Special Tribunal for Lebanon readies for trial

(Vatican Radio) On December 13, 2005 the Government of the Lebanese Republic requested the UN to establish a tribunal of an international character to try all those who are alleged responsible for the February 14^th 2005 bombing in Beirut that killed the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri and 22 others. The United Nations and the Lebanese Republic subsequently negotiated agreements establishing first an investigative commission and later, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon which began operations in March 2009.

The Tribunal, the first international court to investigate charges of terrorism, has indicted four men allegedly connected to Hezbollah, which is currently a party to the Lebanese government. None of the suspects has been arrested.

Prosecutors have handed in their pre-trial briefing and the trial in absentia is due to begin in the Netherlands in March 2013. Tracey McClure asked the Registrar, or Chief Executive, for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, Herman Von Hebel to shed some light on how investigations have progressed into the assassination of the former Lebanese prime minister and why the accused haven’t been extradited for trial?

Listen to Tracey McClure's interview with Herman von Hebel:

A: The investigations have progressed to such an extent that it has first led to the prosecutor issuing the indictment against the four accused persons. That indictment has been confirmed by the pre trial judge so it is clear that the judge sees that there is sufficient basis to proceed for trial and ….now there is the pre-trial brief that was submitted by the prosecutor on November 15^th and that is basically a document that sets out a strategy and the philosophy of the prosecutor in relation to those four accused persons. As far as the four accused persons are concerned, since the indictment was confirmed by the pre-trial judge, we are in regular contact with the Lebanese authorities and in particular the Prosecutor General in Beirut and the Prosecutor General gives us monthly reports on activities undertaken in order to search for the accused persons. So although our rules do allow for trials without the presence of the accused, even the start of the trial does not stop the obligation for Lebanon to continue to search for those four accused persons. And they are continuing to do that… but so far unfortunately… not leading to the concrete results of an arrest of the four accused and then (their) transfer to the tribunal.

Q: The four men who’ve been indicted are Lebanese Shia muslims associated with the Hezbollah group – which of course is currently part of the Lebanese government. Hezbollah has condemned the indictments – just how are relations with the Lebanese government proceeding?

A: That’s a very interesting question. Of course the relations with the Lebanese government over all, from our perspective, are very positive. Lebanon is obliged to pay 49% of the tribunal’s budget and (they) have so far always done so in a timely fashion. They have the obligation to assist us in investigative activities, in the search for the accused persons – those activities are ongoing – of course, not leading to the concrete results of the arrest of those people. But notwithstanding that, the cooperation is a very positive one and there’s in general a commitment to work with the tribunal and then it’s also part of an obligation imposed on Lebanon because of the fact that the tribunal was established by a resolution of the (U.N.) Security Council – a binding resolution. So whether or not certain parties are part of the government in itself doesn’t change the legal obligations for the State as such and thereby the government, in implementing those obligations and whether some parties may not like those obligations, from our perspective, is immaterial. The obligation is there and we keep a constant eye on how those obligations are being implemented.

Q: The tribunal’s credibility has been called into question especially after four pro-Syrian suspects were detained for four years before charges against them were dropped. What evidence arose that brought about this turn around and did it damage the tribunal’s reputation?

A: We have to make a distinction between the period prior to the first of March 2009 when the tribunal was established and the period before. In the period before, you had an investigations commission and that was established by the Security Council but the task of that commission was to assist the Lebanese authorities in the investigations. So the decision as to the arrest of those four accused persons at the time was a responsibility of the Lebanese authorities. Then when the tribunal got established on March 1, 2009, that was the moment when the case against those four was officially transferred to the tribunal and it was at the request of the Prosecutor at that time to seek, with the judges, to release the persons because at that moment, there was not sufficient material to justify the continued detention and deprivation of liberty of those accused. So I rather see that as a strength of our system: that our legal system ensures that without sufficient factual basis, there is no possibility of depriving… people of their liberty. Of course, since then investigations have gone on and we have now seen of course that four different people have been indicted but there again I see it as a strength of our legal system: that issues like arrest, deprivation of liberty, etc are based on judicial determinations about the strength of a case that a prosecutor brings to us.

Q: You are responsible also for the tribunal’s witness protection program – according to its pre-trial brief, the prosecution expects to call 557 witnesses – are you sufficiently worried about the safety of any of these witnesses to place them in such a program?

A: Let me first in general say that for any proceedings, whether on a national or an international basis, the participation of witnesses of course is crucial in order to present a case and to convince judges of the strength of a particular case. So witness protection, witness support, is a crucial element of our operations. From what I understand also in further discussions between the prosecutor and the present pre-trial judge, it is intended that probably about over a hundred people will actually have to appear before the trial chamber in due course when the trial will get started. So there will be more witnesses, but not necessarily all of those witnesses have to actually appear before the trial chamber. Out of those hundred +, we are confident that we have a unit here with high professionals involved that are able to assess for each and every of those witnesses the potential risks involved and the kind of measures that may be necessary in order to protect them. In general principle of course, in proceedings, you always like that witnesses can testify in public so that everyone can see how witnesses do testify. But if there are justifications, and those are for judges to decide, then it may be that witnesses may testify either under a pseudonym or with face or voice distortion or completely in closed session, etc. That depends on the risk assessment and the people that we have here within that section have a lot of experience in other tribunals as well and so I am confident that we are able to give the level of protection that witnesses may require.

Q: And presumably those levels of protection are also available to witnesses in Lebanon?

A: Yes, we have systems in place in Lebanon and outside of Lebanon in order to ensure that witnesses are safe prior to, during and after testimony. And obviously for security reason can’t go into details but the overall packet is such that we can guarantee such safeguards for all witnesses that may be called to appear before the tribunal.

Q: You have been involved with a number of international tribunals – Is it true that this is the first such tribunal to investigate cases of terrorism?

A: Yes, that is correct. I have been involved in the Yugoslav Tribunal for over five years, the special court for Sierra Leone for three years and now the Lebanon Tribunal for over three years. This is the first international tribunal that deals really with terrorism cases. All other international tribunals deal with crimes as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes. In that respect, this tribunal is different from those other tribunals. It also means that investigations are often of a different nature; the procedures will be of a slightly different nature, and the investigations simply are often of a highly complex nature and hence also why the prosecution’s office and before that the investigations commission, have to spend a substantial period of time of course on trying to dig out all of the relevant information and make a case that is presentable to judges.

Q: We have talked about the other international tribunals such as the one for the former Yugoslavia and others. How do you see the development of international justice with tribunals such as these?

A: I think that we have seen in the first tribunal was, the Yugoslav tribunal was established in 1993 so nearly twenty years ago – and you can see that the life of those tribunals have really a huge impact on international law and has a huge impact on how we see issues of justice on an international level. Whereas probably up to the late 80’s, impunity for perpetrators of crimes was more the rule than the exception, with the establishment of the Yugoslav Tribunal, later on the Rwanda tribunal, the permanent International Criminal Court, the chambers in Cambodia, the special court for Sierra Leone and also the Lebanon Tribunal, you actually see that there has been a huge push for the fight against impunity and now it’s criminal accountability that is the norm and impunity that is the exception. I think that is an incredibly important development in less than twenty years. And I think it has greatly impacted international relations and development in many countries.

Q: Yet many of these tribunals have come under repeated criticism and often very heavy criticisms regarding their jurisdiction, their rulings, their practices. What international recognition do these tribunals actually really enjoy?

A: That is a very interesting thing. In that respect I must say, if we compare the international tribunals with national jurisdictions then… justice is always an issue that keeps people incredibly engaged and busy and also national cases, prominent national cases can often lead to very strong reactions from the public. It shows that the public is very much interested in justice. From that perspective, I also see the public at large, the number of non-governmental organizations that are interested in the work of those tribunals is absolutely tremendous. And in that respect, in my view I see it as a very strong positive development that notwithstanding the criticism, and we are still talking about very new sort of institutions and there is much to learn and to further develop, but that it has already put a very positive spin to issues of international justice and to accountability. I have for example, in Sierra Leone, been involved in many activities of reaching out to the local population about the work of the Special Court and when I for example went into small villages and showed videos of Charles Taylor, the former President of Liberia, sitting in the court room and seeing that he is given a fair trial, that has a huge impact on the people on the ground. And there’s always a very positive reaction. That is a form of justice that we want to see on a national level as well so you actually see that international justice also becomes an example of what should happen on national levels. And I see there’s a sort of strengthening between national justice and international justice and there again, obviously, there is criticism possible, the system is still in development, but overall, I see that as a very concrete development to international justice and international relations.