Week 3: The Appeal Cocncluded

14 April – 16 April 2026

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.

***

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

——————————————————-

Week 2: The Hearing of Ousman Sonko

7 April – 9 April 2026

Day 5 (7 April): Decision on evidentiary motions

The Court ruled on the evidentiary motions submitted the previous week, rejecting the
vast majority of requests. This included applications to rehear plaintiffs, call new or
additional witnesses, appoint experts, and seek international legal assistance with The
Gambia. The Court considered that it had sufficient material to decide on the case and
that the appeal stage allowed limited scope for further evidence. Only a small number of
civil society reports on sexual violence were admitted as new evidence.

Days 6 and 7 (8 and 9 April): Request to submit additional evidence

The plaintiffs’ lawyers requested that a radio discussion on the work of the TRRC be
added to the case file to substantiate the scope of the attack against the population. The defence opposed the request, arguing that the material lacked value as evidence. The
Court admitted it at the opening of the session the following day.

The Hearing of Ousman Sonko

[Ousman Sonko was heard throughout days 5, 6, and 7.]

Hearing on his personal and financial situation

Mr Sonko stated that as a Minister of the Interior, he earned GMD 50,000 per month and received no bonuses. He said he did not know the reasons for his dismissal in 2016 and had not received any compensation. Following his arrest, he was no longer able to support one of his sons’ studies. He declined to answer whether he was married, stating that this was a private matter.

He described his daily life in detention as routine and had no comments on his current conditions, noting that they had been difficult in previous facilities. He added that he had no plans for after his release.

The latest report on his conduct in detention indicated that he had shown very good behaviour towards staff and other detainees. As a result, he benefited from a more flexible regime, including open cells during the day and freedom of movement. He was described as well integrated and without disciplinary issues. He had worked in the prison laundry since July 2023 and, since 2024, had been responsible for hygiene-related logistics, performing both roles satisfactorily. He had not received personal visits since his transfer to the current facility and had been able to make phone calls since 2023.

Hearing on the alleged offences

• On the general Gambian context under Yahya Jammeh

Mr Sonko explained that the justice system under Yahya Jammeh had been fair, and that the judiciary had been independent.

He expressed his regret at not being heard before the TRRC, as he would have liked to share his view of history, which could have contributed useful elements regarding the responsibilities to be established and clarified certain misconceptions or false accusations.

In all the positions he had held within the government, he had carried out his duties as expected. No authority or individual under his control had been accused of committing crimes, and in particular not the acts discussed in the present trial.

He stated that, prior to the trial, he had not been aware of any public threats made by Yahya Jammeh against the population. According to him, there had been no state policy targeting civilians during his tenure, nor had he known of any such cases. Those who had been targeted, he said, were the individuals involved in attempted coups in 2000 and 2006.

Regarding the 2016 events, he maintained that the demonstration had been unauthorised and therefore illegal, which explained the arrests, and that journalists had circulated false information. He stated that the security services in The Gambia had not coordinated to attack the population, and added that what happened resulted from spontaneous actions by security forces.

During his 10 years as Minister of the Interior, he had never had any discussions about torture. He had participated in the UPR in Geneva because he was involved in state security matters, not human rights, which fell under the Ministry of Justice.

Sonko explained that he had facilitated the visit to The Gambia of Juan Méndez, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on torture. Mr Méndez had commended the guidelines on the use of force that he had developed for police forces.

He stated that Méndez had not been prevented from visiting certain parts of the Mile 2 prison, and that it was Méndez himself who had refused when he realised he would not be able to conduct the visit alone. He added that he did not know why Méndez had not been granted access to the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), and that he had not been aware of Méndez’s reports, which had been transmitted solely to the Minister of Justice. He further noted that NGO reports alleging torture in The Gambia had always been vague and had never mentioned the police.

During his tenure, he had not been aware of acts of torture carried out by the NIA, and in any event, it had not been under his effective control. He had never worked with or within the NIA, and its reports had not been transmitted to him. The agency had been directly under the President’s authority and reported to him without intermediary.

The Junglers had not existed as an official unit; they had been selected by the President himself from the State Guard to carry out his activities, namely the crimes highlighted by the TRRC. He had learned of their existence in 2006 but had only become aware of their activities through the questioning of Bai Lowe, who had been heard during the Swiss investigation.

Since 1995, a section of Mile 2 prison had been managed by the armed forces, which were not under his control. Access to this wing fell under the responsibility of the Director General of Prisons and the State Guard.

He had also sought to improve detention conditions by increasing the food budget for detainees, new structures had been built, and some prisoners released.

He had no comment on certain media reports suggesting that the number of victims of Jammeh’s regime was higher than that established by the TRRC.

• On the charges related to the January 2000 murder

[In first instance, Sonko was found guilty of killing AM, a perceived political opponent. At the time of the events, Sonko was serving as commander of the State Guards Battalion.]

Besides Landing Sanneh and AM, Sonko was not aware of other individuals involved in the 2000 coup attempt, and he did not know why they had confided in him about their intentions. If the coup would have succeeded, and Landing Sanneh would have become President, Sonko would not have been assigned any role in the new government, and he did not know what position AM would have held.

The operations carried out in connection with Landing Sanneh and AM had complied with constitutional and regulatory rules: they had been justified and in accordance with the principle of proportionality. At the time, AM had been an active armed soldier on duty at the state house.

Jammeh had ordered their arrest because they had been enemies of the state given their intent to overthrow the government. Whilst it had been necessary to stop them, it had not been planned for AM to be killed.

Sonko reiterated that he had committed no offence in relation to AM: both the Gambian Constitution and the rules on the use of force had been respected. He added that it was incorrect to portray AM as a political opponent of the President, because he himself had chosen to betray his oath and the Gambian people through the coup attempt.

President Jammeh had never thanked Sonko for reporting the plan to overthrow him.

• On charges of multiple rapes committed against the same person between 2000–2002 and in 2005

[In first instance, all charges of sexual violence were discontinued.]

Sonko stated that he had no sexual interaction with the plaintiff, G., who accused him of rape, and that what was written on the indictment was a lie, and that he had an alibi. He then said nothing more on the matter, and referred to what he had said during his interrogation and in the first instance trial.

• On the repression of alleged coup in March 2006

[In March 2006, an alleged coup plot against Jammeh is discovered and thwarted. In first instance, Sonko was found guilty of the unlawful deprivation of liberty and acts of torture. At the time, Sonko was Inspector General of the national police.]

Sonko stated that the people involved in the coup had been arrested by the Junglers, who were not under his command.

When the President set up a panel to investigate the March 2006 coup attempt, Sonko had not been part of it, as it fell under the NIA. He said he had only gone on a few occasions to observe, but that he had asked no questions and had reported his observations to no one, although he now could not remember what he had witnessed.

• On the killing of a politician in 2011

[In 2004, Baba Jobe, former majority leader in the National Assembly and a member of Jammeh’s Alliance for Patriotic Reorientation and Construction (APRC), was convicted of economic crimes following a fallout with the President. In 2011, he was killed in custody while hospitalised. At the time, Sonko occupied the position of Interior Minister.]

Sonko said he never ordered Junglers to enter Mile 2 prison or to have an officer posted near Mr Jobe so that military personnel could access him when he was transferred to hospital. He said those who claimed otherwise were lying.

He shared that he was not aware of the circumstances of Jobe’s death at the time and had no reason to doubt it was natural, as Jobe was ill. He explained he had nothing to do with Jobe’s death, and was unaware of any coordination between security services for that purpose. He added that the TRRC had concluded that Yahya Jammeh and the Junglers had been responsible for Jobe’s murder, and so he could not understand why he himself had been found responsible about it in first instance.

He added that Jobe’s family had expressly asked for no post-mortem investigation to be conducted, and they had asked Sonko to order for the body to be returned to them, which he did.

• On the 2016 events related to the 14 April demonstration

[On 14 April 2016, members of the United Democratic Party (UDP), the largest opposition party in The Gambia, organised a demonstration calling for electoral reform. Many were arrested and tortured. At first instance, Sonko was found guilty of unlawful deprivation of liberty and acts of torture against several demonstrators, including acts that led to the death of one detainee.]

Sonko explained that the 14 April demonstration had been illegal, as it had not been authorised. He had been informed about the demonstration by the then Inspector General of Police (IGP), who notified him that police officers had been deployed. The IGP then informed him of the subsequent arrests following the demonstration. Sonko did not enquire about what would happen to those who had been arrested: as a former IGP himself, he knew that an investigation would take place and, if needed, charges would be brought.

On 16 April, Sonko was informed that another protest had been organised in response to the arrests. He had then called the IGP to take necessary measures and later contacted him again for a report.

Sonko had then learned about the death of an individual who had been arrested during the first protest. The death had occurred at the NIA and had not been discussed with police officials. The Gambian court that examined these events in the trial known as “NIA 9” did not find Sonko or the police responsible, but rather officers of NIA. There had been no collaboration between the NIA and the police during the April 2016 events.

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

Proceedings will resume on Tuesday, 14 April.

——————————————————-

Week 1: The Appeal Trial Begins

30 March – 2 April

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.

1) 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. In its view, this amounted to an implicit decision not to prosecute those elements. The defence further claimed that the amendment was improper, as the first-instance court had effectively pushed the OAG 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.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) 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 of Appeals 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.

5) 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

1) 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.

2) 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:

1) 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.

2) 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.

3) 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 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 the victim 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 civil parties 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.

——————————————————-

The Trial of Ousman Sonko

Ousman Sonko, the former Gambian Interior Minister under former president Yahya Jammeh who was tried for committing multiple crimes including torture, murder, unlawful detention and sexual abuse between the years of 2000 to 2016. These crimes are those that amount to crimes against humanity. Ousman Sonkko was tried, found guilty and sentenced in Switzerland under the law of Universal Jurisdiction. The TRRC recommended for Sonko to be tried for these crimes but he is not in the Jurisdiction of the Gambia. Universal jurisdiction is a principle of international law which mandates another country to prosecute such offenders when they flee out of the jurisdiction that they committed those crimes in.

 

Note: Permission has been sought from all Plaintiffs for the explicit use of their names in this summary.

 

1. The Proceedings against Ousman Sonko have been abandoned as regards to the charges of:

• Multiple charges of rape to the detriment of Binta Jamba.
• Rape to the detriment of Ramzia Diab.

2. The Swiss criminal Chamber finds Ousman Sonko guilty:

• Of multiple counts of intentional homicide as a crime against humanity in the death of Almamo Manneh, Baba Jobe and Ebrima Solo Sandeng.
• Of multiple counts of false imprisonment as a crime against humanity to the detriment of Bunja Darboe, Demba Dem, Ramzia Diab, Musa Saidykhan and Madi Ceesay.
• Multiple counts of torture as a crime against humanity to the detriment of Bunja Darboe, RamziaDiab, Demba Dem, Musa Saidykhan, Madi Ceesay, Ebrima Solo Sandeng, Nogoi Njie, Modou Ngum, Fatou Camara, Fatoumatta Jawara, and ModuTouray.

3. Ousman Sonko was therefore sentenced to a custodian sentence of 20 years in prison.

• The time served in trial – trial detention before the judgement, of a total of 7 years and 3 months shall be considered in the execution of the sentence.
• Ousman Sonko is also expulsed (entry ban and exclusion order) from Switzerland for a period of 12 years.
• Ousman Sonko will be serving his sentence in the district of Bern, Switzerland.

4. The cash amount of money seized from Ousman Sonko at the time of his arrest amounts to CHF 14,413.30.
5. Ousman Sonko has not been granted either damage or compensation for pain and suffering.
6. Ousman Sonko is obliged to pay the private claimants compensation for pain and suffering.
7. The request made by Sonko to investigate his detention conditions and determine its unlawfulness has been dismissed.