Here is the text of the press release :

Beirut, 2 February 2012 – The Head of Defence Office assigned permanent counsel to the four accused in the case Prosecutor v. Ayyash et al.

The Trial Chamber decided that the accused will be tried in absentia. Today the Pre-Trial Judge requested the assignment of counsel.

The Head of Defence Office assigned the eight counsel that were previously assigned as duty counsel. He stated that “he is confident that he assigns experienced and competent counsel. They are fully independent and can choose any strategy they see best fit to defend the rights of the accused.”

The Prosecutor is now required to disclose the indictment supporting materials to the counsel within 30 working days.

The defence counsel face the difficult task of representing and defending the accused without communicating with him. In order to assist in achieving equality of arms, the Defence Office shall provide counsel with legal advice and practical support.

For further information, kindly contact Joeri Maas, Chef de Cabinet of the Defence Office:

In absentia proceedings

In related development STL also issued another press release yesterday in which it stated that The Trial Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has decided to try the four men accused of the 14 Feb 2005 attack in their absence.

Leidschendam, 1 February 2012 – The Trial Chamber of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon has decided to try the four men accused of the 14 Feb 2005 attack in their absence.

The Trial Chamber examined numerous documents from the Tribunal’s Prosecutor and the Lebanese Prosecutor-General, which detail the steps taken by the Lebanese authorities to apprehend the accused and inform them about the proceedings.

These efforts included multiple attempts by the Lebanese authorities to find the accused at their last known residences, places of employment, family homes and other locations. The Trial Chamber also took into consideration the fact that the indictment and the identities of the accused received massive publicity in Lebanon.

The Trial Chamber concluded that all reasonable steps have been taken to secure the appearance of the accused and to notify them of the charges against them.

While the STL is the only international Tribunal that can prosecute accused in their absence, it is a measure of last resort to ensure that the pursuit of justice is not paralysed by those who choose to abscond.

“I am proud to leave behind a strong team of committed professionals who have assisted me in the past three years in carrying out our challenging mandate and will continue to ensure that justice is achieved for the people of Lebanon,” Bellemare added.

Reaction to Bellemare’s announcement

Following the announcement 3 STL principals had the following reactions

President of the STL, Judge Sir David Baragwanath said:

“Daniel Bellemare has undertaken a difficult job with vigor and determination. During his time as the Prosecutor of the STL, Mr Bellemare oversaw the stepping up of the investigation. He also tackled the challenge of the transition to judicial activity….The staff of the Tribunal wish Mr Bellemare a prompt return to full health.”

STL Registrar, Herman von Hebel said:

“As STL Prosecutor Daniel Bellemare has single-mindedly pursued that office’s responsibility to investigate the attack on 14th February 2005. His commitment to fulfill the duties of a Prosecutor at an international Tribunal has been unwavering. This led to the submission and confirmation of an indictment earlier in the year. More recently the Pre-Trial Judge accepted the request of the Prosecutor to establish jurisdiction over the three connected cases. I wish him a speedy recovery from illness.”

Head of the Defense Office, Francois Roux said:

“I regret that the Prosecutor’s health has forced him to retire from the pursuit of justice. Despite our different points of view, I want to underline the Prosecutor’s resolve in the exercise of his difficult mandate. The Tribunal would not be where it is today without his efforts. My staff and I wish that his health will continue to improve.”

The UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) has triggered a vivid debate about the fate of the four individuals accused of the terrorist attack that resulted in the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and 22 others on February 14, 2005. The four alleged Hezbollah associates have been at large since June 28, 2011, when the counts against them were confirmed by the pre-trial judge and arrest warrants issued accordingly.

“In the beginning, there were statements that my cabinet was made by Hezbollah. Now, there are statements that Syria interfered in my position on the STL. I swear that no one interfered in the issue of the STL ,” Mikati told Al-Jazeera TV

He also voiced hope that the tribunal, which was established “to reveal the truth” behind the murder of Hariri, is not politicized, adding that his decision to pay the funds to the tribunal was coordinated with Speaker Nabih Berri and President Michel Suleiman.

“I cannot overlook any crime, especially if it is committed against a former premier. I will not be an obstacle in the face of justice, but at the same time, I am against politicizing the tribunal.”

Mikati added that he was “clear” about his position against politicizing the tribunal during his meeting with STL President Judge Sir David Baragwanath, who visited Lebanon in November.

Asked about the witnesses who allegedly gave false testimonies to the commission probing the Hariri murder, Mikati said the issue should be taken into consideration but that he cannot make a judgment now on the false witnesses’ file.

He added that the false witnesses issue will be addressed at the “appropriate time.”

In November, Mikati announced the transfer of funds to the UN-backed court probing the 2005 assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon was created by the United Nations Security Council in 2007 , at the request of the Government of Lebanon to investigate the 2005 assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

On January 12, 2011 Hezbollah and allies with the help of the Shiite minister that represented president Michel Suleiman in the cabinet overthrew the government of former PM Saad Hariri over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s imminent indictment.

STL issued the indictments and arrest warrants on June 30. Two of the suspects Mustafa Badreddine and Salim Ayyash are reportedly senior members of Hezbollah and played leading roles in the assassination while the other two Hezbollah members Hassan Aneissy, also known as Hassan Issa, and Assad Sabra played a supporting role in the execution of the assassination.

“No Lebanese government will be able to carry out any arrests whether in 30 days, 30 years or even 300 years.” Nasrallah said following the announcement of the indictments.

Syria

Commenting on the Syrian situation and recent sanctions imposed on it by the Arab League, the premier said Lebanon’s situation is “critical,” adding that Lebanon is dissociating itself when it comes to decisions on Syria for the “sake of national interest.”

“We are concerned about Arab consensus, and we are sure that the Arab countries understand Lebanon’s stance.”

Mikati added that he wants to prevent the Syrian situation from having repercussions on Lebanese society.

“We are trying to avoid [being in a position] where we have to stand with Syria or against it.”

In November, the Arab League voted sweeping sanctions against Damascus to punish the regime for failing to halt its deadly crackdown on anti-government protests – the first time the bloc enforced sanctions of this magnitude on one of its members.

Nineteen Arab League members voted for the sanctions. Iraq abstained and said it would refuse to implement sanctions, while Lebanon ‘disassociated’ itself.

“The US is always welcome to support Lebanon politically and economically and to assist the Lebanese army with all the necessary equipment to preserve stability in the country ,” Safadi told US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Elizabeth Dibble during their meeting in Washington, DC.

In turn, the US official said her country “does not intend to cut off aid to Lebanon.”

“Most of the officials in the US administration and in congress want to help Lebanon, especially following the decisions that the Lebanese government has taken,” Dibble said according to the statement, in reference to the funding of the Special tribunal for Lebanon ( STL)

Last week, Prime Minister Najib Mikati announced the transfer of funding to the tribunal probing the 2005 assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri, despite Hezbollah’s objections.

STL indicted four Hezbollah operatives, however, the Shiite group has repeatedly said the court is a US-Israeli plot targeting the Resistance and refuses to cooperate with it.

Assad “personally intervened to ensure the funding in order to prevent the collapse] of the Lebanese government,” after Prime Minister Najib Mikati threatened to resign if the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) was not financed.

According to the daily , Syrian president met with envoys from Hezbollah and the Shiite Amal Movement to discuss the STL before Mikati announced on Wednesday that Lebanon has financed the UN-backed court.

The daily also reported that Assad recently held talks with Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and Health Minister Ali Hasan Khalil in a meeting that lasted three hours and the talks were preceded by high-ranking Iranian contacts.

Assad considers Mikati’s government “vital for Syria,” as Damascus faces international pressure over its violent crackdown on pro-democracy protests, the paper said.

Mikati announced on Wednesday that he transferred Lebanon’s share of the funding of the tribunal to the court, while Nasrallah on Thursday rejected the funding, reiterating Hezbollah’s rejection of the tribunal.

Recent developments at the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) have triggered a vivid debate about the fate of the four individuals accused of the terrorist attack that resulted in the assassination of the Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri and 22 others on February 14, 2005. The four alleged Hezbollah associates have been at large since June 28, 2011, when the counts against them were confirmed by the pre-trial judge and arrests warrants issued accordingly.

A few weeks ago, the pre-trial judge requested that the Trial Chamber consider whether the conditions to initiate proceedings in absentia have been met. The Chamber sought observations on the matter from the prosecutor and the defense and scheduled a hearing on November 11, 2011. Counsels have been appointed by the Tribunal to represent the accused. It will now be the responsibility of the trial judges to decide upon an issue which represents a controversial novelty in international criminal law and which could have a significant impact on Lebanese politics.

Article 22(1) of the STL Statute provides for trials in absentia in three distinct situations, namely when the accused (i) has expressly and in writing waived his right to be present; (ii) has not been handed over to the Tribunal by the State authorities concerned; or (iii) has absconded or otherwise cannot be found and all reasonable steps have been taken to secure his appearance before the Tribunal and to inform him of the charges.

According to Article 22(2) of the statute, before conducting proceedings in the absence of the defendants, two conditions must be fulfilled. First, the accused must be notified or served with the indictment or, alternatively, he must be given notice thereof through publication in the media or communication to the state of residence or nationality. Second, the accused shall be afforded with a counsel of his own choice or with a court-appointed counsel.

In addition, Rule 106(B) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence stipulates that, in case the accused is not present on account of the failure or refusal of the relevant state to hand him over, before deciding to conduct proceedings in absentia the Trial Chamber shall, in addition to assessing whether the requirements under Article 22(2) of the statute are met, consult with the Tribunal’s president and establish that all necessary steps have been taken with a view to ensuring that the accused may participate in the proceedings.

As difficult as it may be, a fairly comprehensive way to define proceedings in absentia is to refer to them as a residual and exceptional institution to be relied on only when all the reasonable steps to secure the presence of the accused fail and there are insurmountable obstacles in obtaining his custody.

Essentially, proceedings in absentia constitute a fragile compromise between two conflicting instances: the right of the accused to be tried in his presence and to defend himself in person, on the one hand, and the need not to subjugate the judicial system to the failure or refusal of the accused to be present at trial on the other. The right of the accused to be present at trial is a fundamental safeguard to the principle of fairness of criminal proceedings and is enshrined in Article 14(3)(d) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights as well as in all major regional human rights conventions. When derogating from such a crucial right, proceedings in absentia are supposed to be compensated by the possibility, for an absentee arrested or surrendering in the course or after the conclusion of the in absentia trial, to request the termination of the current proceedings and initiate a new trial in his presence. The right to retrial is provided in Article 22(3) of the STL Statute and in Rules 108 and 109. Importantly, all other rights accorded to an absentee defendant and the procedure governing the in absentia trial are exactly the same as if the accused were physically present before the bench.

For the time being, it is only possible to make some speculations on the scenarios which are likely to materialize in the forthcoming weeks, based on the little publicly available information. In his submissions to the Trial Chamber, the prosecutor argued about the inappropriateness, at this stage, of commencing proceedings in absentia against the four accused. His observations reveal that there exist two different situations to date.

In an interview with TIME Magazine dated August 18, 2011, one of the four men at large allegedly declared that his whereabouts are known to the Lebanese authorities and that “if they wanted to arrest me they would have done it a long time ago.” Reading the article, one can readily understand that the accused is well aware of the accusations against him, and that therefore he received notice of the indictment, as required by the STL Statute, although he was not personally served thereof.

Should all this information be reliable, however, such scenario could constitute a failure or refusal by Lebanon to comply with a Tribunal’s request or order under Rule 20(C). Accordingly, the president of the STL would probably engage in consultations with the competent Lebanese authorities and, if the arrest warrant would still remain unexecuted, he would be likely to make a judicial finding of non-cooperation and refer the matter to the UN Security Council for consideration and further action against Lebanon, if appropriate, in accordance with the UN Charter. This would significantly delay the Trial Chamber’s determination, upon consultation with the STL president, that “all necessary steps have been taken with a view to ensuring that the accused may … participate in the proceedings” and thus begin proceedings in absentia, as required by Rule 106(B).

The second scenario relates to the other three accused in the Hariri case. Let us assume that they have “absconded or otherwise cannot be found.” This is the situation envisaged by Article 22(1)(c) of the statute and Rule 106(A)(iii). In addition, no or little information could be available about their location and, more importantly, on whether or not they have been informed about the charges against them. Under these circumstances, how can the Chamber be satisfied that all reasonable steps have been taken to inform the accused of the charges against them if it is not clear whether the fugitives have been personally served with the indictment or had otherwise knowledge thereof by way of any other channels of communication?

It should be borne in mind that human rights jurisprudence, although not unanimously, seems to require that, in principle, trials in absentia may commence only when the accused has clearly and unequivocally waived his right to attend the hearings, thus giving the consent for the trial to be conducted in his absence. However, in fugitive scenarios such as the one concerning three of the four Hezbollah members, the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has stated in Kuonov v. Bulgaria that even in the absence of personal notification of the indictment, it can still be unequivocally demonstrated on the basis of certain factual information; that the indicted is fully aware of the nature and cause of the accusations against him and that he does not have the intention to be present at trial or that he is trying to evade prosecution.

At this point, the Trial Chamber would have a choice to make. On the one hand, the judges could decide that, pending the referral to the UN Security Council of the matter related to Lebanon’s non-cooperation in apprehending the first accused, the entire proceedings against the four defendants will be delayed. On the other hand, the possibility of severing the case could be considered. The proceedings against the three fugitives, whose whereabouts could remain unknown if there was enough information to demonstrate that they have waived their right to be present, would proceed in their absence. To the contrary, the case against the first accused would be delayed until the Chamber has enough information to be satisfied that all reasonable steps had been taken to ensure the presence of the indicted before the STL.

In addition to giving legal characterization to the factual combinations that will arise from the evidence concerning the four accused in the Hariri case, the STL will have to bear a much more challenging and sensitive burden. The victims of terrorism and Lebanese people more generally are waiting for answers and have great expectations. The STL will have to meet these expectations and demonstrate that proceedings in absentia, should they really take place, do not represent a failure of the judicial system or a shortcoming to the establishment of truth, but one of the legitimate resources provided by international law on which the Tribunal can rely to honor its mandate and hold a fair and impartial trial.

Niccolò Pons is currently an Assistant Legal Officer in Pre-Trial Division, Chambers of the International Criminal Court. He is a former Legal Consultant in a Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court. Previously, he worked in the Chambers of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon and has written on the challenges of in absentia proceedings. The views expressed herein are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Criminal Court or the Special Tribunal for Lebanon.

Jurist

He said the decision was in Lebanon’s interest and would protect the country from the upheavals shaking the region.

“This morning, I transferred Lebanon’s share of funding to the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL),” Mikati said in a surprise announcement on Wednesday.

“I vow to put the stability and safety of Lebanon above any other interest,” he said.

“This does not constitute a victory for one party over another,” the premier told reporters. “This represents a gain for the Lebanese state and institutions.”

“I don’t want to be head of a government that fails to honour its international obligations and pulls the country out of the Arab and international community,” the premier said.

It was unclear whether his decision to transfer the funds had the blessing of his cabinet.

Mikati last week threatened to resign should his government refuse to fund the STL, and the issue was to be discussed on Wednesday at a cabinet meeting that was postponed.

Hezbollah, one bloc in the cabinet, has said it opposes funding the tribunal which it describes as an Israeli tool aimed at targeting the resistance movement. It has enough votes with its ministerial allies to block any decision by the cabinet.

Michel Aoun, leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, the single largest bloc in cabinet, has called the STL a violation of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Addressing his party members on Tuesday, Aoun said: “Everybody knows the STL is unlawful and we will leave this issue up for cabinet to resolve.”

Collapsed government

Mikati came to power in January after the government of Hariri’s son, Saad, collapsed in a dispute over the STL. The opposition at the time, known as the March 8 coalition, wanted Lebanon to cut all links with it, while the government at the time, known as the March 14 coaltion, refused.

In July 2011, the STL indicted four Hezbollah members over the 2005 bombing that killed Rafik Hariri and 21 other people on the Beirut seafront. Hezbollah strongly denied any role in the killing.

Mikati has always said his government would honour Lebanon’s international commitments. The court has asked Lebanon to pay more than $30m this year, or 49 per cent of its 2011 budget.

Aljazeera

“I refuse to be in the post where Lebanon fails to commit to its international obligations … I think by resigning, I would protect Lebanon,” he told LBC television.

Mikati said Lebanon cannot be protected if his government fails to approve the funding for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL).

The STL has been a topic of contention in Lebanon with the ruling coalition led by Shiite armed group Hezbollah rejecting any attempt to fund Lebanon’s share of the court.

In late June, the UN-backed court indicted four members of Hezbollah for alleged roles in Hariri’s assassination. The group denies any involvement in the case and refuses to cooperate with the court

In an interview on Thursday evening, Mikati said that funding the tribunal could be agreed upon and accomplished through national dialogue among rival politicians.

Speaking about the ongoing protests in neighboring Syria, Mikati said no one can predict the outcome of the protest and that Lebanese should not intervene in things that do not concern them.

Xinhua

Beirut – “What a joke,” I heard someone snort at a nearby table. “As if Lebanon were truly independent…”

My favorite café is not usually so crowded on a Tuesday morning, but it’s Independence Day in Lebanon, a fact greeted lately with more irony than patriotism. In a country with 18 officially recognized religious sects, Nov. 22 is but one of a slew of other public holidays and religious celebrations that dot the yearly calendar: Orthodox Armenian New Year, the Feast of St. Maron, Eid al-Fitr, Ashura, the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, Christmas and Easter — the list goes on.

And then there’s the unofficial catalogue of political observances that recognizes darker dates in Lebanon’s history, like Feb. 14, 2005, which many Lebanese recall with the same vividness that Americans of a certain generation remember the Kennedy assassination.

I was half a world away on that day, interviewing to get into graduate school, when the call came. “They’ve killed Hariri,” I heard my mother say.

The explosion that shook Beirut that afternoon left a swimming pool-sized crater in the ground and a gaping void in Lebanon’s political arena. The assassination of Rafik Hariri, a billionaire and former prime minister, triggered a surge of popular anger and united the country in a sustained moment of shock and disbelief.

A family member who thought little of Hariri and his policies found himself in tears when he heard the news. Relatives who had never paid attention to politics were suddenly consumed by it. In the following weeks, hundreds of thousands would take to the streets, accusing Syria’s government – which had long controlled Lebanese politics – of committing the crime, and demanding the withdrawal of its troops, which had been stationed in Lebanon for decades.

Meanwhile, the United Nations at the behest of America and France started a major investigation, eventually establishing an international court to prosecute Hariri’s killers.

The U.N.’s action struck me at the time as a landmark event, even more extraordinary than the withdrawal of the Syrian Army. It augured a kind of epistemological rupture, not just a break with the recent political past. Suddenly, ordinary citizens had the right to know the names of their assassins and terrorizers, rather than speculating emptily about obscure conspiracies. For many Lebanese with no recollection of the country’s colonial past, these events felt like a renewed independence.

Six years later, after millions of dollars and thousands of man hours, the U.N. Special Tribunal for Lebanon is finally prepared to begin its proceedings.

There’s just one problem: the accused are nowhere to be found.

The four individuals indicted by the tribunal earlier this year are said to be members of Hezbollah, the Shiite political movement that holds a prominent position in the current government of Lebanon and has dismissed the court as an Israeli conspiracy. Since arrest warrants were issued, the Lebanese police have predictably failed to find the men, aware that any attempt to arrest them would lead to a major political crisis and a confrontation with Hezbollah.

It seems increasingly likely, then, that the U.N. prosecutors will resort to trying the men in absentia, the first such case at an international court since Nuremberg. However, even if the phantoms are proven guilty, many Lebanese will be left wondering whether the mountains of investigative work amounted to a molehill of a conviction. As a veteran Lebanese journalist put it to me recently, “The public belief that the tribunal will uncover all or even most aspects of the crime has been lost.”

This pessimistic mood stands in contrast to the high-spirited early days of the investigation, when four Lebanese Army generals were taken into custody and European forensics experts combed the crime scene and interrogated the intelligence chiefs. Witnesses came forward with evidence of collusion by senior figures in the Syrian government. The era of unsolved political crimes seemed to be drawing to a close.

As time passed, however, the picture became cloudier. The generals were released due to lack of evidence. The star witnesses recanted their stories. The investigating commission began leaking like a sieve. Meanwhile, many Lebanese began to regard the tribunal as a gimmick.

Could it have been any different? Was the tribunal doomed from the start to fall victim to the forces of foreign intervention and local demagoguery? And was there ever a true opportunity for Lebanon to emerge stronger from the Hariri debacle, or did the crime simply exemplify the country’s fatal flaws?

Whatever the case may be, there can be no doubt that the tribunal’s significance has been steadily diminished, and that Feb. 14, the date of Hariri’s murder, has become just another partisan commemoration, like most of Lebanon’s other unofficial holidays. As for Nov. 22, who can blame the Lebanese for being cynical on their Independence Day?

Elias Muhanna is a visiting fellow at Stanford University’s Program on Arab Reform & Democracy. He writes about Lebanese political affairs on the blog Qifa Nabki.

NYT

Hezbollah and its allies are dead against funding the Tribunal , but Progressive Socialist Party leader MP Walid Jumblat, PM Mikati and president Michel Suleiman are reportedly in favor of funding it due to international obligations.

Jumblatt urged Hezbollah on Nov 11 during an interview on Al-Arabiya television to allow Mikati’s government to pay Lebanon’s annual 49% share of funds to the U.N. backed court.

“We’ve heard Hezbollah describe the suspects (in the 2005 assassination of former PM Rafik Hariri) as ‘sacred’, but they must understand that those who were martyred, starting from Rafik Hariri all the way to (slain MP) Antoine Ghanem … are also ‘sacred’,” Jumblatt said .

“Why don’t they go defend themselves in court?” Jumblatt suggested, warning that “boycotting the tribunal would harm Lebanon.”

The Iranian and Syrian -backed Hezbollah brought down former PM Saad Hariri’s government on January 12 over the Special Tribunal for Lebanon’s imminent indictment.

The Special Tribunal for Lebanon issued the indictments and arrest warrants on June 30. Two of the suspects Badreddine and Ayyash are reportedly senior members of Hezbollah and played leading roles in the assassination while the other two Hezbollah members Hassan Aneissy and Assad Sabra played a supporting role in the execution of the assassination.

Lebanon had 30 days to find and arrest the suspects but Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah said on July 2 that the party would not cooperate with the tribunal.

“No Lebanese government will be able to carry out any arrests whether in 30 days, 30 years or even 300 years.” Nasrallah said.