Jan 19, 2011 - 11:59:01 AM
In an exclusive interview with Naharnet, Special Tribunal for Lebanon Registrar Herman von Hebel on Wednesday confirmed that the indictment was submitted to pre-trial judge Daniel Fransen "in less than an hour" and said Lebanon was bound to cooperate with the tribunal. Hebel also stressed that street activity and leaks of documents do not affect the work of the court.
The following is the full text of the interview:
Q- The STL said the indictment was filed with the Tribunal Registrar, who WILL submit it to Fransen. Where is the indictment now? Did Fransen take delivery of the indictment or not?
A- When we received the indictment from the prosecutor on Monday we were able to deliver within less than an hour to the pre-trial judge it is really for the judge to study the indictment and all the supporting material.
Q- On what grounds did you ascertain that Fransen's review of evidence submitted with the indictment would take between 6 to 10 weeks (given that the law leaves the door open)?
A- Our rules do not give a specific timeframe within which he has to do it. The timeframe of at least 6 to ten weeks is based on experience and comparison of experience in other tribunals and it also takes into account the specifics of our tribunal and also there is a little bit of flexibility in the timeframe because we don't know whether the pre-trial judge (Fransen) may take use of the opportunity of asking a number of legal questions with the appeals chamber before he is going to confirm or not confirm the indictment.
Fransen will take a decision on whether he will have a legal question in, let's say, within a week from now, and then of course the Appeals Chamber will have to prepare a decision on that. In the meantime, he will continue to look into the factual basis of the case because the appeals chamber will purely look into the legal questions. But all in all we are confident that roughly within at least six to 10 weeks we will be able to prepare a decision. Again there is flexibility depending on whether Fransen has other questions. That's where the timeframe comes from.
Q- You have said that the evidence is contained in "thousands of pages" of documents and DVDs submitted with the indictment. The indictment in itself - without the documents and DVDs - is it concise or detailed?
A- The indictment has to provide a concise statement of the facts and of the role of the accused person or persons mentioned in the indictment. Whether that is the case of course it is for the judge to determine and in order for him to do a determination he needs to have access to the supporting material. On the basis of the supporting material, he can then determine whether the indictment has sufficient basis in order to really start trial against those person or persons mentioned in the indictment.
Q- On what grounds did you ascertain that the trial will begin in September?
A- In the best case scenario, let's say that the pre-trial judge would be able within six to 10 weeks to make a decision, then after that, there would be time necessary in order to see whether the accused person or persons will be arrested or whether there is a need to take a decision to go on with the trial in the absence of one or more accused person And when that is the case, there would always be a defense council serving the interest of an accused person and that council, of course, will also need time to prepare for that case, to read through all the material and, hence, on the basis of all those steps that need to be taken and if everything runs well and runs very smooth, then we may see a trial getting started in September or October. But that, of course, is an optimistic scenario.
Q- Is it true that Fransen reviewed those documents several months ago?
A- What had been happening in the past, is that the prosecutor was able through one of our procedure rules to discuss the case with the pre-trial judge that is purely on the basis of informal discussions between the prosecutor and the judge but the formal decision that the judge now has to take has to be done only on the basis of what has been given to him this Monday. What have been the kind of discussion between the prosecutor and the judge before, I don't know.
Q- In light of the street gatherings which may signal preparations to mobilize in relation to the submittal of the indictment, would this affect the work of the tribunal?
A- This is a very difficult question to answer. For us what is important is that we are able to work. It is, of course, necessary for the judge to study the material and as you know he is based here in The Hague. He has the material on his desk and he is studying that material and that will not be influenced by the situation in Lebanon. In general terms, the tribunal is an independent, an impartial organ and will have to function independently from the situation on the ground in Lebanon.
Q- If the Lebanese government should decide to stop cooperation with the STL, how would the tribunal react?
A- Of course it is always dangerous to answer in too much detail. Lebanon entered into an agreement with the U.N. It asked the assistance of the U.N. to establish this tribunal. In the end, also there was, of course, a binding resolution for Lebanon by the Security Council of the U.N. and hence, there is an obligation for Lebanon to continue to cooperate and provide financial resources to the tribunal. That obligation is independent of any government that may be in power at a particular time. There is a legal obligation that continues to apply. We are confident that that will continue to be the case and on basis of that obligation we will continue also our activities and preparations for the trial later this year.
Q- If Lebanon annulled the agreement with the STL, how would the tribunal deal with this?
A- I'm not sure whether there is a possibility to do so because by the end of the day that is a Security Council resolution that is binding on Lebanon and Lebanon is not in a position like anyone or any state under binding Security Council resolutions to unilaterally withdraw from those obligations. This is simply part of all the states that are partner and members of the U.N. and the same applies to Lebanon and having worked in other tribunals I have seen similar discussions, for example the Yugoslav tribunal. We always see that the obligation to cooperate in the end is a very strong one and it continues to guide the work and the activities of states and the activities of the tribunal. So we are very confident that we can continue our work based on that Security Council resolution.
Q- Another major problem is: The unauthorized broadcasts on some Lebanese TV channels. Does the STL acknowledge it has a problem in maintaining confidentiality of documents?
A- You've seen a statement from the Prosecutor yesterday about it. We are able to continue our operations that are dependent of the broadcast of the serials. What is important to the pre-trial judge is to work on the basis of the material that has been submitted to him on Monday and that is not being affected by whether such material is being broadcast. I wouldn't even know whether the material that had been broadcast is even part of the material that the pre-trial judge has and whether or not that is the case. He will simply look into all the material that he has in order to make his own legal determination whether there is a case that can be the base of a trial. I would like to refer to the statements by the prosecutor himself yesterday in which he indicated that he is going to investigate, and based on his investigation, I will consult with the prosecutor on how to deal with that. But for the entire function of the tribunal, we are not affected by these video showings. Our work will simply go on irrespective of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment