence, including witness testimony, and it will hear arguments from lawyers for the U.S. government and for Correa. Then, the jury will decide whether or not Correa is guilty.

3. When and where will Correa’s trial take place?

Correa’s trial will take place in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado in Denver, where Correa was initially found and arrested. The trial is scheduled to take place between September 16 to 27, 2024. While criminal trials in the U.S. are typically open to the public, a judge may grant a request to restrict public access under exceptional circumstances, such as to protect the safety of a witness.

4. How is “torture” defined under U.S. law?

Correa has been charged under the Torture Act, which allows the U.S. to prosecute individuals within its territory for acts of torture committed outside its borders. This law defines “torture” as an act committed by a public official or person acting in an official capacity that is intended to cause severe physical or mental pain or suffering to a person in the perpetrator’s control.

5. What will happen at trial?

At trial, lawyers for the prosecution and defense will present evidence and arguments to a jury. The prosecution might ask victims to testify at the trial. After hearing the evidence, the jury will decide whether it finds Correa guilty of each charge or not. For Correa to be found guilty, the jury must find that he is responsible for the acts alleged “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The jury’s decision to convict must be unanimous, meaning that all the members of the jury must vote to find Correa guilty to convict him of the charged crime. The jury could find Correa guilty on all or only some of the seven charges of torture and conspiracy to commit torture.

6. What is the jury and how is it chosen?

The jury is made up of 12 U.S. citizens who are over 18 years old, reside in Colorado, and understand English. These 12 jurors will be selected out of a pool of prospective jurors. The pool is chosen at random from members of the general public who fulfill the requirements to be jurors. Before trial, Correa’s lawyers and the prosecutors may have the opportunity to ask each prospective juror questions. During jury selection, the prosecutors and Correa’s lawyers can ask to remove prospective jurors from the pool. This process continues until the 12 jurors and their alternates are selected.

7. Will Correa be required to testify about his crimes?

Under U.S. law, criminal defendants such as Correa cannot be forced to testify. While he is not required to testify, he can choose to testify in his own defense, but if he does so, he can be cross-examined by the prosecution.

8. What role will victims and survivors play in the trial?

In the U.S., a common law country, victims and survivors do not have a role comparable to civil parties in Civil Law countries. However, the prosecutor may call some of the alleged victims to voluntarily testify as witnesses.

Under certain conditions, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act gives victims the right to timely notice about developments in the case, and the “right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.”

9. What happens if Correa is found guilty?

If Correa is found guilty, the court will schedule a sentencing hearing, where a judge will decide his punishment. Sentencing hearings normally happen several weeks after the jury makes its decision. At the sentencing hearing, both the prosecution and the defense will present their arguments about what the appropriate sentence should be. Victims who meet legal requisites may also have an opportunity to present statements describing how Correa’s crimes affected them.

After this information has been submitted, the judge will decide Correa’s sentence. Correa could receive a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison for each count of torture and conspiracy to commit torture. If he is found guilty of all charges pending against him, Correa could face a total of up to 140 years in prison.

10. What happens if Correa is acquitted on all the charges?

One potential outcome is that the jury will find him not guilty of any of the charges. Because Correa does not have a valid U.S. visa anymore, he could remain in immigration detention while his immigration claims are decided. He could choose to return to The Gambia, be deported to The Gambia, or be allowed to remain in the U.S.

If Correa is acquitted on all the charges and his immigration claims are decided in his favor such that he can stay in the U.S., The Gambia could seek his extradition for prosecution for other alleged crimes.

11. Will Correa have an opportunity to appeal?

Yes. If Correa is found guilty, he could appeal for three reasons:

there was misconduct during his trial;
the judge made a mistake in handling the case; or
the jury engaged in misconduct or made a mistake in their verdict.

However, the prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal by the jury.

12. If Correa receives a prison sentence, could he get parole or early release?

While we cannot predict whether Correa would receive early release in general, individuals convicted of federal crimes—like those that Correa has been charged with—are not eligible for parole. However, there are a few circumstances that allow for individuals convicted of federal crimes to be released early.

First, individuals convicted with federal crimes receive credit for time that they spent in prison before their conviction. Accordingly, some of the time he has spent in detention since his arrest in 2019 may be deducted from Correa’s prison sentence. Correa would have been detained for at least five years by the time he is sentenced. The specific amount of credit Correa receives for “time served” would likely be decided when the judge announces the sentence.

Second, individuals convicted with federal crimes may have their sentences reduced by up to 15% for good behavior in prison.

Under extraordinary circumstances, individuals convicted with federal crimes sometimes qualify for compassionate release from prison. Compassionate release is rare. Some reasons for compassionate release are terminal or debilitating illness, the need to care for a child with no other guardian or incapacitated spouse, or worsening physical and mental health due to old age when the individual is over 65 years old (Correa would not be eligible for compassionate release due to old age until 2044). To qualify for compassionate release, the individual would need to show that he is no longer a danger to society.

13. Can Correa plead guilty and avoid the trial?

Yes, Correa can plead guilty at any point before or during trial. He can also try to negotiate a plea agreement with the prosecutor at any point before the jury reaches a verdict, although the prosecutor may decline to negotiate. Under a plea agreement, Correa would plead guilty in exchange for a compromise from the prosecutor, such as a shorter prison sentence than what he might have received at the end of a trial.

14. What was happening in The Gambia at the time of Correa’s alleged crimes?

During his 22-year dictatorship in The Gambia, Yahya Jammeh systemically oppressed any real or perceived opponents of his regime. The government targeted journalists; human rights defenders; lawyers; student movement leaders; religious leaders; members of the political opposition; judicial officials; members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) communities; and members of the security forces. These groups suffered terrible violations, including torture, extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, and sexual violence.

Many of these violations came to light during Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) hearings. The TRRC was established by the Gambian government 2018 to investigate abuses committed by the Jammeh regime. Three hundred and ninety-three (393) people, including victims, perpetrators, former government officials, and members of security forces, testified during 871 days of public hearings. The TRRC’s final report was made public on December 24, 2021, concluding that Jammeh and 69 of his associates, including Michael Correa, committed crimes against humanity. Jammeh is in exile in Equatorial Guinea, where he fled after losing the 2016 presidential election to Adama Barrow and failing at his attempt to not relinquish power despite the electoral results.

15. Who were the Junglers?

The Junglers were a death squad established by former President Jammeh in the 2000s, allegedly to suppress his regime’s opponents. The group reported directly to Jammeh and are alleged to have carried out widespread human rights violations, including enforced disappearances, torture, extrajudicial killing, sexual violence, and arbitrary detention. Some members of the Junglers have already confessed to committing torture and other serious human rights abuses.

16. Why has Correa only been charged for these acts of torture when he is also alleged to have committed other crimes?

In the U.S., prosecutors have the discretion to decide which cases they bring. In making these decisions, prosecutors consider a range of factors, including available resources and documentation. The prosecutor has not disclosed why they chose to prosecute these specific alleged acts of torture and not others.

The U.S. does not have legislation to prosecute many other crimes against humanity committed outside of its borders. This limits the type of charges that a prosecutor might bring. Correa’s case highlights the urgent need for the U.S. to pass legislation criminalizing crimes against humanity. Without this law, perpetrators who are in the United States could escape accountability for some or all of their crimes.

17. Why is Correa’s prosecution taking place in the U.S.?

The U.S. government has the legal authority to prosecute Correa for torture he allegedly committed outside of the U.S. because Correa is present in the United States. The extraterritorial Torture Act allows the U.S. to prosecute individuals found within U.S. territory, regardless of their citizenship, for torture committed outside of the country. This law operates as a form of universal jurisdiction.

This is only the third time a person has been tried under the Torture Act since the statute was passed in 1994. Two other individuals were convicted under this statute: Charles “Chuckie” Taylor, Jr., the son of former Liberian President Charles Taylor, was convicted in 2008, and Ross Roggio was convicted in May 2023. Correa is the first person who is not a U.S. citizen to stand trial under the Torture Act.

18. What is universal jurisdiction?

Universal jurisdiction is a legal principle that allows countries to prosecute crimes committed in other countries, regardless of the nationality of the suspect or victim. Universal jurisdiction cases support efforts to hold perpetrators of atrocities accountable and to bring justice to victims. They send a powerful message that human rights abusers will not find a safe haven anywhere in the world.

TRIAL International, CJA, and their partners publish the Universal Jurisdiction Annual Review (UJAR), which highlights universal jurisdiction cases in the U.S. and globally.

19. Are others being prosecuted under universal jurisdiction for crimes committed during the Jammeh era?

Michael Correa was the first person to be indicted outside of The Gambia for Jammeh-era crimes, but he is not the first to face trial. Another Jungler, Bai Lowe, was convicted in Germany and sentenced to life in prison in November 2023. Former Interior Minister Ousman Sonko was tried in Switzerland in early 2024 for crimes against humanity and was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison in May 2024.

20. Could Jammeh and other senior officials be prosecuted in The Gambia?

As of the publication of this FAQ document, The Gambia has only prosecuted two Jammeh-era cases, against former minister of local government Yankuba Touray and former Director-General of the National Intelligence Agency Yankuba Badjie, who was convicted alongside four other ex-intelligence officials and a doctor who was found to have facilitated the officials’ crimes by forging a death certificate.

In December 2021, the TRRC issued its final report calling for the prosecution of those responsible for Jammeh-era crimes. On May 25, 2022, the Gambian government issued a White Paper accepting the TRRC’s recommendation. On May 12, 2023, the government presented an implementation plan for the TRRC recommendations. The implementation plan proposed a Special Prosecutor’s Office to investigate cases and a “hybrid” tribunal based on a treaty with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). The court would prosecute the most serious Jammeh-era crimes. On April 23, 2024, The Gambian National Assembly passed bills establishing the Special Prosecutor’s Office and the Special Accountability Mechanism, offices which will be responsible for moving forward accountability for Jammeh-era crimes. In July 2024, the Parliament of ECOWAS decided to defer consideration of the creation of the special court until December 2024. These are promising steps forward for victims, survivors, and the rule of law in The Gambia. Given how long victims and Gambian society have been waiting, the government and ECOWAS should quickly establish the Mechanism.

21. What is the significance of this case in The Gambia and the U.S.?

In The Gambia and the U.S., Correa’s prosecution represents an important step for justice. The TRRC’s final report concluded that Jammeh and 69 of his alleged associates committed crimes against humanity and recommended that they face justice for their crimes. Correa is among the first of these individuals to face prosecution. His prosecution may allow victims to speak out about Correa’s alleged crimes and will raise awareness of the human rights violations that took place during the Jammeh regime.

In the U.S., Correa’s prosecution demonstrates the importance of universal jurisdiction, which recognizes that crimes like those allegedly committed by Correa are crimes against all people, regardless of their nationality. Universal jurisdiction proceedings like Correa’s are an important tool to ensure that alleged human rights violators from The Gambia are held accountable wherever they are found. His prosecution, and the prosecution of other alleged human rights violators, is a core part of the U.S.’s obligation to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of international crimes when they are identified on U.S. territory.

22. What role are CJA and TRIAL International playing in this case?

Victims’ groups as well as Gambian and international non-governmental organizations have been working together to hold Jammeh-era officials accountable through the “Jammeh2Justice” campaign. In September 2019, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security arrested Michael Correa for staying in the U.S. after his immigration visa expired. A coalition of Correa’s victims and human rights organizations, including CJA and TRIAL International called on the U.S. to investigate claims that Correa committed torture. This led to his indictment in 2020.

CJA and TRIAL International will continue to provide legal, psychological, and other support to victims – when needed – in preparation for, during, and after the trial. CJA and TRIAL International will also work with civil society, journalists, and impacted communities to make sure information about the trial is available through newspapers, radio, and other media.

23. What role is Gambian civil society playing in this case?

Gambian civil society has played an instrumental role in advocacy efforts related to Correa’s prosecution. Gambian organizations were a part of the coalition advocating for the U.S. to investigate claims that Correa committed torture.

Since Correa’s indictment, Gambian civil society organizations, including:

the African Network Against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances (ANEKED),
the Solo Sandeng Foundation,
the Women’s Association for Victims’ Empowerment (WAVE), and
Women in Liberation & Leadership (WILL),

have been instrumental in raising awareness about the prosecution and in supporting victims in The Gambia.

In April 2024, alongside several other Gambian civil society organizations, these groups launched the Alliance of Victim-Led Organizations (AVLO), which is dedicated to representing the interests of victims of human rights violations in The Gambia. During Correa’s trial, AVLO will be actively involved in efforts to share information about the proceedings with victims and other interested parties in The Gambia.

24. Where can I read more about the case?

Selected court documents, including Correa’s June 2020 indictment, can be accessed online via the case docket. Additionally, CJA and TRIAL International have shared information regarding the case on their websites.

Commentary written by activists Fatou Baldeh, CEO of Women in Liberation & Leadership (WILL); Nana-Jo Ndow, founder and executive director of African Network against Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances (ANEKED); Sirra Ndow, country director at ANEKED; Fatoumatta Sandeng, Founder & CEO – Solo Sandeng Foundation; and Marion Volkmann-Brandau, human rights lawyer. Published in the Gambian Newspaper The Republic on 28 May 2024.

On the May 15, 2024 a court in Switzerland found Ousman Sonko, long term interior minister in The Gambia under the Jammeh regime, guilty of multiple counts of intentional homicide, torture and false imprisonment that were committed, as “part of a systematic attack on the civilian population” of the country. He is the highest ranking foreign official ever convicted by an European court.

While Sonko’s conviction marks another milestone in the pursuit of justice for victims of human rights violations in The Gambia and globally, it is also disappointing for organisations and individuals working closely with and for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. Indeed, while Binta Jamba bravely testified that Ousman Sonko raped and tortured her for years, after having murdered her husband, the charges were dropped because the court considered it to be an “individual crime” outside its jurisdiction.

The decision disregards and distorts the cruel reality experienced by women and girls during the 22 years of the Jammeh regime: far from being a private matter, sexual violence by state officials was a criminal enterprise using state resources and means at their disposal. We are therefore alarmed that the court did not rule on the charge of rape despite it being as systematic as other crimes that Sonko has been found guilty of.

Since the historical neglect of sexualized and gender-based violence during Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, significant progress has been made in both the statutes and jurisprudence of international criminal tribunals concerning these crimes. Yet, time and time again, national courts applying the principle of universal jurisdiction as well as international ones, have decontextualised sexual violence from the broader pattern of violence. There is a tendency to view rape as ‘isolated,’ often because justice actors misinterpret it as a private or opportunistic crime (‘sex without consent’), when in fact it is a tool used by repressive regimes just as torture and killings.

Sexualised torture, rape and exploitation were common feature of the Jammeh regime and were perpetrated by many senior men, including the president himself. Several survivors and witnesses who spoke before the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC) provided detailed accounts of how state officials, while acting in their official capacity, sexually assaulted women on many occasions. For example, sexual violence in detention was common as early as 1995 and affected women as well as men. What these testimonies revealed is certainly just the top of a horrific iceberg.

Over the two years of its existence, the TRRC heard prominent enablers of the past regime and confronted them with many of the allegations made against them. However, they were never asked about their implication in sexual and gender-based violence. As a matter of fact, not once were witnesses from the security sector asked publicly about their knowledge of, or participation in, such crimes.

And neither the TRRC nor the Swiss Court seemed to have investigated what could have well been a pattern of sequestration and rape by Ousman Sonko. When Binta Jamba testified before the TRRC about her ordeal, she mentioned that on two occasions she was held captive in a house where she was raped and beaten by Sonko. The soldier who freed her from the room, told her that his “boss brought several other women here”. Who are these other women? And could Sonko really have had them guarded by a soldier if he was not in a position of power?

Sexual violence committed by officials is not a “private matter”. If transitional justice mechanisms, such as truth commissions and courts, fail to adequately investigate sexual and gender-based violence, nothing will change for the many survivors and perpetrators will continue to enjoy the impunity they cherish.

As The Gambia is in the process of setting up an Hybrid Court to prosecute the many crimes committed under the Jammeh regime, we call on the national and foreign jurisdictions to write history by fully and truthfully investigating and prosecuting sexual and gender-based violence at all levels. Only then will survivors feel that justice was served, for all.

Originally published in the Gambian newspaper The Republic.

The conviction of former Gambian Interior Minister Ousman Sonko in Switzerland for crimes against humanity on 15 May 2024 is historical in many ways. However, the decision by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court’s (FCC) to dismiss all charges of sexual violence casts a shadow over this landmark verdict. Ousman Sonko was found guilty of three murders, multiple acts of torture, illegal deprivations of liberty in conditions amounting to torture, all committed between 2000 and 2016 during the Yahya Jammeh dictatorship. However, the Swiss court failed to hold Ousman Sonko responsible for multiple rapes committed in the early 2000s and in 2006. While confirming that they had taken place, the court ruled that one of the two survivors of rapes could not be considered as part of the civilian population that was under attack and that they were individual acts committed outside the systematic attack against the population. It therefore had no jurisdiction to prosecute them.

TRIAL International believes that the FCC’s reasoning reflects a lack of understanding of the context of over two decades of repression in The Gambia, particularly with regard to sexual violence. The Yahya Jammeh’s regime was characterized by a widespread gender-based violence enabled by a well-conceived policy of protection, normalization and impunity of high-ranking officials, including Ousman Sonko. Although there is a culture of silence around such acts in The Gambia and therefore not many victims come forward for fear of stigma and retaliation, the victims in this case are emblematic examples, and by no means isolated incidents, of this sophisticated system in which sexual and gender-based violence was used as a weapon of repression. As emphasized in the final report of the Truth, Reconciliation and Reparations Commission (TRRC)[1], the grave and repeated acts of sexual violence should not have been read outside the political context of the country at the time.

In the Gambia, The Alliance of Victim-Led Organisation (AVLO), The Women’s Association for Victims’ Empowerment (WAVE) and Women in Liberation and Leadership (WILL) – react in one voice: “Not convicting Ousman Sonko is a big blow to and a setback in the fight for justice for victims and survivors of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and civil society actors working with them in The Gambia. In a context where it is a daily struggle to get victims to come forward, this will push them further into the darkness where impunity will thrive. Regrettably, this could also potentially have an impact on the accountability processes that we are preparing the ground for in the Gambia”.[2]

Indeed, the dismissal of these charges is not only a failure to deliver justice to the two plaintiffs; it is a failure to acknowledge the systemic use of sexual violence as a tool of oppression. The FCC’s decision reinforces the dangerous narrative that sexual violence is a private matter and that it does not enter within the justice-seeking scope of international criminal law. On 15 May 2024, the court missed a critical opportunity to overcome the patriarchal biases that are still present in international case law.

According to Annina Mullis and Caroline Renold, lawyers of the two plaintiffs affected by this decision, “it is yet another example of the general disregard for gender-based and sexualized violence. Instead of recognizing the structural aspects of the widespread sexual and gender-based violence in The Gambia during the rule of Yahya Jammeh, the FCC rejected all evidence requests submitted to demonstrate the systematic nature of SGBV in the country and yet at the same time deemed the charges brought by our clients against the defendant as outside the political. Our clients will of course appeal this decision.”

TRIAL International recalls that this issue remains persistent when it comes to the prosecution of international crimes and that sexual violence and survivors of such acts remain largely invisible in courts, perpetuating a culture of impunity. The organization works tirelessly to ensure justice for victims and survivors of sexual violence, including in Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

The Organization remains steadfast in its commitment to fight for justice for all survivors of international crimes, including those of sexual violence and will continue to support the plaintiffs in their quest for justice.

[1] The 2021 TRRC final Report, Volume 10: “Sexual and Gender-based violence” is available for download here: https://www.moj.gm/downloads

[2] For more voices from The Gambia, read “Sonko case: How a Swiss court failed survivors of sexual violence in The Gambia, and worldwide“.

(Geneva, 15 May 2024) – Ousman Sonko, Gambian former Minister of Interior, was convicted today of crimes against humanity by the Swiss Federal Criminal Court (FCC). The FCC found him guilty of multiple crimes committed between 2000 and 2016, under the rule of Gambian ex-President Yahya Jammeh, and sentenced him to 20 years in prison. Mr. Sonko is the highest-ranking official ever convicted in Europe for international crimes under the principle of universal jurisdiction. His was also the second trial for crimes against humanity in Swiss judicial history.

In its verdict delivered today, the FCC found Ousman Sonko guilty of the killing of a perceived political opponent in 2000; of torture and illegal detention in connection with a coup plot in March 2006; of the killing of a politician in 2011 and of deprivations of liberty as well as acts of torture – including one killing – of peaceful demonstrators in 2016. The FCC further ordered Mr. Sonko to pay compensation to the plaintiffs, according to the harm suffered.

Ramzia Diab Ghanim, one of the ten plaintiffs in the case, comments today’s verdict: “This decision gives us the closure we had been waiting for long and shows that there is no hiding place for anyone who perpetrated international crimes in The Gambia, not even the highest-level individuals. However, I am disappointed that the Court failed to recognize that sexual violence is also an attack against us civilians.”

Despite this historic conviction, the Court abandoned all sexual offense charges related to 2000 onwards and 2006. Without judging that they did not take place, the Court considered that, in 2000 onwards, they were isolated from the context of attack directed against the civilian population and thus could not constitute crimes against humanity. The Court also found that electric chocs imposed on the genitals should be not considered as sexual violence but as torture. TRIAL International regrets this decision and will continue to support the plaintiffs, should they decide to appeal these aspects.

Indeed, the parties may contest the judgment by lodging an appeal with the Court of Appeals of the FCC.

Ousman Sonko was arrested in Switzerland in January 2017, a day after TRIAL International filed a criminal denunciation against him. Following an investigation that lasted over six years, the Office of the Attorney General of Switzerland (OAG) indicted Mr. Sonko in April 2023. His trial took place in January and March 2024 before the FCC in Bellinzona.

The conviction was made possible thanks to Swiss law, which recognizes universal jurisdiction for certain serious crimes under international law, allowing for the prosecution of such crimes, regardless of where they were committed and of the nationality of either suspects or victims.

TRIAL International supported nine plaintiffs who traveled to Switzerland in January 2024 to be heard by the court. As the trial was held in German, the organization has advocated strongly, but largely in vain, for the proceedings to be translated and made accessible to victims and the Gambian population. TRIAL International also ensured the regular publication of summaries of the hearings throughout the proceedings.

“Today’s conviction sets a historic precedent in the fight against impunity worldwide”, stated Philip Grant, Director of TRIAL International. “This verdict not only brings justice to the victims of these heinous crimes but also sends a strong signal to high-level perpetrators across the globe, including ministers: justice can catch up with you”, he added.

This conviction is another step on the long road to justice for all victims of the atrocities committed during Jammeh’s 1994-2016 reign of terror. It was the second trial based on the principle of universal jurisdiction for crimes committed in The Gambia. The first was the case of Bai L., a former member of a paramilitary unit known as the “Junglers”, created by the former president. He was sentenced by a German court to life imprisonment for crimes against humanity in November 2023. Another alleged member of the same death squad, Michael Correa, is scheduled to go on trial in the USA in September 2024. He is charged with torture and conspiracy to commit torture.

Recognizing Ousman Sonko’s role in the abuses committed during Jammeh’s dictatorship not only contributes to reducing impunity for the violations committed in The Gambia during Mr. Jammeh’s regime, but may also spur domestic prosecutions, propelling the transitional justice process initiated in 2017. In December 2021, the final report of The Gambia’s Truth Reconciliation and Reparations Commission’s concluded that Jammeh and 69 of his associates, including Ousman Sonko, had committed international crimes or grave human rights violations and called for their prosecution. The Gambian government published an implementation plan in May 2023. On 22-23 April 2024, the Gambian National Assembly thus passed a Special Prosecutor’s Office Bill and a Special Accountability Mechanism Bill. The Acts will have to be signed by the President before entering into force.

For more details, see the press release of the FCC.

This article is part of the daily summaries of the trial of Ousman Sonko, former Interior Minister of The Gambia, which took place between January and March 2024 in Bellinzona, Switzerland. During this time, TRIAL International did its best to capture the most important points discussed during the hearings and cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions.

In accordance with the procedural code, Ousman Sonko was given the opportunity to address the Court before it began its deliberations.

In particular, he stated in English that he regretted that the Court did not provide simultaneous interpretation of the closing arguments of the other parties, as he was not able to understand what had was argued.

For this reason, he could not comment on the conclusions presented by the parties. The lack of translation was a problem for him throughout the course of the trial, since 8 January 2024, for him but, above all, for the people interested in the proceedings: The Gambians.

He also stated that he was the subject of violations of his rights throughout the proceedings, in particular by not receiving the transcripts of his testimony in a timely manner.

He further stated that some plaintiffs have adapted their statements during the trial to make them fit the charges brought against him and that he regretted that they have discredited themselves in this way by lying. However, he did not blame them and understood how important this trial was for them.

Torture was unacceptable to him.

In the responsibilities that he had exercised, he had always taken care to prevent this as far as the forces under his control and authority were concerned, and this was the reason why the NIA had kept the police at bay, and denied them access to the persons whose transfer to the NIA had been ordered in April 2016.

There was never any attack on the plaintiffs as political opponents, journalists or for any other reason. Some plaintiffs or victims were involved in attempted coups and it was legitimate to investigate these events. However, he had not been part of the investigation panel in 2006, even though he has visited it once, twice, perhaps more times, to see if any information was useful for his mission as IGP.

The use of torture by people now known as the Junglers was clearly unacceptable, but the police – forces under his control – had not been involved. He would not have accepted their involvement.

He was not involved in the killing that took place in October 2011 by the hands of the Junglers and there was nothing serious in the case file to support the contrary.

The demonstration of 14 April 2016 was illegal and it would have been sufficient for the organizers to apply for the authorization required by law in order to avoid the police intervention. The police intervened in a professional, proportionate and legal manner. However, he was not present at the PIU at the time of the arrests.

The crimes that followed at the NIA left a lasting mark of shame on The Gambia which he strongly condemned.

He has been detained for seven years without trial and in degrading conditions, including almost two years in solitary confinement, which has affected his physical and mental health.

“You seem to be interested in what has happened in my country, the conditions in its prisons, the actions of its police and its authorities. You take a condescending view of the resources available to us in government to try to ensure its development. Naturally, and probably without really thinking about it, you are part of a history of colonialism and racism. You have to understand that we can’t work miracles under these conditions. If a country as rich and developed as yours is unable to provide its prisoners with dignified conditions of detention, how do you expect us to be able to do so?” (…)

“You have let me express myself to you more than at any time in the last 7 years, but I don’t know if you have heard me”. (…)

My country does not need expiatory victims immolated before foreign judges. I hope that through my testimony I have been able to contribute to the work of reconciliation that the TRRC has begun, and I hope that all of us Gambians will be able to build the future of our country with respect for everyone, by honoring the memory of those who have disappeared and by assuring all those who have suffered of our compassion and our desire that the mistakes of the past will not be repeated.”

Ousman Sonko’s final words to the FCC, 7 March 2024

Final: The court informed the parties that the verdict date would be communicated at a later stage.

our press release about the verdict
our commentary of the verdict
article by our legal adviser, Benoit Meystre, offering an in-depth analysis of the verdict, which was published on Opinio Juris.

The defense argued that the Prosecutor had failed to make a distinction that was, however, quite clear from the record, but also from the work of the TRRC: on the one hand, there were the powers that were the sole responsibility of the President, namely the Gambian Armed Forces and consequently the Junglers that emerged from them, as well as the NIA. On the other hand, there was the government, its ministries and its administration. As IGP and later as Minister of Interior, Ousman Sonko had been part of the latter.

The rule of law prevailed in The Gambia and the abuses were limited to the actions of an informal group, the so-called Junglers, on the one hand, and a certain unit of the NIA on the other.

Ousman Sonko had to flee The Gambia to save his life and the threats that he received from the Junglers were part of the case file.

For the defense, it was still not clear what kind of organization or what plan the Prosecutor was referring to.

Since the beginning of the investigation, the Office of the Prosecutor has tried to create confusion in particular by deliberately and indiscriminately mixing all the security services, not informing the accused of the charges pending against him, limiting his right of access to the file and keeping him in degrading conditions of detention. Numerous violations of the accused’s procedural rights have been observed during the investigations.

The Prosecutor wanted the Court to believe that Ousman Sonko was the strategist, the organizer, the planer, etc. but there was no evidence to support these allegations. On the contrary, it had been proven that some of the plaintiffs or victims were criminals, coup plotters or non-law-abiding citizens. They were not targeted because they were part of the civilian population, but were they targeted individually in response to their actions.

It was then recalled how one of the plaintiffs, allegedly victim of rapes from 2000 onwards, lacked credibility. In addition, the Junglers and the NIA were the direct perpetrators of the abuses described in the indictment, without the involvement of Ousman Sonko. Furthermore, since the functions of the NIA – like those of the military – fell within the reserved powers of the President and were not discussed within the government. As a result, it could not be concluded there was any form of co-perpetration with respect to the facts described in the indictment. Again, Ousman Sonko – neither as IGP nor as Minister – had never exercised any control or authority over the NIA.

For all the reasons presented to the Court, Ousman Sonko stood by all his conclusions.

Coming next: Ousman Sonko’s final words.

In accordance with the code of criminal procedure, the parties were allowed to provide rebuttal arguments.

“Ousman Sonko, the second most influential person from the reign of Yahya Jammeh, is on trial. There is no question that Yahya Jammeh and all his supporters should be prosecuted and brought to justice for the crimes they have committed against the Gambian civilian population. This is a clear outcome of Gambia’s long-standing efforts to come to terms with the past. In accordance with the principle of universality, Switzerland has the competence and the obligation to investigate crimes against humanity if the perpetrators are suspected and present on its territory. This is precisely the case with Ousman Sonko. His flight to Switzerland and his stay here triggered Switzerland’s responsibility to prosecute.”

(Extract of the Prosecutor’s rebuttal of 7 March 2024)

Crimes against humanity

It was again demonstrated – and supported in particular by Swiss case law – that there are no obstacles to the prosecution and judgement of the crimes in question, including those that took place before 2011.

The prohibition of crimes against humanity is considered customary international law and the arguments of the defense that the legal elements were not fulfilled in this case could not be followed.

In the case of Ousman Sonko, the attack, its systematic and widespread character – as sufficiently described in the indictment – and the civilian nature of the targeted population were all proven elements. With regard to the latter, it was emphasized that the defense implying that some victims were criminals in the first place – or putschists with regard to the 2006 events – was irrelevant and not in line with case law.

Bai L.’s conviction in Germany was, in fact, further evidence that the contextual elements of the crime were met in The Gambia.

The persecution of journalists in the Gambia has been sufficiently proven and the Bai L. case was another example in support of this fact.

With regard to the defendant’s participation, it was recalled that he had been one of the strategists, planners and organizers and that he had always had an influential position in the overall structure of the cooperating authorities within the State.

Individual acts

Murder of a member of the State Guard in 2000 and subsequent sexual violence against the victim’s widow from 2000 onwards.

With regard to the murder, it was pointed out that the defense has ignored the results of the investigation as well as the findings of the TRRC in its closing arguments. Both actually proved that the victim was murdered, that the defendant was involved, and that the official government version to cover up this crime was a lie.

It was then recalled that the plaintiff’s credible statement regarding the sexual crimes she suffered was sufficient evidence to prove that the accused had committed the crimes. The allegation that she has accused him in revenge for the elimination of her husband was simply not plausible.

Acts of torture and deprivation of liberty in 2006

It was argued that the defense alibi that he was not in the country was not proven in the case file.

Further, it was further emphasized that the TRRC’s findings, as well as the results of the investigation, were evidence that Ousman Sonko had been part of the panel, had discussed and made important decisions together with other members. The defense’s argument that the police had been placed under the control of the NIA – where tortured was described by the UN Special Rapporteur as “routine” and “regular” – was entirely new and not supported by any evidence in the case file. Moreover, the victims who were subsequently detained were under the control of the Panel. As a result, it was argued that Ousman Sonko shares a criminal responsibility for the fate of the detainees.

Contrary to the defense’s argument, the said subsequent detention of the plaintiffs was unlawful, in particular because they were kept in custody without an arrest warrant – which was contrary to the Gambian law – and because they were not brought before a judge within the 72-hour period required by the Gambian constitution.

As for the sexual offenses that occurred during these events, and during torture, they should be tried on their own merits, in addition to the torture charges.

Killing of a politician in October 2011

It was reiterated that the victim status was fully included within the notion of “civilian population” and that there was a clear nexus between this individual offense and the attack that took place. Even if this was disputed, there was no doubt – in the view of the Prosecutor – that the accused has given instructions for the Junglers to have access to the victim when he was hospitalized. It was also proven that Ousman Sonko knew of the ins and outs of the Mile 2 detainees and that he was always aware of the President’s fear of this political opponent.

Acts of torture, murder and deprivation of liberty in 2016

The lack of evidence was argued in relation to the defense argument that the 14 April 2016 demonstration was violent. In fact, the accused written notes – together with the witnesses’ statements and material evidence – showed that it was peaceful. Likewise, it had to be concluded from the accused’s statement, that it was controlled “without any problem or resistance”. In any case, this argument could not justify the subsequent acts of torture.

It was again notably emphasized that the accused had shared the responsibility forwhat had happened to the detainees at the NIA after his police officers had handed them over to the agency, knowing what would happen to them there.

It was wrong to read from the so-called NIA-9 verdict that the accused was not present at the PIU on 14 April 2016. In fact, these proceedings did not investigate Ousman Sonko’s individual responsibility, but rather the NIA’s involvement in torture. Nevertheless, the judgment was indeed useful to understand the factual development of the events that took place on 14 and 15 April 2016 and what had happened to the victims at that time.

Irrespective of the presence of the accused at the PIU on the day of the arrests, it was clear that Ousman Sonko gave orders to take the detainees to be the NIA. Furthermore, it was never alleged that the accused himself committed acts of torture at that time, but rather that his criminal responsibility stemmed either from his active or passive co-participation in the crimes or, subsidiarily, from his hierarchical position over the acts committed by his subordinates at that time.

The case file also clearly demonstrated the accused’s responsibility for the conditions of detention imposed on the plaintiffs following their arrest and torture.

Coming next: Rebuttal of the defense.

Disclaimer: The following highlight aims to objectively report the main arguments presented by the defense of Ousman Sonko in its closing arguments. TRIAL International does not endorse the following statements. The organization recalls that it does its best to summarize as accurately as possible what was said during the trial and cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions.

In particular, the defense concluded that Ousman Sonko should be acquitted of all charges. All civil claims of the private plaintiffs should be dismissed. It also requested that compensation be granted for his deprivation of liberty, including for the illegal detention time and food deprivation to which he was allegedly subjected.

These conclusions were supported by the following reasoning:

“In the context of the present proceedings, there are essentially two categories of people who have told us about the personality of Ousman Sonko. On the one hand, there are those who are very negative towards him, these are people who tell us that they did not know him, never worked with him or the government of the time and are generally illiterate without any education. And then there are the others, the people who met Ousman Sonko on a daily basis, who worked with him and therefore know who they are talking about.”

Arguments on crimes against humanity

After recalling the genesis of the concept of crimes against humanity in history and under international law, the defense noted that the definition of the crime in Swiss law differs from that adopted in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), it does not require that such an offense be committed in application or continuation of a policy of a state or organization.

Nevertheless, in order to interpret the Swiss provision, it was necessary to examine in particular the international case law, since there was no existing – definitive – legal precedent in this country regarding this crime. (N.B. The first conviction for crimes against humanity in Switzerland is referred to as the Kosiah case. The written motivation on the conviction and sentencing of Alieu Kosiah was notified on 1 March 2024 to the defense, who is also Ousman Sonko’s council. The 30-days period for filing an appeal with the FCC is currently running.)

In light of the above – and as already argued at the opening of the Sonko trial in January 2024 – the defense argued that the fundamental principle of non-retroactivity of the law should lead the Court to conclude that, since the Swiss provision on crimes against humanity (Art. 264a of the Swiss criminal code – SCC) entered into force in January 2011, it could not be applied to acts that took place before that date. (N.B. The defense was referring to the 2000 and 2006 events, which should therefore not be prosecuted or judged.)

It was further argued that most of the charges in question should also be considered time-barred, which could not lead to a conviction.

Furthermore, it could not be concluded in the present case that the so-called attack against the population described in the indictment between 1994 and 2017 constituted a continuous offense. It was argued that the nature of the charges in question was not such that it could be concluded that there was a unity of action between each of them. As a result, it was not possible to apply the Swiss jurisprudence according to which the new law (Art. 264a SCC) would apply in the case of continuous offenses.

With regard to the contextual elements of the crime, it was denied that a systematic or generalized attack took place in The Gambia during the presidency of Yahya Jammeh (1994-2017) and it was further argued that the indictment did not describe any other acts that could be taken into account in the examination of the existence – or not – of the said attack. As a result, such an examination should only be based on the specific crimes described (N.B. mostly those denounced by plaintiffs) which – according to the defense – were not of the same nature and consequently could not support the existence of a systematic and widespread attack.

As a counter-argument, the defense claimed that the Swiss administrative authorities and courts, when called upon to decide on the return of Gambian nationals seeking asylum in the country, had always judged that there had been no situation of generalized violence in The Gambia.

In conclusion, the defense stated that the indictment did not describe the generalized or systematic nature of the attack as alleged by the Prosecutor.

Furthermore, it was claimed that the plaintiffs did not meet the characteristics of a “civilian population”, in particular because some of them were soldiers (see reference to the 2000 events), some others were civilians involved in a coup d’état or journalists who had published false information (see reference to the 2006 events) or civilians who had organized an illegal demonstration (see reference to the April 2016 events).

The analysis of the contextual elements in the Sonko case had to be distinguished from the analysis carried out by the German judiciary in the case of Bai L., a former member of the Junglers convicted of crimes against humanity in 2023. While in the latter case there was a systematic repetition of identical crimes committed by a group of persons formed for this purpose, in a short timeframe and a limited geographical area, was applicable, the situation in the Ousman Sonko case was quite different, in particular because it covered a much longer period of time and because there was no link between each of the crimes within which the accused was charged.

“This German judgment decides only on the qualification of the acts described in the indictment against Bai L. and is not intended to establish once and for all that there was a situation of generalized attack against the civilian population in The Gambia, regardless of the time, place, acts or persons involved.”

Given that there was no “attack”, Ousman Sonko had no knowledge of its occurrence and was therefore lacking the awareness and will to participate.

The defense also criticized the plaintiffs’ attempts to construct a form of persecution of the Mandinka population by the Gambian regime of Jammeh, who belongs to the Diola ethnic group. It was further alleged that the plaintiffs were sowing some discord and working against the desired reconciliation of the Gambian people in all its parts.

Arguments on the individual acts

In view of the absence of the contextual element of crimes against humanity alleged by the defense, it was concluded in particular that Switzerland had no jurisdiction to prosecute or try Ousman Sonko for the murder of a State Guard member in 2000, and that the offense was in any case time-barred.

For the same reasons, Ousman Sonko had to be acquitted of the charges of rapes against the widow of the aforementioned individual. In addition, the facts were not sufficiently proven, since they were based only on the plaintiff’s statements, in which numerous inconsistencies and lies were found. In any case, Ousman Sonko was not present in The Gambia at the end of 2001/beginning of 2002 and therefore had an alibi.

The defense acknowledged the veracity of the acts of torture suffered by the plaintiffs in March 2006 but denied Ousman Sonko’s responsibility. First, they stressed that the Government was responding to a coup attempt. Secondly, it was argued that – although a form of complicity could be identified between the investigation panel and the Junglers, and that it could be maintained that Ousman Sonko was present at the first day of the Panel, possibly at other times– it was not proven that the accused had been there after the plaintiffs had been tortured, nor that he had actually been part of the panel or that he had had any kind of power there. It was the NIA that was in control of the events – including of the police at the time – and the Junglers were only responding to the President. Furthermore, Ousman Sonko had never exercised any kind of control or effective authority over the NIA or the Junglers and therefore could not be found guilty of the charges of torture in question.

With regard to the detention of the plaintiffs, Ousman Sonko, as IGP in 2006, did not have the power to order the detention – or release – of individuals and did not have control over prisons. Therefore, he could not be found guilty of these charges.

In any case, Switzerland had no jurisdiction over these facts, which were also timed-barred. Furthermore, the UN Convention against Torture could not be applied, because of the lack of a specific provision prohibiting torture in the Swiss criminal code, where it is criminalised in the context of crimes against humanity.

It was then reiterated that the murder of the politician in 2011 could not be part of any broader attack, adding that Ousman Sonko had not played any role in the commission of this crime. The TRRC’s findings on this event were not relevant.

Finally, it was argued that the events of 14 April 2016 could not be considered as part of crimes against humanity and that Ousman Sonko did not participate in the torture of the plaintiffs, nor did the forces under his command. The defense also argued that the demonstration of 14 April 2016 was not peaceful, that the presence of Ousman Sonko at the PIU on the day of the arrests had not been proven, that he had never facilitated the NIA to commit torture (and that there had been no plan to do so), that it had not been proven – taking into account the so-called “NIA 9 trial “, which is a Gambian domestic criminal case that established the responsibility of the NIA for these facts – that he had been present at the NIA headquarters during the events.

In view of the conclusions of the defense in favor of the total acquittal of the accused, it was requested that Ousman Sonko be compensated for the time spent in prison in Switzerland, in conditions which, according to the defense, were not always compatible with the fundamental guarantees provided by international conventions.

Coming next: Round of rebuttals (on day 17 of the trial):