By Willow Osgood
BEIRUT: The Special Tribunal for Lebanon rejected all defense
motions challenging the jurisdiction of the court in a decision published
Monday, clearing another hurdle in the runup to trial, tentatively set to begin
in March.
The defense counsel for the four men indicted in the attack that
killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others had argued before the
court that it had been established illegally, violates Lebanese sovereignty,
has selective jurisdiction and does not guarantee the accused a right to fair
trial.
But the Trial Chamber of the United Nations-backed court
dismissed the motions, confirming that it had jurisdiction to try the men
accused of the 2005 attack.
The decision can be appealed.
On arguments that the court violates Lebanese sovereignty
because it was not approved by the president or Parliament, the judges said
that “[U.N. Security Council] Resolution 1757 is the sole basis of establishing
the tribunal,” and Lebanon, as a member state of the U.N., had complied with
its obligations under the resolution.
Because of this, the Trial Chamber said it was not necessary to
examine any issues in the defense motions alleging that Lebanese law was
violated.
Furthermore, the judges found that Lebanon has never claimed
that its sovereignty had been violated.
“To the contrary, as a member state of the United Nations,
Lebanon has honored its obligations specified in the annex to the resolution by
taking all required steps,” the decision said, citing evidence of this
cooperation including a list of potential judges Lebanon presented to the
court, memoranda of understanding it made with the court and Lebanon’s
substantial contribution to the court’s budget and its compliance with requests
for assistance.
The Trial Chamber also said it had no power to review the
actions of the Security Council and that “no other judicial body possesses such
a power of potential judicial review of the Security Council.”The judges
rejected that the court was illegal – rather than without jurisdiction –
because the challenges didn’t fit under the definition of a preliminary motion.
The court
earlier dismissed a pretrial motion asking it to reconsider a February decision
to proceed to trial in absentia. It has yet to rule on defense motions filed in
late June on alleged defects in the form of the indictment.
http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Politics/2012/Jul-31/182746-stl-rejects-all-challenges-to-jurisdiction.ashx#axzz2259mU7Ab
No comments:
Post a Comment