BEIRUT: Friday will see the United Nations-backed court investigating the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri hold its most high-profile hearing to date, with both prosecution and defense counsels likely to agree it is too soon to hold in absentia trials for the four Hezbollah members accused of the crime.
The Trial Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon will hear the legal arguments of both Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare and head of the Defense Office Francois Roux over in absentia proceedings, and both appear to be on the same page.
This week Bellemare submitted that in absentia trials would be “premature,” given that it is not currently known why Hezbollah members he accused of assassinating Hariri have proven untraceable.
In an annex to this week’s submission, Bellemare argued that in absentia proceedings should be a “last resort.”
“[The STL’s] Trial Chamber may opt to initiate [in absentia proceedings] only when there is a failure to secure the appearance of the four accused in this case and following affirmative findings that the preconditions have been fully exhausted,” the Canadian judge wrote.
Bellemare accused Salim Jamil Ayyash, Mustafa Amine Badreddine, Hussein Hassan Oneissi and Assan Hassan Sabra in June of assassinating Hariri. Arrest warrants from the STL and Interpol were issued but the four have so far eluded security forces.
The Defense Office also appeared to suggest that in absentia trials would be untimely. “The issuance of arrest warrants occurred ex abrupto without having given the accused a chance to use new provisions in international criminal law to freely appear before the court either by video link or through counsel,” Roux wrote in a court submission.
The STL’s statue is based largely on international law, under which in absentia trials are applicable if adequate attempts have been made to trace the accused, the accused has waived his right to be present at trial, the absent accused is defended by counsel, or if the accused is entitled to a fresh determination of the worth of charges against him upon his appearance.
In August, then-STL President Antonio Cassese said Lebanon’s attempts to arrest suspects had been “not sufficient” and several steps have been taken by the court to help facilitate their detention. Bellemare argued that Lebanese authorities had been “either unwilling or unable” to apprehend the accused.
The court has divided Lebanon’s political circles, with STL detractors, lead by Hezbollah, calling for a boycott of a tribunal that has been labeled “an Israeli project.”
The tribunal’s Defense Office has assigned counsel to the four suspects to submit stances on in absentia proceedings during Friday’s session. The court has said it will only reveal the names of those attending the hearing at The Hague just before its 10:30 a.m. local start time, although it is thought Bellemare is unlikely to be present due to ongoing health problems.
In addition, the eight lawyers representing suspects are likely to stay away, instead allowing the Defense Office to present cases on their behalf.
The Trial Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon will hear the legal arguments of both Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare and head of the Defense Office Francois Roux over in absentia proceedings, and both appear to be on the same page.
This week Bellemare submitted that in absentia trials would be “premature,” given that it is not currently known why Hezbollah members he accused of assassinating Hariri have proven untraceable.
In an annex to this week’s submission, Bellemare argued that in absentia proceedings should be a “last resort.”
“[The STL’s] Trial Chamber may opt to initiate [in absentia proceedings] only when there is a failure to secure the appearance of the four accused in this case and following affirmative findings that the preconditions have been fully exhausted,” the Canadian judge wrote.
Bellemare accused Salim Jamil Ayyash, Mustafa Amine Badreddine, Hussein Hassan Oneissi and Assan Hassan Sabra in June of assassinating Hariri. Arrest warrants from the STL and Interpol were issued but the four have so far eluded security forces.
The Defense Office also appeared to suggest that in absentia trials would be untimely. “The issuance of arrest warrants occurred ex abrupto without having given the accused a chance to use new provisions in international criminal law to freely appear before the court either by video link or through counsel,” Roux wrote in a court submission.
The STL’s statue is based largely on international law, under which in absentia trials are applicable if adequate attempts have been made to trace the accused, the accused has waived his right to be present at trial, the absent accused is defended by counsel, or if the accused is entitled to a fresh determination of the worth of charges against him upon his appearance.
In August, then-STL President Antonio Cassese said Lebanon’s attempts to arrest suspects had been “not sufficient” and several steps have been taken by the court to help facilitate their detention. Bellemare argued that Lebanese authorities had been “either unwilling or unable” to apprehend the accused.
The court has divided Lebanon’s political circles, with STL detractors, lead by Hezbollah, calling for a boycott of a tribunal that has been labeled “an Israeli project.”
The tribunal’s Defense Office has assigned counsel to the four suspects to submit stances on in absentia proceedings during Friday’s session. The court has said it will only reveal the names of those attending the hearing at The Hague just before its 10:30 a.m. local start time, although it is thought Bellemare is unlikely to be present due to ongoing health problems.
In addition, the eight lawyers representing suspects are likely to stay away, instead allowing the Defense Office to present cases on their behalf.
No comments:
Post a Comment