Media Advisory - Appeals Chamber hearing on jurisdiction - Background

Leidschendam, 1 October 2012 - The Appeals Chamber is holding a public hearing on 1 October 2012 to allow the Defence to present challenges to the Tribunal's jurisdiction on appeal.
Defence counsel have appealed a ruling by the Trial Chamber that confirmed the Tribunal's legality and jurisdiction over the 14 February 2005 attack in Beirut.
 
If the Appeals Chamber upholds the STL's jurisdiction, preparations will continue for the tentative start of trial on 25 March 2013.
 
Defence lawyers argued in their appeals that the UN Security Council abused its power when it adopted Resolution 1757, which established the Tribunal. Defence counsel added that the Appeals Chamber has the power to review the legality of the Resolution and to declare that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon was illegally established.
 
"Security Council Resolutions are not unassailable documents," the Defence team for Salim Ayyash, one of the accused, said in its appeal.
 
The Defence team for Mustafa Badreddine also argued that the 14 February 2005 attack did not constitute a threat to international peace and security, and that the Tribunal's establishment was intended for the benefit of one political faction.
 
In July, the Trial Chamber dismissed the Defence motions, saying that the Tribunal was set up legally, that it does not violate Lebanese sovereignty, and that it guarantees the accused the right to a fair trial. The Trial Chamber concluded that it did not have the authority to review a Security Council Resolution, and that Lebanon never claimed that the Tribunal was a violation of its sovereignty.
 
The Appeals Chamber also specified a number of legal issues which it invites the parties to address during the hearing.
 

Defence counsel granted license to continue representing Mustafa Badreddine

Leidschendam, 21 September 2012 – The United States authorities issued yesterday the licence required for Mr John Jones to continue to represent Mr Mustafa Badreddine, one of the accused in the Ayyash et al proceedings.

The US Treasury Department had imposed sanctions against Mr Badreddine last week. The defence counsel for Mr Badreddine had requested clarification from the Tribunal's President on whether Mr Jones, a dual US/UK citizen, can continue to represent Mr Badreddine.

Mr Badreddine's defence team can now continue to prepare for trial. The Appeals Chamber has scheduled a hearing on 1 October for the Defence to present a final challenge to the Tribunal's legality.

The Pre-Trial Judge has set 25 March 2013 as the tentative date for trial to begin.

Media accreditation for the Appeals Chamber hearing on jurisdiction and the Pre-Trial status conference

Leidschendam 21 September 2012 - The Appeals Chamber has scheduled an open hearing on 1 October at 9:15 AM to hear the appeal against the decision on the jurisdiction and the legality of the Tribunal.

The Trial Chamber dismissed on 27 July the four Defence motions challenging the jurisdiction and legality of the Tribunal. The counsel for three of the accused (Salim Ayyash, Mustafa Badreddine and Hussein Oneissi) appealed against this decision on 24 August 2012.

As part of his duties to ensure that the proceedings are not unduly delayed, the Pre-Trial Judge has scheduled a Status Conference on Friday 28 September 2012 at 10:00 AM. The Status Conference will be public; however the Judge might decide to go into closed session during the course of the hearing if confidential matters need to be discussed. The last Status Conference took place on 26 July 2012.

***

 

Media Advisory – Pre-Trial Judge recognises additional victims

Leidschendam, 4 September 2012 – The Pre-Trial Judge, Daniel Fransen, has granted nine additional persons the status of victims participating in the Ayyash et al proceedings.
The nine victims will form part of the existing group of 58 victims whose status as victims participating in the proceedings Judge Fransen recognised in a decision in May 2012.
"The Pre-Trial Judge's decision to increase the number of participating victims is a timely reminder that, whatever motives lay behind the detonation of 14 February 2005, there remains a substantial body of people across the divides of politics or religion for whom the event was life-changing," said Peter Haynes, lead legal representative for victims. "For them the Tribunal's work in discovering the truth behind their loss is a vital belief to cling to."
 

Trial Chamber rules on jurisdiction

Leidschendam, 30 July 2012 – The Trial Chamber confirmed the Special Tribunal for Lebanon's jurisdiction to try those accused of committing the 14 February 2005 attack and connected cases, in a decision published today.

The Trial Chamber dismissed all the motions of the Defence Counsel, who argued that the Tribunal was set up illegally, violates Lebanese sovereignty, has selective jurisdiction and does not guarantee the accused a right to fair trial.

The Trial Chamber's decision is subject to an appeal.

The challenge to the Tribunal's jurisdiction is a preliminary motion that must be dealt with before trial begins. The Pre-Trial Judge recently set 25 March 2013 as the tentative date for the start of trial. The Defence Counsel in the Ayyash and others. case filed motions in early May challenging the legality and jurisdiction of the STL. The Trial Chamber later held a hearing on 13 and 14 June to hear oral arguments from the Prosecution, the Defence Counsel and the legal representatives for victim

Legality versus jurisdiction

The Trial Chamber found that the defence motions are not challenges to jurisdiction but rather challenges to legality, or the validity, of the Tribunal. The challenges therefore do not fall within the definition of a preliminary motion.

Lebanese sovereignty

The Trial Chamber found that the United Nations Security Council established the STL when it passed Resolution 1757 in May 2007.

"Resolution 1757 is the sole basis of establishing the Tribunal," the judges wrote in their decision, and Lebanon, as a member state of the United Nations has complied with its obligations under the Resolution.

Because of this, the Trial Chamber found that it was not necessary to examine any issues in the Defence motions alleging violation of Lebanese domestic law.

Furthermore, the Trial Chamber found that the state of Lebanon has never claimed a violation of its sovereignty. "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, including; presenting a list of 12 persons to be appointed as judges by the Secretary-General, appointing a Deputy Prosecutor, recognizing the juridical capacity of the Tribunal to enter into agreements with states by concluding the Memoranda of Understanding with the Tribunal, contributing significantly to financing the Tribunal, facilitating establishing the Tribunal's Beirut field office, complying with requests for assistance from the Tribunal, and deferring to the Tribunal's jurisdiction the cases related to the 14 February 2005 attack," the judges said.

"The Trial Chamber thus cannot make a finding of any violation of Lebanese sovereignty."

The power to review the Security Council Resolution

The Trial Chamber found that had it no power to review the actions of the Security Council in establishing the Tribunal and that "No other judicial body possesses such a power of potential judicial review of the Security Council".

Further, the Trial Chamber found that, because the United Nations may establish a court, a Tribunal established by the United Nations or Security council, such as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, has been validly "established by law".

The selective nature of the Tribunal

The Trial Chamber found that the limited jurisdiction of the Tribunal did not infringe any of the Accused's fundamental rights to a fair trial.

"Criminal investigation and prosecution is unavoidably selective in any system" the Trial Chamber held.

And such "selectivity" is a normal part of international criminal jurisdictions such as the STL's "and an inevitable consequence of establishing an international criminal court or tribunal," the Trial Chamber found.

Fundamental rights of the accused

The Trial Chamber found that the Tribunal's procedures under its Statute and Rules and it obligation to strictly apply the principles of international human rights law guarantee the Accused, "all relevant and necessary rights to a fair trial". The establishment of the Tribunal does not violate the rights of the Accused to a fair trial.

Pre-Trial Judge sets tentative date for trial

Leidschendam, 9 July 012 - The Pre-Trial Judge issued today an order setting 5 March 013 as a tentative date for trial to start in the Ayyash et al case.

The order provides the parties and the victims' legal representatives with a concrete starting date allowing them to continue preparing for trial.

"The setting of a provisional date for trial by Judge Daniel Fransen is an important judicial step on the road to trial," said Marten Youssef, the Tribunal's spokesperson.

The Pre-Trial Judge issued his order after consulting with the Prosecution, Defence, and President of the STL.

The rules of the Tribunal require the Pre-Trial Judge to set a tentative date for trial. That date may be subject to change pending further developments, such as the possibility of the Prosecutor filing a request to amend the indictment or the arrest.

It is also subject to the Trial Chamber's decision on the Tribunal's jurisdiction and their rulings on other preliminary motions.

In issuing the order, the Pre-Trial Judge considered the complexity and the gravity of the case and the need for defense counsel to have enough time to prepare their defence and to conduct their investigations.

In the meantime, the Pre-Trial Judge intends to continue actively pursuing his mandate to prepare and facilitate a fair and expeditious trial.

Media Advisory - Appeals Chamber rejects request to reconsider decision on the applicable law

Leidschendam, 18 July 2012 - The Appeals Chamber issued today a decision rejecting the request of the Defence to reconsider its ruling of 16 February 2011, which defined terrorism for the first time in international law.
The Defence argued that the content of the decision should be revisited. They also challenged the procedure followed to issue that decision. The Appeals Chamber decided that in order to reconsider its 16 February 2011 decision, the Defence must show that the accused suffered a prejudice from that decision. The Chamber found that the Defence failed to show any harm against the accused and rejected the request.

On 16 February 2011, the Appeals Chamber had issued a decision on 15 questions of law submitted by the Pre-Trial Judge to assist him in the confirmation of the indictment against the four accused. In that decision, the Chamber explained how the Tribunal should apply Lebanese law and defined the crimes of terrorism, conspiracy and homicide.