The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), which issued its verdict on Tuesday in the assassination of Lebanese former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, was not politicized like the Nuremburg trials of November 1945. Therefore, its verdict, which avoided politics directly, was very professional and refuted years of allegations that it was politicized and an American-Israeli tool. It is a professional tribunal, which proved in its verdict that it was for removed from politics because it respected the Statutes on which it was formed on May 30, 2007.
Of course, many people at first overlooked that the Statutes stipulate that the STL cannot make accusations against parties or countries. This condition was added to avoid Chinese and Russian vetoes that would have aborted its formation. So, at first glance, many people were disappointed with Tuesday’s verdict that only pinned blamed on Salim Ayyash for committing a premeditated terrorist act through an explosive that killed Hariri and his companions. As for Ayyash’s fellow Hezbollah members, Hassan Merhi, Assad Sabra and Hassan Oneissi, the STL found that they were not guilty of the charges against them. It did accuse leading party member Mustafa Badreddine of plotting the assassination, but he has been killed in Syria.
Hezbollah did not comment on the verdict because it has repeatedly said that it does not recognize the STL. Party chief Hassan Nasrallah had rejected the STL’s 2011 indictment, which was issued six years after the assassination. The indictment found that persons trained by Hezbollah’s military wing had the capabilities to carry out the terrorist attack, regardless if this attack was for its own gain or not. It was evident that the STL was committed to its Statutes and did not point blame to a party or a state.
Nasrallah at the time, however, described the indictment as politicized and renewed his refusal to cooperate with the court. “Anything issued from it is an act of aggression against the party,” he said, deeming it an American-Israeli tool and describing the accused as “honorable and wronged.” He vowed that they will never be caught, “never in 30 or 60 days or 300 years.” However, the STL has the jurisdiction to try suspects in absentia in line with Lebanese law that allows such trials, in contrast to Anglo-Saxon laws.
Before addressing the need to arrest or not arrest the only convict – Salim Ayyash – it is necessary to highlight formed PM Saad Hariri’s press conference at Leidschendam in front of the STL headquarters. He said: “The court has spoken and we, on behalf of Rafik Hariri’s family and the families of the victims, accept the ruling and want justice to be served. We have all found out the truth today and it remains for justice to be served, no matter how long it takes.” The STL was formed under Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter, allowing the Security Council jurisdiction in carrying out the verdict, if the Lebanese government fails in arresting Ayyash.
The verdict covers a whopping 2,500 pages and the tribunal on Tuesday offered a summarized summary of it in condemning Ayyash and Badreddine and acquitting the others. The announcement that it lacks enough evidence to implicate Hezbollah and the Syrian leadership has raised a lot of criticism among legal experts. They noted that it relied on contradictory standards in proving convictions, on the one hand, and addressing suspicions, on the other. In other words, what the STL viewed as a reason for acquittal in some instances, it used as a reason for conviction in another.
This could also provide damning evidence, yet again, that the STL was firmly determined to act professionally without becoming politicized, contrary to the accusations against it. It sought to state things as they should be out of its great and clear keenness on maintaining its professionalism. This is why we should highlight a number of elements mentioned in the verdict:
The verdict did not accuse Hezbollah or the Syrian regime because the STL does not have such jurisdiction, but it was clear that it did not spare them in its retelling of facts and developments. We must especially highlight the STL’s announcement that “the extensive political and background evidence points to it being a political act directed by those whose activities Hariri’s were threatening.”
Of course, this is not a direct accusation, but the strength of this possibility is tantamount to a condemnation given the well-known political circumstances that preceded the assassination.
The retelling of events that led to the assassination showed Syria’s control over political, military and security aspects of Lebanon. It noted that the crime took place soon after Muallem paid a visit to Hariri’s Qoreitem residence in Beirut. That was followed by a meeting of Lebanese figures who are opposed to Syria’s hegemony in what would be later be known as the “Bristol meeting”. This does not constitute a direct accusation against Syria, but it leaves a wide margin for conjecture and possibilities that any professional court must address during its judgement in a crime as massive and dangerous as this.
It is not beyond the tribunal to take into account the political context that preceded the crime and declaration that Hezbollah and Syria may have had motives to eliminate Hariri. It did not, however, have the physical evidence to prove this. It clearly said that it lacked the evidence to implicate the Hezbollah leadership and Syria in the crime.
When the court says the assassination was a terrorist act with political, not personal, goals, then understanding the political context of the attack will pave the way for understanding the motive behind it.
And since Lebanon is reeling from the crime of the era that destroyed the port and half of Beirut, killed more than 200 people and wounded more than 6,000, and displaced hundreds of thousands of citizens, the blessed Lebanese state must carefully read what the STL declared. It said that the investigation that Lebanese authorities carried out in the Hariri assassination was chaotic and the crime scene was tampered with and the Lebanese security forces removed crucial evidence from the scene of the crime. We are today facing a major crime that almost killed what is left of Lebanon. It remains to be seen whether Lebanon will comply with the STL verdict and hand over Salim Ayyash.
