During my visit to Lebanon in early December, I was struck by the display of freedom of expression represented by peaceful anti-government demonstrations in Beirut, a rare event in the region. At the same time, the protracted political crisis has justifiably raised fears that the country may descend into political violence leading to human rights abuses all too familiar to the Lebanese. One issue at the center of the political crisis is the proposed tribunal agreed by the Security Council to try those suspected of having assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, and possibly those involved in other political killings, most recently that of Industry Minister Pierre Gemayel. In my discussions in Lebanon I listened carefully to the arguments of those both in favor and against this tribunal.
I believe that the tribunal, or any other similar form of internationalized court, is a positive step; but it is also only a partial first step toward the goal of fighting the impunity that for far too long has plagued Lebanon. The establishment the Hariri tribunal is a positive step because the Lebanese criminal justice system is currently not sufficiently robust to withstand the security and political pressures that would surround a trial for political assassinations. The tribunal, with its mixed composition of Lebanese and international judges – with the latter in the majority – should be able to resist the political interference that has, for example, undermined the Iraqi tribunal set up to try Saddam Hussein and others.
Given the time it takes to establish this kind of a tribunal, it is important that the process toward its establishment begin now, while the United Nations commission investigating the Hariri murder continues its work. In the meantime, anyone detained in connection with the crime should be treated properly according to Lebanese law and international human rights standards. However, the long-term goal for justice in Lebanon must be to build a judicial system which has the capacity to deliver justice for all rather than for a selective few. The Lebanese government and the other constitutional authorities in the country should signal their commitment to a comprehensive approach to justice by adopting a number of steps additional and complementary to the Hariri tribunal. In Amnesty International’s view such steps should include the following. First, Lebanon should become a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Lebanon played a very active role in the drafting of the statute. By ratifying it, Lebanon could also allow the ICC’s jurisdiction to cover war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated in Lebanese territory since July 2002.
This would allow the court, for example, to investigate war crimes committed in the summer war with Israel. Contrary to a perception that I often encountered while in Lebanon, the ICC could exercise its jurisdiction over the war even if Israel does not ratify the Rome Statute. Second, the Lebanese government should commit itself to a wide-ranging program of judicial reform. This would include, among other measures, the abolition of the jurisdiction of military courts for all non-military offences.
Military courts do not offer guarantees of independence or impartiality, and their procedures fall below fair trial standards. In line with international trends, military courts should not try civilians at all, and should not try soldiers accused of crimes under international law or other human rights violations. Cases currently before these courts should be referred to the ordinary civilian judiciary. In addition, Lebanon’s Justice Council should be abolished. It is a special tribunal activated by order of the Council of Ministers and as such is seen inevitably as operating on the basis of political considerations rather than impartial justice. In addition, the Justice Council does not provide for the right of appeal – a fundamental fair trial safeguard – even in death penalty cases. The ordinary judiciary, properly reformed, should have jurisdiction over the types of cases that currently may go before the Justice Council. Third, the legacy of the crimes of the past must be addressed. This requires the repeal of the amnesty laws which have ensured impunity for crimes committed in the context of the 1975-90 civil war, and in the period since. Amnesties and similar measures that lead to impunity for serious human rights violations are contrary to international law. I am aware of the widely-felt fear that reopening the issue of the crimes of Lebanon’s civil war may lead to a resumption of violence. However, without holding perpetrators to account, the families of the thousands of ordinary people who have “disappeared and the other victims and survivors of that civil war would be denied their right to truth and justice. Also, future perpetrators would not be deterred by the knowledge that one day they, too, might face justice. In this context, one could envisage a phased approach, for example by starting with a comprehensive, impartial and independent commission of inquiry into the cases of disappearances and other abuses since 1975.
At least two commissions of inquiry into such cases have been set up in recent years in Lebanon, but their results were never fully disclosed. A third inquiry, to be conducted by a joint Lebanese-Syrian Committee, looking in particular at the issue of Lebanese who have allegedly disappeared in Syria, does not appear to have made much progress. A proper commission of inquiry, one that would build on work that has already been done and could possibly involve international advice or participation, would offer the opportunity to establish the fate of individual victims and the types of crimes committed, paving the way for bringing perpetrators to account in a second stage. It would be critical for such a commission to operate in a transparent and participatory manner, and make its findings and recommendations public. In this context, the experience of the Equity and Reconciliation Commission in Morocco, which looked at grave human rights violations committed between 1956 and 1999 and solved some 740 cases of disappearance by the time it ended its work in 2005, is worth considering. Finally, another important signal of Lebanon’s commitment to the protection of human rights would be ratification of the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention against Torture, which has entered into force in June 2006.
The protocol requires states parties to establish a national mechanism to regularly monitor places of detention to assess the treatment of those detained. It would also ensure that independent international experts also conduct visits to places of detention. These measures may appear ambitious, particularly in the current context of political turmoil. However, an all-encompassing solution to the issue of justice may actually contribute to end today’s political deadlock and climate of deep mistrust and suspicion, fuelled at least in part by the feeling that selective approaches are being pursued as political tools. Justice cannot be fragmented. It must be comprehensive, whether in dealing with abuses committed by Israel, Syria or by the Lebanese state or groups. Ordinary Lebanese have long aspired to that, as I have been repeatedly reminded during my visit. Lebanese political leaders should rise to the challenge.
Irene Khan is secretary general of Amnesty International. She wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.
