STL Amendments Confirm Tribunal Illegal, Unjust

Zoulfikar Daher - Translated

06/12/2010

“This is the weakest tribunal in history in terms of law and procedures,” Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said in his latest speech, referring to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. “This is a legislative and executive authority that does as it pleases and amends laws and regulations whenever it wants to. It is really odd how such power had been given to this tribunal,” his eminence pointed out.

That’s it. The Judges of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon had met in a plenary session from 8 to 11 November 2010 to consider, among other issues, proposed amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE).

Amongst the most important were changes to the rules governing the service of an indictment by detailing the practical steps that must be taken after the confirmation of an indictment, in particular regarding the start of in absentia proceedings.

• The Judges also adopted a procedure allowing the Pre-Trial Judge to submit questions to the Appeals Chamber on the interpretation of the applicable law that he believes are necessary for the confirmation of any indictment.
• The Judges also clarified the admissibility of written statements by witnesses unavailable to come and testify for good reasons.

What’s the impact of the new rule changes on the tribunal’s justice and its potential verdicts? Did these rule changes respect the laws, whether internationally or locally? Is it true that these changes constitute a precedent in the history of international tribunals and ignore all laws?

But even before answering these questions, a critical question must be asked. Legally, is it eligible for a tribunal or a judicial side to amend laws and regulations whenever it wants? Is it acceptable that the tribunal’s judges amend the tribunal’s laws themselves?

In this context, expert in international law Dr. Hasan Jouni told Al-Manar website that the main mistake in the international tribunal’s system resides in the fact that it provides the tribunal’s judges with the ability to amend the laws that govern the Special Tribunal for Lebanon by themselves. “The STL should have independent committees with the mission of putting the Rules of Procedure and Evidence,” Jouni said. “For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) includes various committees with the aim of putting such rules,” he added.

Jouni, who said that the major danger is when the tribunal has the right to amend laws and regulations whenever it wants to, emphasized this was a precedent in the history of tribunals. “This is the first time we witness an international tribunal with its judges putting and amending its Rules of Regulation and Evidence,” he noted, adding that this truth contradicts the rules of justice in the world.

According to Jouni, the principle of giving the tribunal’s judges the right to amend the rules was not the alone precedent with this tribunal. Conducting trials in absentia, legalized by the amended rules, is also a precedent. Keeping witnesses secret is another precedent. Accepting written testimonies from witnesses who do not appear in the courtroom is also another one. All this allows everyone to join Sayyed Nasrallah in classifying the STL as the weakest tribunal in history in terms of law and procedures.

“Allowing the witnesses to remain secret and to submit their testimonies in a written way is a protection of false witnesses offered by the tribunal,” Jouni told Al-Manar website. “This way, the witnesses don’t have to attend and therefore, they can say whatever they want without having to facing those they accuse of involvement in the crimes,” he said. “This pushes us to believe that these amendments aimed at not embarrassing the judges in case they wanted to question the false witnesses. The only conclusion is that these amendments are suspicious because they might have happened as a result of pressure on the judges.”

For his part, Youssef Saadallah Khoury, a legal expert and former head of the State Shura Council in Lebanon, told Al-Manar website that conducting trials in absentia was strange at the international level. “Conducting trials in absentia is legal in principle, given that when the suspect is reachable, his trial must be repeated. However, conducting trials in absentia before international justice is very strange, especially that international tribunals are temporary with a specified mission, like the Special Tribunal for Lebanon tasked with reaching the truth in the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri,” he said.

“What if a suspect was sued in absentia and then the tribunal concluded its mission. What if the suspect was then detained? According to the law, his trial must take place again. But, in this case, the tribunal charged with his trial would be of the past. How would the international community deal with such a possible scenario?” Saadallah Khoury wondered, stressing that the amendments were not only strange but also provocative.

One thing is sure and certain. An illegal and illogical system that created a tribunal which does not enjoy the minimum requirements for international justice will only lead to violations such as the latest amendments to the Rules of Procedure and Evidence.

No doubt, such tribunal can’t lead to “justice”!

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian