Defense argues STL illegally established

The defense teams of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon argued Thursday that the U.N. Security Council abused its powers when it illegally established the court, urging the judges to find that the tribunal has no jurisdiction in the 2005 attack that killed former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. On the second day of hearings on defense motions challenging the court’s jurisdiction, Antoine Korkmaz, attorney for Mustafa Baddredine, one of the four Hezbollah members indicted by the Netherlands-based STL, cited a number of “legal oddities” in Security Council Resolution 1757, which established the court. Korkmaz charged that the 2005 attack was not one of three recognized international crimes – war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide – arguing that the crime should have therefore been handled domestically. “These oddities have created more of a disturbance to security in Lebanon than the threat the Security Council said it was trying to solve,” he continued. The defense asked the judges to decline jurisdiction in the case over what they described as the Security Council’s abuse of power and the resolution’s violation of international law. They maintain that it was clear by 2007 that the bombing was not a threat to international peace and that the Security Council invoked Chapter VII only in order to bypass political obstacles blocking the ratification of an agreement between Lebanon and the U.N. to create a court. Action under Chapter VII must be in response to threats to international peace and security. But prosecutor Norman Farrell argued that it was not the court’s job to determine whether the bombing posed a threat to international peace. “[The defense] is asking you to substitute your view for that of the Security Council ... With respect, the court doesn’t have jurisdiction to do that,” he said, adding “you don’t get to decide whether it was actually a threat or not.” He argued that the court could only decide whether the attack was within the “species or class” of acts that constitute such a threat. Emile Aoun, attorney for defendant Salim Ayyash, countered the prosecutor’s argument that Lebanon’s cooperation with the court, by paying its dues and compiling a list of Lebanese judges to serve in the court, indicated that its sovereignty had not been violated. “Our previous government headed by Saad Hariri refused to take a position vis-à-vis the Special Tribunal; this is why it resigned and a new one was established,” Aoun said. “Some said that acquiescence is a kind of approval, but silence doesn’t have any meaning in international law; it does not mean consent,” he added. The defense maintains that that resolution imposed an international treaty on Lebanon, in violation of its Constitution and sovereignty. Thursday’s hearing also saw the first appearance in a public session of the attorneys appointed to represent victims of the attack. The attorneys argue in their observations that court is necessary to uphold the rights of the victims. In their filing, they said that “any claim to Lebanese sovereignty over the investigation and prosecution of those responsible for the atrocities of February 14, 2005 is disingenuous.” They continued their observations by echoing the prosecution’s argument that the Security Council has wide powers and that Lebanon as a member state had agreed to Chapter VII resolutions. The victims “seek the truth, expiation, redress and justice and they have applied to this tribunal to give effect to the rights which nobody seriously challenges that they have,” said attorney Peter Haynes, addressing the court. A date for the ruling on the pretrial motions has yet to be set, but it could come before the judges go on recess in late July, according to STL spokesman Marten Youssef. In closing the hearing, Judge Roth granted a defense request for documents that were used for the February decision to move to trial in absentia. That hearing was not attended by the defense attorneys, who were officially assigned to represent the accused men, Baddredine, Ayyash, Hussein Oneissi and Assad Sabra, the following day. The defense is requesting that the court reconsider that decision.