The UN-backed tribunal investigating the murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri has amended its indictment to include “substantive new elements”.

Although there is still no fixed timeframe for the tribunal to move into its next phase of arresting and trying those responsible for the assassination, the court says it expects to complete the process in “the coming months”.

Tribunal spokesman Marten Youssef explains exactly what is happening at the STL now.

By Richard Walker

On January 17 the prosecutor submitted an indictment for review. Basically, according to the Rules of the Tribunal he can amend this indictment as many times as he sees fit. The indictment itself is not the bulk of what was submitted. It is the supporting material where the meat of the investigation lies. We are talking about tens of thousands of pages of information which I am not privy to because it is a confidential process. What happened is that the prosecutor can submit an amendment, as he did on March 11. And now another amendment was submitted on Friday May 6.

Basically what is happening right now is that the Pre-Trial judge with his small team is reviewing the indictment and all the supporting material that has been submitted to him and his team.

Q: So the amendment that we have right now, it could contain a new charge or it could mean a change to the existing charges?

That is what makes this interesting. It is a confidential process, so for us, even internally, these are things that we are not privy to. Because as I mentioned it is a confidential process from start right up until the Pre-Trial Judge confirms and unseals the indictment. Anything before that is confidential.

Q: Why is it confidential?

Let’s put this into perspective: at any other tribunal you would not even know that this is actually going on. So the fact that the Special Tribunal for Lebanon is saying that there has been an indictment submitted and that there is an amendment, and now another amendment, is really telling of the transparency that we at the Tribunal want to show the international community and also to Lebanon.

Also the reason why the process is confidential is that really it is for the rights of the accused. What has to happen at this point is that a confirmation of an indictment does not actually mean that the person is guilty or not guilty. Basically it is a review of the process and all that the Pre-Trial Judge has to establish is what is called the prima facie-evidence. If you were to submit this evidence in court, and it went uncontested and unchallenged, it might lead to a conviction. So this means that the Pre-Trial Judge has a different threshold than what would happen if we were to go through an actual trial.

Q: What is the next likely development of the Lebanon Tribunal?

The Pre-Trial Judge is looking at the indictment, and the amendments that were submitted, and he is reviewing it. He has several options: he can accepts all of the indictment in its entirety, he can reject it in all of its entirety, or he can ask the prosecutor, or he can drop certain counts, he can accepts certain counts, he can ask the prosecutor to submit additional information. This is what the Pre-Trial Judge is going through now.

Q: How much is the Tribunal in The Hague aware of its impact in Lebanon, a politically volatile country?

You have to look at this issue in context. While we may be aware of the impact that it has on Lebanon, while we may be aware of parts of the political situation in Lebanon, a judicial process has to operate independently in order for it to be successful. In order for the judicial process to be as independent as possible, it needs to act separately of a political situation or political ramifications. That is what this is about for us at the Tribunal. Yes we can be aware of what goes on in Lebanon but at the same time, to ensure the highest integrity of the judicial process we need to operate separately and independently of ramifications.

Download the print version of the International Justice Tribune 128 (PDF file)

Subscribe to the International Justice Tribune

Earlier IJT editions:

• International Justice Tribune, 127 (27 April 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 126 (13 April 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 125 (30 March 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 124 (16 March 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 123 (2 March 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 122 (16 February 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 121 (2 February 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 120 (19 January 2011)
• International Justice Tribune, 119 (14 December 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 118 (1 December 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 117 (17 November 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 116 (2 November 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 115 (20 October 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 114 (4 October 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 113 (21 September)
• International Justice Tribune, 112 (8 September 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 111 (25 August 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 110 (14 July 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 109 (30 June 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 108 (16 June 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 107 (2 June 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 106 (19 May 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 105 (5 May 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 104 (21 April 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 103 (7 April 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 102 (24 March 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 101 (10 March 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 100 (24 February 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 99 (10 February 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 98 (27 January 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 97 (13 January 2010)
• International Justice Tribune, 96 (23 December 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 95 (9 December 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 94 (25 November 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 93 (11 November 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 92 (28 October 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 91 (14 October 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 90 (30 September 2009)
• International Justice Tribune, 89 (16 September 2009)