BEIRUT: The Appeals Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) ruled Wednesday in favor of allowing the tribunal to decide whether former General Jamil Sayyed could see evidence concerning his case, in a step seen by analysts as boosting the UN-backed court’s image.
According to the judges’ ruling, the court can now hear Sayyed’s petition to see the testimony of the “false witnesses” whom he says implicated him and others in the 2005 killing of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Sayyed along with three other security chiefs were detained from 2005-2009 in connection with the assassination.
The 31-page decision, signed by Appeals Chamber and tribunal president Antonio Cassese, also contained numerous and pointed rebukes of prosecutor Daniel Bellemare’s defense against Sayyed’s filing. The ruling, which cannot be appealed, says that Sayyed has legal standing to petition the court in order to remedy the alleged injustice of his wrongful detention; pretrial Judge Daniel Fransen will now have to rule on Sayyed’s request to see the evidence related to him.
Sayyed, the former head of General Security has long criticized the early investigation as politicized, while Hizbullah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah has said the court is an Israeli and US tool designed to weaken the group by indicting its members.
However, by ruling in Sayyed’s favor over the protestations of Bellemare, the tribunal might well have improved its standing in the eyes of many Lebanese as a fair arbiter of justice, said Paul Salem, head of the Carnegie Middle East Center. In finding that the tribunal has jurisdiction over Sayyed’s case, Cassese wrote that such an affirmation is consistent with “the principle of fair administration of justice and full respect for the rights of all those involved in the proceedings before this tribunal.”
After the welter of criticism that Hizbullah and its allies have leveled at the court in recent months, the verdict demonstrates that the STL’s judges are capable of impartial deliberation, said Sari Hanafi, professor of transitional justice at the American University of Beirut.
“This reinforces the raison d’etre of this tribunal, that … it’s not biased in one direction,” he said. “The judges are impartial and ready to open the file of the previous witnesses.
“It’s absolutely a great step toward redressing the image of the tribunal.”
Hizbullah and its allies in the Cabinet have been pressing Hariri to have the government order the Judicial Council investigate the testimony of witnesses to the former UN International Independent Investigation Commission, which was looking into the killing of Rafik Hariri and other political violence. The Hariri-led March 14 political coalition has balked at remanding the issue to the Judicial Council, with many arguing that Lebanon has no authority over testimony given to the UN commission.
With many expecting the looming indictment in Hariri’s assassination to name Hizbullah members, Hizbullah might also be publicly flogging the misleading testimony in order to hamper the court and put the focus elsewhere, Salem said. “They’re trying to do the false witnesses issue to delay or obstruct,” he added. “We’re headed to different forms of standoff [and] paralysis.”
On the other hand, Hanafi said that the similarity of the apparently untrue statements made by a number of witnesses claiming Syrian involvement in the killing deserved further inquiry, whether by the Lebanese legal system or the STL. “It’s a very legitimate point,” he said. In addition, the tribunal must also figure out how to proceed with any evidence secured in the telecommunications sector, after a number of alleged Israeli spies were arrested this year among the nation’s telecom providers, Hanafi added.
“What’s at stake is the image and reputation of the Special Tribunal,” Hanafi said. “Bellemare cannot be blind about the [witnesses] issue.
“What’s at stake is the image and reputation of the Special Tribunal,” Hanafi said. “Bellemare cannot be blind about the [witnesses] issue.
“The indictment should not be revealed before there is a clear response from the international tribunal about the false witnesses. Otherwise, we risk the destabilization of Lebanon.”
A tribunal spokesperson would not rule out the possibility that the court will address the issue once trials begin. “If the issue of the reliability of statements to other tribunals, to Lebanese law enforcement or to the [UN commission] is brought before the judges by one of the participants in the proceedings, it might be dealt with at trial,” the speaker told The Daily Star
The tribunal, meanwhile, has turned into the central point of contention among Lebanon’s polarized political camps, and Hanafi said Hizbullah had erred in labeling the court part of an Israeli conspiracy.
“The issue of false witnesses … is absolutely a good point raised by Hizbullah; the problem is that Hizbullah is going beyond that, to mobilize the street and to go after the prosecutor,” he said. “The problem is not that the US wanted this tribunal – it’s the US plus half of Lebanon.”
Beyond the political aspect of witness statements, the legal principle of witness confidentiality will also require the judges and others to proceed carefully with giving Sayyed access to testimony or in any investigation, Hanafi said. “The issue is to protect these witnesses,” he added. “Confidentiality … should be kept, according to international law. There is a consensus about the confidentiality of what witnesses say.”
Wednesday’s ruling also touched on this consideration for the coming decision on Sayyed’s case, saying “the pretrial judge will have to strike a careful balance between the right of [Sayyed] to judicial remedy if his detention was wrongful, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the need for the prosecutor to conduct his investigation efficiently and with the ability to protect the confidentiality of witnesses and evidence.”
In dealing with Bellemare’s defense against Sayyed, however, the tribunal’s ruling offered blunt criticism; for example, Bellemare’s argument against having to translate his submissions into French for Sayyed “borders on the frivolous.” The ruling added that it was clear that Bellemare’s office was not responsible for translating his filings, but that the translating would be done by tribunal officials and only affected deadlines for further submissions. Cassese also wrote that Bellemare “should not have been surprised” by the pretrial judge’s procedure in the case.
In addition, Cassese rejected Bellemare’s argument that Sayyed did not have the standing to petition the tribunal because Sayyed was not a suspect, victim or third party. “This assumption is fallacious,” Wednesday’s decision said. “This is too narrow an approach.”
The verdict also said the Bellemare’s contentions about disclosing evidence to Sayyed “miss the point,” because they only focus on whether Sayyed is accused, when Sayyed’s petition for justice is essentially a human rights issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment