As the UN-backed Special Tribunal for Lebanon ordered the release of four generals who spent four years in arbitrary detention, human rights groups are scrambling to ensure the government considers the scrapping of a system that allows such harsh security measures to be taken during an investigation.
“The irony is that the very generals who created this law are the ones this law was used against, and we who used to fight the generals saying the law allowed arbitrary detention without proving the evidence are now lobbying for their release on a point of principle,” said Wadih Al Asmar, secretary general of the Lebanese Center for Human Rights, adding, “They were surprised to see us take up their cause.”
Several groups questioned the Lebanese Center for Human Rights’ efforts on behalf of generals who they see as “criminals who bend the law to suit their own purposes.”
But the human rights group argued that detention without charge could not be justified, regardless of whom it was used to put away.
“This is not about poetic justice; it is about due process,” said Al Asmar, who was saddened to note that one consequence of the immediate release was to hurt the credibility of international bodies set up to investigate cases and ensure justice was properly dispensed. “This demonstrates that the evidence that we had been told existed, that justified the detention of the generals, does not exist and in fact these men were held for no reason at all. This means a body appointed by the UN knew this and did not intervene.”
When the Security Council first appointed an international inquiry commission, it made an unofficial recommendation to detain Mustafa Hamdan, the former head of the presidential guard, security services director Jamil Sayyed, domestic security chief Ali Hajj, and military intelligence chief Raymond Azar.
The judges in charge of the case were already feeling political pressure to lock someone up, according to Al-Asmar.
“This judiciary cannot be independent; a judge does not enjoy immunity from his decisions. He can be transferred from one case to another,” he explains. “Eight of the 10 judges are put in place by the administration, two are elected by their peers, then there are other ways to control the judiciary, like appointments to commissions.”
Elias Eid found just how susceptible the judiciary was to political movements when he showed signs of swaying toward the release of the generals, according to the former inmates’ lawyer. He was replaced by Sakr who, insiders say, is an investigating judge and doesn’t technically belong to the case.
The International Inquiry Commission admitted its error in making an unofficial recommendation which resulted in the detention of the four generals, but said it didn’t want to make another error by interfering again and asking for their release.
“So you see the discussion went back and forth, round and round and justice was not served and we lobbied constantly; we said either charge them or release them but don’t put them in jail and turn them into heroes,” said Al-Asmar. “The real loser here is the credibility of the international justice system. As soon as the Special Tribunal for Lebanon examined the case, within one month of operation, they saw clearly we had been right and that there were no grounds to detain these men. Now what trust can they establish with the people? The government lied and I would like to think that the original inquiry commission made a mistake, that it received tips and was compelled to make that recommendation, but this erodes credibility in the end.”
Said a café owner in Hamra who was in a heated debate about whether a change in government would bring about real change, “We know how this works. It is the same — whoever is in power uses power blindly and without consideration for normal people, and we expect nothing different from elections no matter who is in power.” Several of his customers nodded in agreement.
Outside AUB, a student explained that when anti-Syrian sentiment had reached a fever pitch, he was more willing to vote but now, he said, he saw no point.
“There are very small differences between politicians; they are all the same, Syria withdrew its troops in 2005 and that was good but now we realize that the politicians let foreign countries, especially the Americans, interfere for their own gain so many of us are totally, completely powerless and frustrated so why vote?” said the student.
This is what human rights campaigners such as Al-Asmar fear in terms of the way trust has eroded between the people and the government.
“The state has failed to inspire confidence. We are proud of being a democracy but we must maintain a level of accountability; this country needs a system of reconciliation in which truth is told about the disappearances of individuals, the torture of dissidents and the detention of innocents so that people can forgive and re-establish their trust in the state,” he said. After the assassination of Rafik Hariri, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1595, setting up an International Commission for an Inquiry. The resulting report implicated top Syrian and Lebanese officials.
A flurry of international diplomacy followed the politicized environment that the inquiry was forced to operate in. Syria denied involvement in the Hariri murder. France condemned the massive Syrian presence in Lebanon. The American administration moved in with anti-Syrian rhetoric. The UN investigation panel was disappointed by Syria’s reluctance to cooperate with the commission. On Oct. 31, 2005, the Security Council passed Resolution 1636 calling for Syrian cooperation and setting up sanctions against individuals suspected by the commission of playing a role in the assassination. The same resolution laid the groundwork for an independent court, the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which went into effect by clearing the four generals of their suspected involvement in the Hariri killing.
For the Lebanese Center for Human Rights this is a step in the right direction, but there are miles to go before the decision can have any sustainable impact on restoring the trust that campaigners say is necessary in order for a democracy to sustain itself.
