Appeals Chamber dismisses in absentia appeals

Leidschendam, 1 November 2012 - The Appeals Chamber unanimously dismissed challenges by the Defence asking for a review of the decision to begin an in absentia trial against the four men accused in the 14 February 2005 attack.
 
The Trial Chamber decided in February to try the four accused – Salim Ayyash, Mustafa Badreddine, Hussein Oneissi and Assad Sabra –in their absence after they failed to appear before the Tribunal.
 
Upon being appointed, lawyers for the four accused asked the Trial Chamber to reconsider its ruling, but the judges denied the request. Defence counsel appealed that decision.
 
The Trial Chamber's judges considered the efforts by the Lebanese authorities to find the accused and inform them of the proceedings against them, as well as the massive publicity that the indictment and the identities of the accused received in Lebanon. The Chamber found that under the circumstances, it was inconceivable that the Accused were unaware of the indictment against them and that everything was done to notify them.
 
In a decision published today, the Appeals judges confirmed the Trial Chamber's finding that the accused had knowledge of the charges and proceedings against them.
 
Trials in absentia are permissible under Lebanese law and are a measure of last resort to ensure that those who abscond do not delay the course of justice. The STL is the only international court since the Nuremberg tribunal to allow for trials in absentia, because it applies Lebanese law as well as international law.
 
The Tribunal will continue to prepare for trial in the Ayyash et al case. Pre-Trial Judge Daniel Fransen set 25 March 2013 as the tentative start date for trial.

Appeals Chamber rules on legality

Leidschendam, 24 October 2012 – The Appeals Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has unanimously dismissed Defence challenges to the Tribunal's legality.

Defence counsel had challenged, before the Trial Chamber, the legality of the Tribunal arguing that it violates Lebanese sovereignty, that the Tribunal has selective jurisdiction and no authority to try the Accused.

On 27 July, the Trial Chamber dismissed the Defence motions noting that the Tribunal was created by Security Council Resolution 1757 and the Trial Chamber did not have the authority to review this Resolution. It rejected all Defence challenges. The decision was appealed by counsel for three of the four Accused.

Four of the five Appeals Chamber judges agreed in their decision, issued today, that they lacked the authority to review a Security Council Resolution. However, in a separate opinion, Judge David Baragwanath expressed the view that the STL, as a court of law, must exercise a limited authority to review certain aspects of Security Council resolutions. He nonetheless concluded that the Defence Counsel have failed to establish that the Security Council acted beyond its authority and joined the other judges in dismissing the appeals.

Defence Counsel have argued in both Chambers that while the 14 February 2005 attack was tragic, it did not constitute a threat to international peace and security, which was the prerequisite for the Security Council's intervention to establish the STL.

The Appeals Chamber "considers that the Security Council has a broad discretion as to the characterization of a particular situation as a threat to peace and security and that the Tribunal cannot judicially review the Security Council's actions," the summary of the decision reads.

The judges of the Appeals Chamber also noted that once the Security Council identified the existence of a threat to peace and security under its Charter, it had discretion to determine which measures are required to maintain or restore international peace and security, in this case, the creation of a Tribunal.

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.