By
Willow Osgood
BEIRUT:
Defense teams of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon accused the U.N. Security Council
Wednesday of establishing the court “ to ensure the success of one political
party” in Lebanon.
In
their first appearance in a public hearing at the court, the attorneys for the
four Hezbollah members indicted in the 2005 assassination of former Prime
Minister Rafik Hariri presented their pretrial motions challenging the
jurisdiction and legality of the court, arguing that Security Council
Resolution 1757, which created the STL, was an abuse of power and a violation
of international law.
The
argument hinges on the steps leading up to the May 2007 resolution, when the
Lebanese Cabinet was negotiating with the U.N. to establish a special court.
That eventual agreement was neither signed by then-President Emile Lahoud, nor
was it approved by Parliament, both steps required by the Lebanese Constitution
to pass an international treaty.
The
defense teams maintain that when the Security Council passed the resolution, it
was a unilateral imposition of the agreement on Lebanon in violation of the
country’s sovereignty and international law, which requires that both parties
agree to the terms of an international treaty.
“Resolution
1757 is inexistent legally with respect to Lebanese law,” said Antoine Korkmaz,
who represents Mustafa Baddredine.
They
further argued that the Security Council invoked Chapter VII not because it
believed there was a threat to international peace, but in order to get around
domestic obstacles to the agreement’s ratification.
“The
Security Council used its powers ... to ensure the success of one political
party over the other in the state of Lebanon,” argued Korkmaz. “The U.N.
Security Council took sides.”
The
court has long faced accusations by its detractors that it is a political tool
being used to target rivals of the Future Movement, the party founded by
Hariri.
Emile
Aoun, who represents Salim Ayyash, referred to the preamble of Resolution 1757
which requested that Lebanon ratify the agreement by June 10, 2007, but would
enter into effect without the country’s approval.
“This
was a kind of threat to Lebanese authorities in case they didn’t respond,” Aoun
said, describing it as “unlawful coercion.” “Either you ratify it or we ratify
it for you,” summed up Vincent Courcelle-Labrousse, counsel for Hussein
Oneissi.
But
prosecutor Norman Farrell replied that the defense’s emphasis on Lebanon’s
consent was “a bit misplaced,” arguing that the Security Council did not need
permission to invoke Chapter VII and the country that is the subject of the
resolution, as a member of the U.N., has already ceded its sovereignty in those
cases.
The
defense also took issue with the Council’s estimation of the attack as a threat
to international peace, arguing that it may not have constituted such a threat
in 2005 and certainly did not two years after Hariri’s killing, when the
resolution was passed.
In
his remarks, Korkmaz asked why the Security Council did not consider the 2006
war with Israel, which caused thousands of civilian deaths in just over a
month, “sufficiently serious” to be a threat to international peace, while Aoun
asked the same question in reference to the Civil War, during which tens of
thousands of Lebanese were killed.
Farrell
countered by arguing that the Security Council has “wide discretion” to make
such judgments and that establishing a court to try acts of terrorism is
“completely in conformity” with the U.N. The prosecutor told the court that it
“shouldn’t entertain the invitation to determine whether [the 2005 attack] did
pose a threat.”
Farrell
also argued that all defense motions on the legality of the creation of the
court were inadmissible because the rules of the STL allowing for pretrial
motions on jurisdiction did not make mention of such challenges.
The
defense maintained that it was within the authority of the court to decide
whether it was legally created, arguing that the judicial review of a Security
Council resolution has legal precedent, an assertion questioned repeatedly by
the Trial Chamber judges.
Arguments will continue
Thursday when attorneys for the victims will give their observations. A date
has not been set for the ruling, but STL spokesman Marten Youssef said it could
come before the judges go on recess in late July.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Jun-14/176797-defense-stl-created-to-ensure-one-party-prevails.ashx#axzz1xnReWakn
No comments:
Post a Comment